Talk:RuneScape/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about RuneScape. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Three general reminders

Three general things which you should know when editing the RuneScape articles:

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

Fansites- Recently all fansites have been deleted excepted RuneHQ becuase this is what Wikipedia's adminstrators and the rules say. For this reason no fansites can be added whatsoever apart from RuneHQ.

All players of RuneScape are members. There are two types of members - free ones, or F2P and paying ones, or P2P. This is used consistently throughout the RuneScape series of articles. Xela Yrag 08:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Free player are called "Free Players" or "F2P" Not "Memebers"--71.64.198.185 22:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Sam3611

Xela is correct. Rdunn 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For once, the anon is correct. Members are paying players. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification - Yes, in the RuneScape lingo, most people mean paying members when they refer to members. However, all players have to have a membership (i.e. an account) to play. To avoid confusion and for consistency, the entire series of RuneScape articles is using F2P and P2P (or paying members) to designate whether an item or activity is restricted to paying members. Just using the word "members" to refer to paying members could be confusing to readers of the articles who are not players. Hope this helps. 198.181.133.4 18:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Oops, I forgot to log in before I posted that. Xela Yrag 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then place a clarification early in the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

On the official RuneScape website the term members is used exclusively to mean paying subscribers (and always has been). They never ever ever refer to free players as members. The paying worlds are refered to as 'members' worlds. That wouldn't make sense if 'members' included free players. Their signup page is labelled 'benefits for members'. They consitantly refer to stuff which is only for paying players as 'members only'. Members absolutely 100% means only paying players on the official site. If these articles are using it to mean something different then they should be changed to avoid confusion. If you want to include both free and paying players why not just say 'players'? There's just no need to redefine the word members to randomly have a different meaning here to every other runescape site! Runefire 21:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

About critisicms

The Critism section is about one third the length of the article and the only section longer than it is the introduction. May I suggest that we, at least, add in an "Praises" or "Appraisal" (can't think of a better word) section? The article looks like a big lead up to how bad it is at the moment. And also the critisms section needs work anyway. Ive taken the liberty of bring the section up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RZ heretic (talk • contribs)

Okay, as you can see, I have reworked the "Criticims" section into an "Appraisals" secton. I don't like this title much, but couldn't think of a better one on short notice. It basically says the same stuff, just reorganized a little and set into sections instead of bullets. We need more evaluation by outside sources (yes, I said it again - not enough citation, too much opinion). It still needs work, but I think we are getting there. Any thoughts??? Xela Yrag 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh the introduction to the section is fairly weak. The title "Appraisals" is more than fairly awkward. However good job on sorting out those annoying bulletpoints :) RZ heretic 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree whole-hartedly about the introduction section. I didn't have much time. That's why I asked for help. Can we come up with a better title? My brain is just not bringing anything forward (playing RuneScape too much, maybe). Xela Yrag 16:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Me again. I thought about the title "Ratings", but that implies an external, citable source or something concrete and comparable to "ratings" of other games, like PG-13. "Consumer appraisals" also crossed my mind, along with "Player appraisals", "Player likes and dislikes" (immediately discarded from my mind as trite and confusing), and several others. We need a brainstorming session. Xela Yrag 16:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Wiki entries for EverQuest (NeverRest, bahaha) and World of Warcraft, I've realised that their critism sections tend to be much longer. Infact the whole of the everquest entry is pretty much there to tell you how annoying addictive and crap it is. Our section is reasonably good content-wise but we seriously need some more external sources. Shouldnt be too hard to find as RS has a huge playerbase and as a result huge media coverage.

Work on the Criticism section!

The main reason for RuneScape's Featured Article nomination failing was the Criticism section.

Most of the criticisms are player opinion. It is very difficult to find a "reliable source" documenting these criticisms.

Ever one who plays this game becomes a nerd (theroreticaly) i'm not trying to be rude (well actually) but its a proven fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.146.167.230 (talk • contribs) .

The best references we can find will be websites run by fans or haters, and in-game screenshots (which I can provide).

The WP:V policy is degrading the quality of articles like this, and suffocating me as an editor.

On April 10, I contributed some information to the Criticism section.[1] Back then, it was longer.

I have nominated RuneScape for WP:GA.

The Criticism section should contain the most notable player criticisms. Of course, it should not contain anyone's personal rants about the game. Having played RuneScape for 2 years, I know the most notable player criticisms. I can contribute to the Criticism section and ensure that the most notable player criticisms (I will not let personal opinions cloud my judgement) are written/presented well. Of course, the section will still not meet WP:V, and it never will.

Hopefully you will WP:AGF and trust me. If I need to prove my callibre in RuneScape, I can provide screenshots of two of my accounts.

I have presented the 7 most notable player criticisms below, in point form (my actual contributions will contain elaborations in prose form). If anyone wishes to add to the list, or dispute the notability of these criticisms, please reply. Please note that I will check whether any criticisms you contribute are notable.

1. Low quality graphics

2. In-game "lag"

3. Repetitive levelling

Agree The main reason why RS is no longer a priority of mine. RZ heretic 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Scamming

Oppose Scamming occurs in every MMO game you can think of, and with Jagex's paranoid-fuelled banning rampage the scammer usually gets banned for "real life trading" anyway for the unfair trade. RZ heretic 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Use of automated programs

Should be fused together with 4 as "Large number of dishonest players". RZ heretic 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

6. Ineffective chat filter

Strong Agree the only real effect the chat filter has on the game is people's ability to complete their sentenses. I consider it one of the biggest contributors towards the poor standard of english demonstrated by the RS players, and why all of dem talk lyk tihs lol noobs h4xx0r. RZ heretic 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

7. Lack of free updates --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong OPPOSE That is not a good enough critism. The whole point of the free version of the game is a "trial version" for the members game. The critism entry first attacks Jagex, then defends them, and on and on. It's like critisizing Jagex for not being a not-for-profit organisation. When I wanted the updates I happily paid for them. RZ heretic 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would approve of all these points, if they are written in a NPOV way, however, what should the critisism be on point 5? As far as I know RS2 has made autoing quite rare, and that autoing now is pretty much inefficient. But if you manage to write a critisism on it, go ahead. I am also wondering how long each point should be, as some of them has quite a lot of information baked into them. But yes, I, having played very on and off since 2001, approve of these critisisms. Clq 12:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I will do my best to ensure NPOV. On point 5, I will mention that macroing has greatly decreased due to various measures implemented by Jagex. Most of the points will have one paragraph each, with 2-3 sentences per paragraph. Jagex's responses and defenses will be included where appropriate. Glad to know you're a qualified player. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

