Talk:RuneScape/Archive 30

Please Remember WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:VER, & WP:SELFPUB

Criticism is an essential part of ensuring that a neutral point of view is maintained in this article. However this has to be done in accordance with the guidelines of no original research, use reliable sources, use verifiable sources, & no self published sources.

The simple versions of these guidelines are:

• You can't add your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.
• All content should be from a credible published materials with a reliable publication process, and when the authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
• A reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, should be removed or that material may be removed.
• Self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Please remember this whenever adding anything to this article, be it for or against RuneScapeFlashNerdX (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You Can't Edit The Main Article As It Is Semi-Protected

Due to the large amounts of vandalism the article has semi-protected status, which means you can't edit it until you have sufficient edits to do so. To find out more go to WP:SEMI. Please don't edit this page asking why you can't edit.FlashNerdX (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Graphics and sound

Under the Graphics and Sound section, theres a 3D pic of the girl using different items. Whats the one that looks like a rocket launcher? Prottos007 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind this page is only for discussing improvements to the article. Since this isn't about that, I am prepared to delete this. However, I will give you a chance. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because no matter how irrelevant it may be to the article, you don't just delete items on talk pages. Moocows rule 21:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I read the banners at the top of the page. The last one clearly says that messages not about improving the article will be deleted. This falls into that category, and has been given 3 days. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, remove it per WP:NOTFORUM. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Still an ad?

Just wondering, should this still be placed under the ad tag? It seems kind of like an ad to me... Fivvve (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

One side of me says that you should be bold and address the issue yourself. On the other hand, was there any specific part of the article you were looking at? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Its no worse than any other MMO page (World_of_warcraft as an example). It's got critisism, overview of the game, the usual sort of thing. If you could let us know what bit of it you specifically have a problem with then we can try and improve it, however "it seems kind of like an ad to me..." is incredibly vague and useless for sorting out what the issue is.FlashNerdX (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Preventing Vandalism

Due to the fact that the page "Jagex" has had many issues with vandalism, I found it a nessacary precaution to protect this page from new or unregistered users. DakotaDAllen (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that this page has been semi-protected since November 2007? Simply changing the semi-protection template does not protect the page. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait a moment, were you trying to protect the page, or just the semi-protection template? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I know the page was semi-protected, but changed it to the template specifically for protection against vandalism. I found that I would give a clear answer to why the page was protected. Basically, it was a minor edit. DakotaDAllen (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The template, {{pp-semi}} was fine in this situation - the template you replaced it with, {{pp-semi-template}} is used for indicating semi-protection on template pages. If you want to indicate that it's protected because of vandalism, then it should have been replaced with {{pp-semi-vandalism}}. Since you left the "small=yes" parameter intact, it doesn't make any difference anyway - all protection templates appear as a small lock in the upper-right corner of the page when this parameter is passed to them. Xenon54 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You Can't Edit The Main Article As It Is Semi-Protected

Due to the large amounts of vandalism the article has semi-protected status, which means you can't edit it until you have sufficient edits to do so. To find out more go to WP:SEMI. Please don't edit this page asking why you can't edit.FlashNerdX (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

french server release

The French server actually was released on the ninth Jagex dint announce it until the tenth.

Exactly - they announced it on the 10th. Find a reliable source saying it was released on the 9th and we'll think of something. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

for help see tax274 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.3.18 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

spoke to a mod in game, the 9th was a test/ "soft" launch to see if it all worked, which explains why it wasn't announced. No references are available (I hunted) FlashNerdX (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Need more: (Crusade Skiller)

1. 1 PvP
2. 2 Whats happening - lowering raising prices
3. 3 More Stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusade Skiller (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind this isn't intended to be the concise history of RuneScape, covering every conceivable detail. I think we're fine with what we've got now - it's just a case of tweaking the prose in places, and of pruning out unnecessary details. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Excessive animated images

The current version of this article includes a 1Mb animation to demonstrate a player catching a fish, a 300k animation of player combat, a 1Mb animation of a monster attacking, a 500k animation of a demon drill and a 2.6Mb (!) costume-changing animation that takes 30 seconds to play through.