8. Lack of efficient customer support.

~~Oppose~~ the criticism has most of the important points and had been written in a pretty concise and non POV way already, there did not seem to be a need to expand the section. GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 13:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The people who opposed RuneScape's FA nomination evidently did not think so. They thought that the Criticism section was too short. The section needs to be expanded. Currently it's in a mess. It used to be slightly longer and better. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Half-Life_2 and Final_Fantasy_X. Those people want a 3rd party critical response, something like gaming site/magazine review, not making it bigger. Actually the main cause for its opposition, is because the article is lack of reference and itself being unstable. In fact no mmorpg ever get featured, because it get lots of haters. GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Game sites and magazines are unlikely to review a browser-based game like RuneScape! I think it would be more important to note what players think of the game. Of course, this does not mean rants qualify. It means that the most notable player criticisms should go in. In my short time as an editor, WP:V has constantly hindered my progress. As for the unstability, I'm sure every high-profile article gets lots of vandalism. My advice is to permenantly semi-protect it. I nominated it for Good Article. If you semi-protect it, once I get the Criticism section done, it has a good chance of passing. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, i leave that to you if you can get "notable players" cited. well, but just look at footnotes you will notice some game sites did rate and comment about browser games. anyways points 1,3,6 already exist and points 2,4,5 seems not too fit, as it is a bit client side matter, not the game itself. GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Players" in this case, was used as an adjective, not a noun. I think "notable criticisms from players" would be a better phrase. Some of the criticisms are also shared by other MMORPGs like MapleStory or browser-based games like AdventureQuest, but should still be included because players criticise RuneScape for those reasons. Of course, if you can find sources like online reviews, please post here. I'll get to work on the Criticism section straight away. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1, 3, and 6 are already there. 4 is alluded to in the second one that is there (player immaturity), and with a little elaboration there, that would be fine. How can you include customer support without POV. I don't know how you, or anyone, can do this without bringing in your own pet peeves or opinions unless we have references. Like I said above, the things that bother you may not bother me and the things that drive me crazy may not bother you at all. It's all subjective. We need more discussion, I think. Xela Yrag 04:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

9. Jagex is incompitent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.210.2.142 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 Jun 2006 (UTC)

I don't WP:AGF about anons, given the amount of vandalism from anons who are RuneScape haters. "Jagex is incompetent" seems more like POV-pushing than criticism.

actually this point conflicts with point 8 GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the Criticism section as per above plan. Please feel free to discuss on the talk page. In addition, I have nominated RuneScape for Good Article. I suggest we send it for Peer Review. I have sent Yahoo! and Neopets for Peer Review, hoping to improve them into Good Articles.

Discussion on the general reminders

Two general things which you should know if bringing up something here:

Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used. This rule applies to all other articles in the RuneScape Series. J.J.Sagnella 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Both spellings would be accurate. People DO NOT have to go war over british english over American or another form of english. Your point is legitimate, but is NOT a major issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Having American AND British spelling in an article would make it improperly(?-couldn't think of a better word) written - an article should have one or the other, and since this is a British game, we just use their English. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, as Jagex appears to take US spelling in deference to British spellings. Color being the most obvious word Jagex uses in the US version. It is a British game in that the developers are stationed in the UK. However, the developers appear to market toward the US audience.--Nuke-Marine 07:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then can you care to explain why the quest in the game is called ONE SMALL FAVOUR, or when you look up in the game at the skill crafting, you find a section called ARMOUR? J.J.Sagnella 07:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected--Nuke-Marine 08:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One more I forgot, the skill- DEFENCE J.J.Sagnella 09:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

British versus American aside, one of our goals here is consistency, so having the word armour spelled with a 'u' in one place and without a 'u' in the next sentence is definitely not consistent. I am not British, and I know I make mistakes with the British spellings sometimes (especially the ones like criticised vs. criticized), but I think we should consistently use the British spellings, IMHO. Xela Yrag 19:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fansites- Recently all fansites have been deleted excepted RuneHQ becuase this is what Wikipedia's adminstrators and the rules say. For this reason no fansites can be added whatsoever apart from RuneHQ. J.J.Sagnella 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Alexa ranking should not be the only indicator of a fan site's popularity. Sure, RuneHQ has a higher ranking, but the tip.it forum is about 10 times more active. --Ixfd64 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tip.it has had some security problems recently, and various others in the past. Which would we rather link to, a safe or unsafe site? The Alexa ranking was one of the reasons that RuneHQ was chosen, but it does have good content along with large popularity. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. When RuneScape said about a faniste being hacked a few years ago, I'm pretty sure it was tip.it who was hacked. Tip.it is very insecure,a s it has been hacked twice, and IMO the people on the boards are very unfirendly and unhelpful. IMO The nicest community is RuneVillage, as they are really helpful and polite, but regardless, neither Tip.it or RuneVillage should replace RuneHq as the top fansite. J.J.Sagnella 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cracked my friend, cracked. With regard to your opinion about community - IMO the people on the tip.it boards are very friendly and helpful. Hmm.. my opinion cancels out your opinion.. I guess we have to go elsewhere to get some stats eh? Cameron 16:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All large Runescape fansites have had security problems in the past. With regard to the most recent tip.it problem, nobody yet knows the extent of the damage. Runehq has been cracked in the past too as well in case you didn't know :) In any case.. these are the online forums we're talking about, not the actual information on the fansites. AFAIK zybez is the only "big" site which has had anything "serious" happen. (I THINK someone managed to put a keylogger in their toolkit.)

Where is the reference to one fansite listing? Looking at the links section gave one fan listing as a suggested option and not a requirement (Wikipedia:External Links item 3). Quick looking stated that a webpage with a fansite listing would be more appropriate for this case. Although Tip.It had a recent security problem, RuneHQ has updated its forum which hurt player input in the website, slowing down contribution. Considering these two sites hold the bulk of usable, external information outside of the Jagex Knowledge Base, it's reasonable to list both.--Nuke-Marine 07:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WHy can't you just put the other fansites too? That would make everyone happy. Not only is runehq a bad choice, but the way youchose it is a bad choice. If you had a choice between a big company with lots of customers but poor customer service and products, and a small company with high customer service and good quality products. WHich would you choose. Runehq is like the big copany. It treats the forum members like they have no say in anything and they perm ban you for the smallest things.

Well if we add one more, people will question why not one more or two more or hundred more? The rule On wikipedia states, and many admins on wikipedia have said this, that only one may be added. And that is always deemed by traffic. As I have said I am a member of many fansites and I really don't know why you're being so harsh to RuneHQ. Not only that as for your last point, think of which of those two companies would get an article on Wikipedia. Suprise,Suprise the bigger one. J.J.Sagnella 06:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zybez has good quality and a god community. They only perm ban you if your break a major rs rule and they let you at least CC there website and rules. That's my 2 cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.32.83 (talk • contribs) .

Zybez simply can't be linked to. Many people have asked for it's removal in one of the archives because It sells RuneScape Gold (Lewta), which gets you banned in the game. J.J.Sagnella 06:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Readding one Fansite Link

After a much heated long debate, we have finally decided that the best thing to do is to bring back the top fansite as this is what adminstrators say we should do. Clearly the top fansite is RuneHQ per Alexa and hence it has been reinstated. Some of the main arguments against this decision are covered on the discussion and I'm hoping this new idea leaves editors, adminstrators and players happy. J.J.Sagnella 18:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Were is the proof that the admins said this and you just made it up? Anyways runevillage isnt agood re-source and sal's realm should replace runehq for good

Follow the link on "heated" if you read through the whole thing you should find the links. If you then have anymore questions just ask me. J.J.Sagnella 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also my opinion of runevillage is juts my point of view and in no way should it be taken as any further than a single person's point of view. And if you can provide in anyway, traffic wise sal's realm beats runehq and officially is the "top fansite", I'd like to see it. J.J.Sagnella 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How to determine which fansite

The large amount of discussion, to-ing, fro-ing, toe-stepping and fence-sitting seems to have finally ended in a decision to have one and only one fansite linked from both the mainpage and the portal. After reading through this all, I feel the need to further discuss Ixfd64's point - why are we determining which site to link to based on Alexa rankings?

The Alexa toolbar is spyware! (ref) and its limitations are widely acknowledged. Why not use Google Pagerank? You'll find that tip.it has a pagerank of 5, and yet runehq's is only 4. Why not use Google search results? Search for runescape and tip.it comes in third, only to official runescape sites. Runehq on the other hand, is down at 11. I'd search for runescape fansite but that's not really fair as tip.it is the "First Runescape Fansite" and thus has an extra keyword match. Why not use Yahoo! Directory? Alexa itself tells us that there are 192 sites linking to tip.it while only 137 link to runehq. Again I ask - why are we using Alexa ranking here?

We're not basing on Alexa. We're using alexa to find out which site has the highest traffic. Traffic is what Wikipedia measures things as. There really is no point in arguing, adminstrators on Wikipedia have said this is the right thing to do, and it will be done. J.J.Sagnella 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As noted in the links I posted, the Alexa traffic rankings have significant limitations, stemming from the fact that it is in fact spyware. If userbase tech knowledge = low then alexa ranking = high.. or something like that ;) Sites which promote good browsers (ie... not IE) and web privacy and such will have less Windows IE users with a crappy toolbar installed. Also I have heard (no source on this.. slap a citation needed tag on it if you want :P) that in the past runehq has promoted the use of the alexa toolbar, specifically to raise their alexa rank. The only way we could truly get accurate traffic information would be by contacting the admins of all the Runescape sites and requesting individual hits, and obviously that aint going to happen. Oh and note that Ixfd64 is a wikipedia admin who clearly thinks this merits discussion, and so we shall discuss it. So I ask - why not Google pagerank as the determining factor of the most appropriate fansite? Cameron 19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware of Alexa in all this. I was thinking google would be more appropriate. The problem with google is the google bomb of course. Certainly both sites merit inclusion as a fan link.

I'm a fan of Zybez, however I feel that tip.it deserves the "top" spot. RuneHQ is utter rubbish. But why not do the top 5? Sals Realm and Zybez are also very good.

I wish we coukd do the top 5. But an adminstrator pulled all 5 down saying many fansites are not suitable On Wikipedia. But now at one, two other adminstrators agree that it is the best solution. J.J.Sagnella 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Google. I agree that Alexa should not be the only determining factor, because of its limitations as underlined above. Google is an excellent determinant when used together with Alexa. In addition, if one fansite lacks a particular guide, another fansite might have it. While I don't think RuneHQ is "utter rubbish", I agree that Tip.it, Sal's Realm and Zybez deserve a place in the article. This will ensure a balance, as some people may be looking for forums to discuss about RuneScape. By the way, the RuneScape gold ads probably came from Google AdSense. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I would love to do your request, but it was voted against at 5 and 2. It will stay at one. There are the official forums and RuneHQ forums. Also we have described how to find more fansites. J.J.Sagnella 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to voice my opinion on this and be done with it. I cannot believe that this issue was revived. I've already been back and forth with this, even in the Archives about this topic, yet it's happened anyway. At this point, it really doesn't even matter anymore. Just a heads up though, a fansite CANNOT be judged based on traffic alone. Enjoy the debacle of fansite links once more. I'm going to steer clear of this. Makoto 06:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you can't really base it on content. That would definitely be POV. J.J.Sagnella 06:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we just name more than one fansite.. WortHog 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've said it once, I'll say it again, we voted against two links, an adminstrator pulled down five. Everyone is happy with one. J.J.Sagnella 06:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone? Wesz 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally do not care if we have one or fifteen links to fan sites; however, I strongly believe that we should not link to any site that encourages players to cheat in any way. For instance, an article telling people how to cheat, a link or advertisement for any site that sells or gives away macro programs or bots, a link or advertisement for a site that sells RuneScape gp for real world money - any of these should automatically make that site "unlinkable" for us. Another factor would be the presence of spy-ware or malware on the site. If we go with only one site, we should use the site that gets the most hits, but I agree that we need to use a formula and not just one criterium for determining which site gets the most traffic. Xela Yrag 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember another test I did. I asked 100 people or RuneSCape the question "what is your favourite fansite?" Do bear in mind RuneHQ won by over 30%. As for the fansite's here are my run through of fansites' problems.

Tip.it- Spyware Zybez- Sells RuneScape Gold RuneVillage-not enough guides, usually verrrrrrrry late. Sal's realm- Small fry traffic wise to RuneHQ, not voted for once on my poll of 100 people. J.J.Sagnella 19:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, why dont we just, rather then link to one fansite, link to a directory category for Runescape like the one at Dmoz (http://dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/Roleplaying/Massive_Multiplayer_Online/RuneScape/). That way, it will solve everyones difference of opinion and provide readers with an unbiased, objective resource to the various fansites that exist. Problem solved.

All problems are solved. We have a decision that has worked and only a few people have a small problem with it. Here on Wikipedia, we use a top fansite mainly. The only way we use directories is if there isn't a top fansite, and as proven by traffic and knownness in the game, RuneHQ is the top fansite. J.J.Sagnella 09:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disillusion you, but this is not J.J.'s decision. This is a Wikipedia policy. It is not negotiable. It is a policy that we must comply with in order to defeat any attempt to delete this article as a game guide. While you may not be thinking of that type of thing, those of us who are serious about keeping this article within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are very serious about it. Any addition or change to the fansite listed will be very quickly reverted back to RuneHQ as it is the site with the most traffic. It is also the site that has the least amount of "bad" stuff (i.e. RuneScape illegal advertisements, malware, or spy ware). It is comprehensive, and while it is not my favorite site either, it is a valid choice. Anyone with a brain can find all the sites they want by Googling RuneScape. We are pushing it here just by listing one. I respectfully ask you to stop vandalizing and jeaopardizing the integrity and status of this article by inserting sites that are against policy. I hope you will listen to reason. Xela Yrag 07:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorrry won't happen again.. I still this its bullfuck.

JAGeX does not agree with fansites, they recommend you use their forums and will hand out temporary game bans for mentioning fansite urls.

This is to mostly stop links to trojans or links to RS cheat sites, but it still stands that JAGeX does not like, or promote RS fansites.

I think the "fansites" Section should be removed for the above reason.