WP:IUP recommends that "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size." - given how little extra information is gained by animating each screenshot, I don't see why these all shouldn't be replaced with static versions. What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That depends on whether you can find a static image that conveys the same meaning as a moving one. But I'll agree that some of the images could really be cut down to size. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A single well-chosen frame from each existing animation should be fine; in cases where it would make the action ambiguous, we can just clarify it by changing the caption. I'd propose:-

• A frame of the "Gameplay in RuneScape Classic." image where the glowing projectile is between the two characters, recaptioned as something like "A player fires a spell at an enemy, in RuneScape Classic."
• A frame of the fishing animation where the fish is being lifted out of the water.
• A frame with a damage marker visible, for "Players engaging each other in combat in RuneScape classic."
• Any random frame of TzTok-Jad.
• Any frame where the player is halfway through a jump, for the Demon Drill.
• A representative frame of the player clothing animation, recaptioned as "A player modelling some of the clothing and equipment available in RuneScape."

How does that sound? I don't think this would lose any information. --McGeddon (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...that could work. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A different male character could also be used for some of the images to show people some variety. rdunn 12:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Support It really is taking up too much space. But is it even worthy of having a picture of someone catching a fish?--Megaman en m (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is an image of a skill that isn't combat-related. You could change it to a different skill (such as Mining, since we use that as an example in the article).

But there are some images which I really don't like. As I've said before and will now say again, an image of 7 identikit players kicking each other adds little to the article and is showing off. Please, if you are replacing any images, PLEASE replace that one with something a little more realistic. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and converted the previously-mentioned images to static frames, with the exception of the equipment slideshow, which I've removed, as no single frame seemed particularly illustrative, and we already have plenty of screenshots to illustrate the game's graphics.

I've also removed the image of seven identical players kicking each other - as 1ForTheMoney says, this adds nothing to the article, and we already have other images of in-game combat. --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the editor who re-added the kicking image claimed that "Consensus agreed that this image should stay" - where was this discussion? --McGeddon (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - putting something back in and claiming consensus doesn't cut much ice with me. Either link to the discussion, start a new discussion, or don't do it at all. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why I'm trying to keep a track of consensus discussionsFlashNerdX (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The only consensus conversations I can find in the archives are three editors criticising the image as being unhelpfully obscure and confusing back in January, and four more editors criticising it again a few months later. --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, if User:Tarikochi wants to challenge your changing the images, point them to this discussion, and the ones you've mentioned. Talk about consensus. Overall, I think the article is better now; my browser isn't jerking as it scrolls down the page now. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Corporeal Beast Is New Top-Level Monster In Runescape

The Corporeal Beast, as stated on the Wilderness page on Runescape's guide on areas, is a new monster of a higher level than TzTok-Jad. Sherwood727 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...I'm gonna guess you want this in the Interaction sub-section. I'm prepared to add it in in place of Elvarg (that monster's not really tough in the grand scheme of things). But remember we won't cover every detail in RS. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but having a couple of 'hardest' monsters gives a small flavour/setting for the game so imo its useful (as long as its only a couple)81.149.13.127 (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. 4 will be quite enough. Any more and it'll feel too much like a game guide. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RuneScape tutorial

{{editsemiprotected}}

From: "However, by popular vote, the original tutorial was reinstated."

This statement is not true. Jagex took the new tutorial down, because there were problems with it and took it down to work on it.