Thta's jagex's opinion but you're on a different site here. It's like saying paypal's way of taking money should be chnaged so it is the same as McDonald's. J.J.Sagnella 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

These are Jagex' rules, these are Wikipedia's rules. There is a difference, we are allowed to have links here. Jagex only limits what goes on in their game. The site we link to has no trojans/malware on it (which is a reason why some sites were not picked).Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Locking/Vandalism

I understand the wikipedia staff attempting to prevent the vandalism of the article with the measures that have been put in place, and that several things were considered to be vandalism, but people such as myself changed the article or deleted parts of it that are incorrect, as players of runescape will know. But, there is nothing to prevent people from creating accounts purely to spam this article, and it really wouldn't surprise me with the amount of people who seem content and happy to express their disliking for Runescape, I have seen it called "Ruined Scape" before on other forums and discussion board by the people who despise runescape, so I'm not entirely sure that what has been done now will fully prevent vandalism, because in some cases it is unavoidable to have to remove or delete parts of the article if they are incorrect; providing false information about runescape. I understand there are some people (most of which have participated in this discussion) who actually do want to help with the development of this article and ensure that it does not contain false information, and it is not those people that bother me, it is the people who vandalise the article by adding unceccessary (sorry about the spelling, unsure if that's right) information and trying to make it harder for the people who actually edit the article correctly and fairly, deleting false information if required. So, in conclusion, the question I ask is: "Is there any way to completely prevent people from vandalising the article without locking it completely?"

Damo271190 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a valid question, but as I understand it the accounts can't be brand new, they have to have a few edits. And accounds can be banned from editing if they vandalize too much. So in conclusion: People could do it, but I think it would be more effort than anyone would be willing to go just to vandalize the article, also, the previous protection drasticly reduced the amount of vandalism. It won't remove all the vandalism, but helps....a...lot Clq 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Damo271190 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think there is a way to prevent vandalism other than locking it. I think its the only way to keep the RuneScape article from being completely ruined - • The Giant Puffin • 21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a period of four days I believe before they can edit - that should be enough time for a sockpuppet/clone account to be found, and even if they do start vandalizing, it doesn't tale a whole lot of time to get rid of them. Since I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, I don't know of any other ways of preventing vandalism while still allowing the legitimite users in, except for locking, like you mentioned. There's a huge difference in amount of vandalism between the semi-protection and no protection at all, except for the odd stupidity. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at Wikipedia:Long term abuse. Anyone else think our anonymous vandal friend has earned a place there? A lot of the vandalism is similar, mainly calling RS and Jagex 'gay' and calling editors 'newbs', including on WP:AIV, and they never vandalise at the same time (ie, one is a home IP, the other is a school or work IP). Furthermore, WHOIS for two of his/her usual IPs:

66.244.223.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

24.109.206.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

places both of them in Calgary, so its probably one person with maybe a couple of sockpuppets/meatpuppets. Out of the four addition criteria, this one definitely fulfills #1 (ie, resumes vandalism as soon as block or semi-protection expires). Any thoughts? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the second IP to WP:AIV, and it was denied a block. Maybe adding it to WP:LTA might help a bit. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, added. Heres hoping that'll help. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I will always vandilize this page. ALWAYS!!! Plus, I'm not from Calgary. Hanh! --24.109.206.88 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I really think that this statement should be removed.Eugene0k2 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

24, what exactly do you have against RuneScape? Any why do you pay so much attention to it if you don't like it? Also, it does not matter if you are not from Calgary. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to unlock RuneScape... It's been locked for a while and the vandals have probably gone or found a new page, which isn't good either, but... p00rleno 20:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not unlock page. It is so much easier to think about real edits when we aren't having to worry about 500 reverts a day. Please, please, please keep it locked. 198.181.133.4 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I forgot to sign in before I posted that. So I reiterate, please, please, please keep it locked. Xela Yrag 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol... But aren't you tired of failed GAs??? p00rleno 12:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

wait on unlocking for GA, current GA condition 5 is being discussed for change. Gnangarra 13:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

reinstated to GA nominations vandals nil - editors 1 Gnangarra

link to RuneScape wiki?

Would a link to the RuneScape wiki be appropriate? I understand that it's a fan site and that only one fan site may be listed per consensus. However, the wiki is hosted on Wikia, which has some official connection to Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 00:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, only 355 articles? It's not very big- perhaps later when it's bigger? --Rory096 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

When it's bigger, We'll consider it, but for now, no.J.J.Sagnella 06:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that - • The Giant Puffin • 08:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

i also agree Rdunn 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

However, by posting and thus giving it more attention it may grow faster.Eugene0k2 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vrystal ball, if it's not good now, it's not good enough to be put in J.J.Sagnella 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I belive a link is a bad decision. Apart from the fact that Jagex has stated it does not want links to Runescape from any 3rd party site as of present, it would give people the oppurtunity to send others to a site containing malicious or dangerous content (keyloggers etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.85.79 (talk • contribs)

No, Jagex doesn't want people telling links in-game. Wizrdwarts (T|C) 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wizrd, we are talking about linking to the Wikia from RuneScape's wikipedia article, not from the actual game itself. Third party sites may link to other sites, but we cannot advertise the link ingame. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant. o_o 80.162.85.79 apparently thought Jagex did want people liking to sites anywhere. Wizrdwarts (T|C) 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia have nothing to do with Jagex rules, try quote wikipedia polices if you like to object GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is everyone misinterperting my posts? I have nothing against the addition of the RS Wiki link. Wizrdwarts (T|C) 02:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Split community section discussion

Lets talk about spliting the community section becuase it takes up a lot of space on the page. The main page of a topic should only include a breif overveiw of evrything. Not evrything in one page down to the last period.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Good (talk • contribs)

Agree Article needs shortning, and there's a lot more info that could be added to that. However, leave a link + Description to the page. p00rleno 14:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Broken Wikibooks Link...

The Link on the bottom right corner of the RuneScape page to the RuneScape Wikibook is no longer valid, the resulting page states that the page has been 'transwikied' to the Stragity Wiki. I'd change it, but I don't know the proper page. It needs Fixing.... Poorleno 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Revised" Criticisms section

In the point about the chat filter, it says that misspellings like fauck and gai are common. Both of there are no longer possible since the update, so I think there should be different examples. There is no way for gay now that I know of, but the newest one with the advent of symbols is using l{ for "k", only it looks much better on RuneScape. I still feel like this section needs more NPOV work. IMHO, it still sounds like someone's list of pet peeves. Xela Yrag 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

add this criticism: Jagex makes changes to the game without first consulting the players.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.127.18 (talk • contribs)

So they're supposed to get your permission before they change their game? Does GM get your permission before it changes its cars? Does Sony get your permission before it changes the PlayStation? They own it; they can do whatever they like with it. You have the choice of playing it or not, based on their decisions. Live with it or get a job at Jagex. Oh, and sign your posts. It's so immature to hide behind supposed anonymity. Xela Yrag 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that criticism, perhaps more in the terms of "without considering the effect on players", such as the ill-feeling around pure essence, when honest free players had a good source of GP disrupted and members lost a cheap supply of essence. Other common things are the loss of favoured training spots due to safe-spot removal, or changes to the stats of monsters that used to be good training. Ace of Risk 14:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I make an honest, valid criticism and get flamed from Xela Yrag. He/she must be a player-mod wanna be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.127.18 (talk • contribs)

Error: That comment IS NOT accurate, users with member status have the ability to vote in the polls, which often define future updates. p00rleno 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC) PS: anyway, Wikipedia would much prefer you become a member if you wish to make legitimate edits etc. You can sign up Here

People don't know the meaning of flamed anymore =P. Wesz 07:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I am a she. Second, I apologize if you think I "flamed" you. I have never in all my born days "flamed" anyone. It's just not my style. Your comment just hit me wrong after I spent an hour just trying to figure out what ignorant people had done to the article. I still think you should sign your posts. It is immature to hide behind anonymity. I could have done that when I answered you, but I had the guts to put myself out there. Why don't you? Xela Yrag 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Graphics

I have removed the introduction to the graphics section - most of it is duplicated in the 'Criticisms' section. Also, parts of it seem questionable, with references to lack of support for 'next-gen graphics', or an inability to achieve a high standard of graphics as it doesn't required 'a download or a CD', and is played 'on the desktop explorer'. Cloak Reaver 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you upload graphics to this article? I'm a member so I would love to provide lots of pictures. (My second week here)Eugene0k2 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

At one time, it had "lots of pictures" - unfortunately the only available pictures (other than Jagex's own "press pack") are "fair use" screenshots - though if Jagex had any problem with this, most of the fansites would be very dull places. Ace of Risk 12:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

I've been absent for months now, but I thought I would enquire as to why an article that is striving for NPOV is allowing fansite links? Mike 06:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See Section 3. J.J.Sagnella 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Also on the subject of Fansites what happened to yours Shadowdancer? Wasn't it called something like Black Hole Experience? I can't find it. It was a very good site. J.J.Sagnella 06:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugly White Space

That blank spot next to the top infobox is REALLY annoying me. Is it possible to insert a picture of the RuneScape main page in that spot as to make the article more visually appealing? If anyone has an image or knows how to insert it in that spot, post it both here AND on my talk page here. p00rleno 14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. MUCH nicer now. --Richard x 20:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merchanting Guide

I was wondering if there could be a section for how to make money or merchant items in the game. For example, a copy of all the major companies in Runescape. It would fit under the economy section.Eugene0k2 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Way too specific for encyclopedia, we don't want to make any article sound like a game guide. J.J.Sagnella 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Then is there any wikipedia related game guide for this article?Eugene0k2 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Like JJ said, we don't want to make any article sound like a game guide, no matter where on Wikipedia it is. If players want information for making money, they can visit the fansite we have listed. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Link to official Runescape Forums

How come there is no link to the official Runescape Forums. I really think that there should be one included since there is a lot of people chatting about the game on those forums.Eugene0k2 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is too easily accsible from the main runescape link to be needed. J.J.Sagnella 15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape – The official RuneScape website.

Jagex site – The official Jagex site.

Knowledge Base – The official RuneScape guide.

How come the knowledge base is included then? Many people are unaware of the Runescape forums.Eugene0k2 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, best idea is to add it to the links section. J.J.Sagnella 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, one supporter.Eugene0k2 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mistake

"making RuneScape the most popular online Java based game in the world. Jagex maintains 133 international servers, or worlds, for RuneScape and RuneScape Classic." It should say there are only currently 2 worlds availabe for Runescape Classic. Also the servers are seperate so it should say there are 131 servers for Runescape and 2 servers for Runescape Classic.Eugene0k2 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Two common misconceptions are that p-mods have a duty to provide other players with direct playing assistance within the game or that they have easy access to superior or infinite reserves of in-game materials, when in fact neither is true. Furthermore, p-mods are subject to all the rules and limitations as other players, and any found guilty of infringement of the rules may lose their moderator status or face bans. " There is also an error here. Player moderators do have easy access to in-game materials through being able to send in special queries which allow them to get answers from a jmod within 24 hours vs. normally the 2 month wait. Also player moderators can report people they suspect to be breaking rules without being actioned against should they prove to be wrong.

I was a player mod for about two years, and we do NOT have access to ingame materials (money, items, etc). Even if we do contact JMods asking for ingame materials, we will be given a definitive "No". Player Mods recieve no sepcial benefits ingame. Second, Player Mods CAN be actioned against if they send in bad reports/mutes, and if it is done too many times, can have their player mod status removed. Player mods are succeptible to punishments just like any other players. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also a mod. But I think you misintreprteted what I meant by game materials. Perhaps I should of said game resources. Moderators do have better access to game resources since we are able to send queries to jagex. I also meant that if they send in a few bad reports here and there like once a week, they will not be actioned against. A normal player who would send in bad reports at the same rate would be actioned against.Eugene0k2 18:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, from what you had said I thought you were referring to actual materials ingame. However, we should keep what the article currently has, as it is more correct than saying player mods aren't punished for incorrect reports - they are if it happens too often, just like any other player. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 02:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Link for all the forum moderators

Maybe there should be a link for all the forum moderators as well. We should try to incorperate as much of this article as possible with links because then it would better tie into the game. Eugene0k2 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What would the benefit be of having a link to the page of forum mods? Players must be logged in to the forums and have membership to access the list anyway. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And that kind of link is not allowed on Wikipedia. Dtm142 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Section for Quests

Shouldn't there be a section for quests?Eugene0k2 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It got deleted a few weeks ago, without going into incredible detail what could you say about it? J.J.Sagnella 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was one of the oldest aritlces we had, and I dont think it should have gone. But I dont want to bother to recreate an article only for it to be deleted again - • The Giant Puffin • 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be a section for quests just summerizing what they are and what some of the major ones are. Quests are a moajor part of the game and are included in almost every update.Eugene0k2 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Before it went, it had been condensed to just a list, after long battles over the amount of detail (eg. req's / rewards). Quest detail is well covered by fansites and the KB, but peraps room in the Community page for a "love quests / hate quests" item. Ace of Risk 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It was fine as just a list of quests organised into difficulty like it was before. If there was any assurance it wouldnt be deleted I would make it again - • The Giant Puffin • 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Community page

The community section seems to have been copied to RuneScape Community, as the template at the top of the section say. However, that article is up for deletion. Should the information be kept here or on a seperate article? - • The Giant Puffin • 15:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure on whether to keep it or not... It would save space.... If the article gets deleted, get the text back here. J.J.Sagnella 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If we remove most of the text from the RuneScape article, shouldn't we be allowed to keep the second article since it was a split? It would remove the duplicated data from the main article, which looks like a main reason for it's deletion, although it's possible to condense most of the material and shorten it. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 02:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

see WP:WIAGA, rule 5 states a GA must be stable, and with a lock on the page, that is an automatic fail. When the Lock is gone, contact me via my talk page and I'll take a look at this article. False Prophet 01:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Locked article to prevent vandalism isnt a sufficient reason to prevent GA status. I have lodge a disput of this review. Gnangarra 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Gnangarra. However, I do see some reason in keeping a locked page off because of the high vandalism potential, making it a 'bad article'.p00rleno 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, see WP:WIAGA, rule 5 says a GA must be stable. A lock to prevent vandalism means the article needs protection to keep it stable. If the lock is removed, and the article stays stable, then I'll reconsider my decision. False Prophet 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Darned Vandals!!! :p p00rleno 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, you're wrong. An article being stable means that it doesn't change from day to day and isn't a subject of edit wars. Vandalism is irrelevant; since it's almost always reverted right away anyway, it doesn't change the article. --Rory096 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was just a joke... (hence the :p) p00rleno 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

thats true but when being reviewd for GA the fact the article was lock was the reason, GA is current reviewing criteria 5 . Gnangarra

There reason given for failed GA was in sufficient. After discussions on the GA/disputes page this article has been reinstated in the nomination list for GA at the same position it previously held Gnangarra 13:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA(attempt 2)

I have just failed the nomination for the following reasons: 1. as stated above, the Failed FAC page has ideas for improvement 2. Stability: Note: I am a former Vandal myself, before getting set straight by a friend. Vandals target GA's and FA's, and therefore an article that has 250+ edits in the past 10 days would go to an article with 400+ in the past 10 days. also, seeWP:RFP#RuneScape. And I quote: "please don't unlock this article, it gets enough vandalism as it is from members" The failed FAC page says it is among the 30 most edited pages. Not stable 3. A previous speaker said that the intro is plain and is not up to GA Status 4. As mentioned on the FAC page, there are not enough inline citations for this long of an article. 5. I think that this article is to long, especialy considering that the community section could be split.

False Prophet 16:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pray tell, why can't the Runescape knowledge base be used for citations? I can't think of a better place. I'll have a look at the intro section. Half-Life 2 recently got FA status, i'll see if there is any divine inspiration from there. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me. According to this BBC article, RuneScape is among the top online games (in a table near the foot of the page). Don't forget the feature article about RS, too. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's that. I rewrote the intro in the style of those at Half-Life 2 and World of Warcraft. I added a couple of citations, and cut some of the dead wood out. I also removed a paragraph that would be better off in the criticism section:

RuneScape allows nearly complete anonymity to its players. As some players take advantage of this, Jagex has created moderators, who help to keep players from breaking the rules. Chat filters have been installed to help alleviate offensive language and in-game advertising.

What does everyone think then? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should send this article for Peer Review. This will be a good way to improving it to meet Good Article standards. We will renominate it once the Peer Review is finished and the concerns have been addressed. In addition, I propose we keep the page semi-protected. This will allow us to make constructive edits without letting vandals get in the way. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't this been Peer Reviewed yet? I thought it had. I think we should wait until the five points raised by False Prophet have been resolved. I'll put them in the to do list. ~~What about the semi-protection issue? User:24.109.206.88 is blocked, so won't be troubling us.~~ CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How to Upload Graphics

How do you upload images to the Runescape article or to any article for that mattee? I would love to put some images or video's into construction.Eugene0k2 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Prepare your image for upload (crop, etc), then click "Upload file", on the left, in the toolbox section. See Help:Contents/Images and media. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hidden line in "History" section

In the "History and Development" section, these lines are at the bottom in the Version 5 section:

...This is the current version of ''RuneScape'' being promoted by Jagex.

I have removed the hidden text, as it can be proven here, fifth paragraph. If there is any reason to keep it there, please say so here and re-add it. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

elias el mejor de todos —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Roughly translates to "elias the best one of all". Invitatious 00:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Runescape is refered as rs2 rsc is refered to as runescape classic.

New ugly white space...

Fixing the old ugly white space caused a new ugly white space next to the TOC... I hope that one can be fixed without creating yet another ugly white space... The Saga Continues... p00rleno 16:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit Wars: The White Space Strikes Back. I'm so very sorry. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres now a gap at the top, before the writing starts. Looks a bit ugly, but better than the first white gap. Episode III: Return of the Gap. Hopefully we can solve this and get to Episode IV: A New Hope - • The Giant Puffin • 19:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In a few years, we may end up with Episode I: The Phantom Formatting Error. Thank goodness there is no Wikipedia:No bad jokes policy. I moved the portal link so it occupies the white space next to the TOC. Looks OK to me but I'm using an odd resolution on the monitor i'm borrowing until I can get a new one of my own, so it may look horrid to everyone else. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, good job. No more star wars jokes now though =( - • The Giant Puffin • 19:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Right: let's get back to writing like Ben Stein speaks. :p p00rleno 18:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkspammers

We seem to have a unique situation to do with the fansite linkspamming in the article, so I whipped up some specialized Runescape-specific warning templates in my sandbox. Comments on quality and usefulness are greatly appreciated. Feel free to modify them, just don't try to add them as templates yet, or you'll add my entire sandbox. (also posted at Portal talk:RuneScape) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh those are good. I'll be definitely using them! J.J.Sagnella 18:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problems then? I'll create them as subpages of the Portal, no too sure if they would last very long in the Template: namespace. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Upload them and state what we need to enter to make the template appear. J.J.Sagnella 20:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

They are up, and ready to go!

Add them using: {{subst:Portal:RuneScape/rs-fan}}. Just hope the admins will block someone who keeps at it after number 4. Wikipedia:Spam should apply in such a situation. Have fun! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea *thumbs up* - • The Giant Puffin • 08:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I've changed the wording in the templates slightly to include all RuneScape related articles, and changed the hidden comments to correct a formatting error and compared them to standard Spam templates, rather than Test templates. I've refreshed the templates on the listing page to reflect those changes. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting carried away with this now, but its just a final touch. Template:rsf, Template:rsf2, Template:rsf3 and Template:rsf4 redirect to our link warning templates, so theres no need to type out all that other lot. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape sent for Peer Review

I nominated RuneScape for Good Article, along with three other articles: Chelsea F.C., Criticism of Microsoft and Gmail. Of the four articles, this was the only one which failed. Someone else had previously nominated RuneScape for Featured Article, but it failed, and several objections were raised. I hope to collaborate with other editors to address the objections raised so RuneScape can become a Good Article.

One of the main objections was the Criticism section. At the time of the failed nomination, the section was too short. I have since expanded it, and several others have expanded and improved the section. The section has been criticised for lacking references. However, most of these criticisms are player opinions of the browser-based game, and are unlikely to be documented in reliable sources.

Other parts of the article have also been criticised for the lack of references/citations. I think we should try and find some sources. Besides information published by Jagex on the main site, external reviews and news reports will be appreciated. Although fansites and player reviews are not reliable sources, they do have some merit.

Stability is another major issue which caused this article's Good Article nomination to fail. Things improved after semi-protection, but after it was lifted, the vandals returned. I propose that we permenantly semi-protect it, or semi-protect it at least for the duration of the Peer Review and the Good Article nomination. Most high-profile articles are vulnerable to vandalism and edit wars unless semi-protected. With the article semi-protected, established editors can work on turning RuneScape into a Good Article without worrying about vandals.

The article was criticised for having various POV issues and on occasions sounding like a how-to guide. I hope to work with others on resolving these issues, to ensure the article remains encyclopediac. It is currently comprehensive, but the information is badly presented. Hopefully, after the article is semi-protected, we can peacefully collaborate to clean up this article.

Other unresolved issues involve fansites and subarticles. The administrators decided that only RuneHQ should be listed. However, in the Neopets article (which I have also sent to Peer Review hoping to make it a Good Article), there are three major fansites listed in the appropriate section: PPT, Nothing But Neopets, and NeoItems. As an experienced Neopets user, I agree that these are the three major Neopets fansites. For RuneScape, most will agree that Tip.it and Sal's Realm are also among the major fansites, as well as perhaps RuneVillage and Zybez. In fact, other editors (some anonymous) have agreed with me and are re-adding links to those fansites. In addition, a link to a major RuneScape forum would be nice. Meanwhile, others have criticised the sub-articles, mostly for sounding like how-to guides, and being of much lower quality compared to the main article. I propose we work on them as well. Having played RuneScape since early 2004, I can certainly help with fact-checking and contributing information in an encyclopediac manner.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this section to the bottom. New sections to the bottom please. And somehow I doubt you would believe this, but it's me and Aysz88 who made the decision on fansites on Neopets (I'm all about!)! We decided on actually four fansites, but the rule states one so we're slowly trying to get that number. (Or maybe just stalling at 3, Aysz88 agrees on the current way it is). The problem with fansites has been sorted and should be left at that. If we say take it up to 5, why not say, 6? And who is to say which 5? We can clearly say which fansite is #1 without any POV, so we should really stick to that. J.J.Sagnella 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just sent RuneScape for Peer Review. This new section was intended for the Peer Review page. Could you possibly help with the Peer Review? I'd like to make RuneScape a Good Article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"We can clearly say which fansite is #1 without any POV," No, we can't, see the discussion above about the contestion of RuneHQ being chosen. --Snake712 01:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen you around a lot, J.J. Sagnella. We seem to share a common interest in online games. I also sent Neopets for Peer Review hoping to make it a Good Article. Wikipedia:Peer review/Neopets/archive1 Perhaps we could become Wikifriends and work on making Neopets and RuneScape Good Articles? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. They both need work.J.J.Sagnella 06:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Now could you participate in the Peer Reviews of Neopets and RuneScape? And could you possibly get more people to Peer Review it? We already know what the problems are. Now we need to figure out how to sort the problems, and work together to solve them once solutions are suggested. Many hands make light work. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Article 7th most edited on Wikipedia

After the bad move of unprotection, news has just reached me that RuneScape has 10,859 edits. That is more than World War II and has just now overtaken it. This surely must be proof for the article to be semiprotected? J.J.Sagnella 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where RuneScape stands in edits

George W. Bush ‎(30,418 revisions)
Wikipedia ‎(18,049 revisions)
Jesus ‎(14,209 revisions)
United States ‎(14,067 revisions)
Adolf Hitler ‎(11,974 revisions)
Hurricane Katrina ‎(11,229 revisions)
RuneScape ‎(10,859 revisions)
World War II ‎(10,763 revisions)

All I can say is "good gawd".J.J.Sagnella 19:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What proportion of edits here are vandalism and reverts? Must be 80% or more, there was about 2-3 edits a day when it was last semiprotected, 30+ when unprotected. What I don't get is why. I mean, RuneScape is just a computer game. Everything else in the top ten is either massively controversial or just an obvious target for vandalism. Why is RuneScape targeted so much? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. In my opinion there are some real vandalism hotspots, below runescape.

George W. Bush ‎(30,418 revisions) Wikipedia ‎(18,049 revisions) Jesus ‎(14,209 revisions) United States ‎(14,067 revisions) Adolf Hitler ‎(11,974 revisions) Hurricane Katrina ‎(11,229 revisions) RuneScape ‎(10,859 revisions) World War II ‎(10,763 revisions) Michael Jackson ‎(9,360 revisions) Canada ‎(8,864 revisions) Britney Spears ‎(8,818 revisions) Islam ‎(8,651 revisions) John Kerry ‎(8,432 revisions) Bill Clinton ‎(8,299 revisions) 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake ‎(8,289 revisions) Anarchism ‎(8,232 revisions) September 11, 2001 attacks ‎(7,689 revisions) Wii ‎(7,661 revisions) Christianity ‎(7,633 revisions) Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ‎(7,335 revisions) Pope Benedict XVI ‎(7,320 revisions) 2005 Atlantic hurricane season ‎(7,197 revisions) Wiki And Its Application ‎(7,172 revisions) India ‎(7,170 revisions) September 2005 ‎(7,133 revisions) Scientology ‎(7,087 revisions) List of ethnic slurs ‎(7,060 revisions) PlayStation 3 ‎(7,000 revisions) Homosexuality ‎(6,929 revisions) Terri Schiavo ‎(6,857 revisions) Fidel Castro ‎(6,792 revisions) Joseph Stalin ‎(6,627 revisions) Germany ‎(6,582 revisions) Jehovah's Witnesses ‎(6,412 revisions) World War I ‎(6,410 revisions) Pope John Paul II ‎(6,409 revisions) George Washington ‎(6,341 revisions) Xbox 360 ‎(6,326 revisions) Israel ‎(6,308 revisions) Bill Gates ‎(6,290 revisions) Global warming ‎(6,278 revisions) God ‎(6,193 revisions) Kingdom Hearts II ‎(6,109 revisions) Intelligent design ‎(6,098 revisions) Japan ‎(6,023 revisions) Abortion ‎(5,963 revisions) Mariah Carey ‎(5,954 revisions) Saddam Hussein ‎(5,897 revisions) Albert Einstein ‎(5,837 revisions) Pakistan ‎(5,784 revisions)

I've bolded the one's I can't believ RuneScape has beaten. J.J.Sagnella 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have expected Saddam and Scientology to have an edit count through the roof. I'll add a posting at the CVU talkpage to ask the guys there to keep a lookout. If we had an admin onboard, vandals could be dealt with quickly and efficiently without having to go through AIV. I may be getting admins confused with assassins there... CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me in a way and shocks the hell out of me in another. People either love it or hate it, I guess. Some people just need to get a life though. All the vandalism is AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!! Xela Yrag 21:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree with xela--68.185.111.78 05:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've never found a game that better fits the category of a person either loving it or completely hating it. I knew RuneScape was popular, but these numbers surprise me. It's clearly evident that RuneScape is turning into a worldwide phenomenon...

Audacious One 04:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget RuneScape is the largest Java based game, and Jagex recently blocked 10,000 accounts just for using bots. That does kinda upset people. Gnangarra 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, semi-protect it, and keep it semi-protected. Don't unprotect it. At least, wait until we complete the Peer Review and it becomes a Good Article. Anonymous users are ruining the article. Vote to stop them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree semi protect this article, protection is no longer sufficient cause to fail GA nominations, neither are vandal edits and reverts consider when consideraing stability. Please remember to put Revert vandalism or something similar in the edit summary box. Gnangarra 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection is definately needed, theres just too much vandalism to leave it unprotected - • The Giant Puffin • 14:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Note RuneScape is now about 250 edits from 6th. p00rleno 20:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More like a game guide than an enclyopedia

Most of the series of articles is basically a game guide. Also there are far too many pictures, I don't even know if it's fair use.

Remember, making inflamitory comments isnt going to help ANYTHING whatsoever, and it contains info, not How To items like RuneHQ. p00rleno 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Wesz 11:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Prayer in Combat?

Since prayers like Retribution can do damage, should it be noted in the combat section? p00rleno 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wesz 11:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If its notable, it should be noted. Perhaps a sentence or two just to cover it - • The Giant Puffin • 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would fit better in the Combat article, since it is a very small part of combat. Personally, I have never used it or seen anyone use it. Admitedly, I just earned the ability to use it, but I don't foresee it being a major part of my arsenal. Xela Yrag 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll edit per requests above. p00rleno

AfD

RuneScape armour is up for AfD . It should be kept because merging it into the main article would make this article far too long, and the armour article is a good one. Any guide-like text should be removed, not the whole article - • The Giant Puffin • 14:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more!!!. We need to keep it. Xela Yrag 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I do want it to be kept, since it provides a lot of information about the subject, the article itself is a bit like a gameguide, and I voted for a merge + redirect on the AfD page. I suggest adding a small blurb on it to the main article or anywhere where it would fit, and simply replace most of the information with KB links, to make it less of a game guide page. Or, what about creating a new RuneScape Garments (couldn't think of a better word than garments) article, then merge the fasion and armour articles into one, with an attempt to make it better for those who start complaining about our articles being What Wikipedia is Not? Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 19:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been kept for now with a result of "no concensus". To keep this article, it seriously needs to be made less like a game guide - • The Giant Puffin • 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Runescape articles will never be safe on WP - if it ain't the anons vandalizing, it's the wiki-wonks slamming them with AfD's all the time - to get a worthwhile depth, it should be on strategywiki or the wikia one - if the effort was spent there instead, it wouldn't be wasted in all this toing and froing. Ace of Risk 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

Rofl what is this? RuneHQ only? As far as I can see, when I search "Runescape" in google, Tipit comes up at the top, along with RSC, and many others. I like the fact Wikipedia gave a monopoly on RS fansite communities all down to just RuneHQ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.79.232 (talk • contribs) .

Please see the topic at the top of this page. Bear in mind, Wikipedia tends to not use google, but instead traffic. J.J.Sagnella 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It was decided some time ago to select one and only one fansite link for the article. Check the archives at the top of this page. This was after a collection of just about every fansite link built up in the article, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, it was decided that only a link to the fansite with the highest Alexa ranking (a measure of traffic) was to be linked to, although there are other deciding factors, for example, Tip.It has security concerns, after the hacking incident where their database was stolen. There is a discussion about this at Portal talk:RuneScape/Major Fansite. Please see also Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexa Is bullfuck. it has to many limitations. I say, NO fansite.

Critical Reaction / Press

The original comment on the feature article page said there wasn't enough "critical reaction". By that I don't think they meant there wasn't enough complaints, that's not what criticism means in a journalistic sense. I think they meant there wasn't enough citations from press 'critics'. So perhaps what we need is links to journalism articles (good and bad) from respected mainstream media. It's hard to find reviews that aren't just 'player reviews' and are from more established sources, but there are some around.

Here's some to get the ball rolling, this is from the Guardian which is a major newspaper in the UK: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1103882,00.html

Here's an article by the BBC. Doesn't get much more mainstream than this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4774534.stm

Here's a review by just-rpg http://www.just-rpg.com/default.asp?pid=1209

Here's a short article from yahoo: http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/9096/the-rundown-on-runescape

RuneScape has also been featured in computer magazines like PCGamer, PCZone, .NET, etc.. It normally gets a fairly good response from critics actually, the only particular bad one I've seen was a quarter pager from PCFormat. Unfortunately the above are paper based magazines and whilst I have them in my collection it's hard to find online versions of the articles. Runefire 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

PCGamer reviewed RuneScape? When? Which issue? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 10:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

*rushes out to buy* - • The Giant Puffin • 13:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in the latest issue, i've got that. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 13:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well for the UK edition, RS-classic (which was just RuneScape back then) was mentioned in the March 2001 issue, and then there was a longer article about RS2 in the December 2003 issue. Runefire 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, "criticism" refers to the negative aspects of the subject of the article. For example, in the Microsoft article, the "Criticism" section mentions several negative aspects of Microsoft. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Look up critic, critical, and criticism in a dictionary then, and you'll see what I mean. There's more than one possible meaning, and it seems more likely to me they were using the journalistic sense of the word. It wouldn't make sense for them to say the article didn't complain about the subject enough, I can't see how that's encyclopedic. (this is an encylopedia). However the first definition of critic in my dictionary is "One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.", and one of the definitions of critical is "Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment". Both of which would make somewhat more sense for an encyclopedia article. Obviously that INCLUDES analysis of what is bad, but it's more than just that. Runefire 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

There's somewhat bias appraisals and no critisms section.

For example calling Jagex's macro detction system "state of the art", with all the macroers I see I'd say it's basic at best. Superway25 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While I doubt it's "state of the art", amount of bypass is not a measure of advancedness(made up a word there), it means that the macroers are as state of the art as Jagex's detection system.

If it is truly "state of the art" it should say so, otherwise change it to a more NPOV so it follows policy - • The Giant Puffin • 13:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jagexes macroing detection system IS quite advanced. Of course I have no source for this, but it has certain properties. I do think it would be correct to call it "state of art". Having seen (not played, so I might very well be wrong) games like FFXI and WoW, one does not profit as much from autoing in those games. And also from what I have heard, it uses the system of seeing if a player responds to a game mod. Of course, only my few cents, but I do know of some features of Jagexes system that are not that well known, and often kills those autoers. Clq 22:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Falador Massacre of 2006

I don't know if you heard the news, but someone found a bug in Runescape that allowed him to kill players outside of the wilderness. We don't have an article on it, yet. I think it would be *really* interesting to do a story on it. It happened on 6/6/2006 in the middle of the night. That meant the programmers had to get up in the middle of the night to work like crazy to fix the bug. Meanwhile the offender use his huge gang to kill everyone in sight. The 4-minute video is amazing-- everyone was running and scattered while he and his gang murdered. Looters came by afterwards to pick up the dropped goods of those killed. Lots of valuable party hats ect was lost. I'm going to work on this article, but if you guys want to help, I'm sure you've had more experiance. See: http://www.tip.it/runescape/?page=durial321_interview.htm and http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yk1TAKASVco&search=durial 24.124.50.20 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This was a bug. Nothing more. If you look at previous debates it has been debated if this even needs a mention, yet alone its own article. In the big history of RuneScape this isnt big, and it didnt even affect that many people. Now, the pink party hat duping, THAT was big and had long term effects, and that I think is only just mentioned in some articles. No, we do not need an article for this, its not notable enough to be anything more than an article on a fansite. Clq 22:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an addition to the history section but it was removed by general consensus. It is not being ignored, but the Wikipedia community decided it was not noteworthy enough for the article as many users were not aware of its occurance. p00rleno 00:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)