To: "However, this new tutorial had problems, so Jagex took down this tutorial and reinstated the old one whilst they worked on it." or something

 Not done. I've never seen this announced. We need a reference for this. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only sources available are through Google's cache system. Mod Osbourne stated on the Runescape forums that they have taken down the new tutorial to work on it. ERing (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Which wouldn't be a reliable source. So no joy there. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality Criticism

Clearly the graphic and sound qualities are soft spots for anyone who loves the game, but the section on this article about these subjects is ridiculous. Even the article on the Runescape Wiki (which is largely identical (copy/paste)) does a better job of comparing these things to other notable games. The fact that this section of the article even exists is probably the result of this conflict. Why not merge it in with reception? Some of it should just be deleted (especially the last part) 76.193.179.17 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding Fansites

The concensious view is that a RuneScape fansite should only be added to the main article if:

• It is one of the three highest Alexa ranked RuneScape sites

&

• It has an Alexa rank of 9999 or lower

If a site does not fufil both criteria but you think it should be added anyway then please put your arguments for its addition below, rather than adding it to the article. Please note that this is done to fufil WP:NOTLINK, rather than to make value judements on the merits of any sites. FlashNerdX (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Just to let you know; my site, http://runescapez.com is now ranked 1,098,658 on Alexa. This is a MASSIVE improvement since I last asked for consideration. I just thought it would be interesting to post that here as we're aiming to get it ranked high enough to link from Wikipedia. Looks like we're doing good. :) RuneScapez (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I still don't like the arbitrary requirement of 9,999 or lower, you're still way behind most other fansites. Don't be discouraged, though. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it's time for a concensious change? 86.160.219.218 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This section is the result of a recent discussion on fansites (last month). That discussion only confirmed the current consensus of "top 3 fansites". 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to outline an argument for removing RuneHQ from this list. I personally believe that the three sites listed should be fun, informative and have a good community. After all, these are the main points of a fansite aren't they? RuneHQ is informative, and has a community (I won't say good) but it's not fun. There are adverts everywhere and the whole 'feel' to it is that it's commercial. I personally like the feeling of being valued as a visitor or member, but RuneHQ doesn't give that. Instead, you feel used and 'one of many'.

I know it's informative and the top ranked fansite; but I disagree with them. My personal experience is that they're rude. Why should they have a link from here if they act like that? Surely we want all external links to be to nice fansites?

Not telling you to remove it, just outlining my argument.

Thanks

86.160.219.218 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make judgements of quality, hence why we're not removing it on that basis. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding RuneScapez.com Just wondering... According to http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main/runescapez.com my site is ranked 1,098,658, but on the Toolbar when you do a Google search it says it's ranked 811,786. :S Which is is right? RuneScapez (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know (nor do I really care what number gets given to what site). But we've always used the Alexa rank, although any system is open to abuse. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

According to your own site you have 334 registered members. Or, assuming 1 million players (a low estimate)0.03% of those playing. That is a tiny, insignificant, number of people & way below the size of many, many, other fansites. Please can you accept the fact that your site is currently very small and stop trying to use wikipedia as an advert to grow it. There are a ton of other sites that we would consider adding to the list before even thinking about adding yours in at this point. If you want your site to grow then focus on improving it rather than trying to get it posted up here when it simply wont work. WP:LINKFARM WP:DEMOCRACY WP:NOTADVERTISING WP:PROMOTION & WP:STFU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.91.227 (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though I wouldn't put it quite that way. Getting your fansite on the article should not be your objective, as it probably won't happen anytime soon. In time your fansite will grow, but Wikipedia cannot help you do that and should not be treated as such. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A thought i have just had: an easyer way to look at Alexe ratings is to pretents it is like a round of golf (ie the lower scores are more likly to win) rdunn 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

what happened

why are all the images still now??? and what happened to the images of the girl and her clones kicing each other and the one where she changes armor? they were awesome pictures and someone took them down wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.1.136 (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

They were taking up way too much space, it can be replaced with a still image instead of an animation; which takes up less space.--Megaman en m (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this before making the change. Personally, I think a few of them were silly. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:RuneScape/Archive_30#Excessive_animated_images for discussion of this. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Static images

Why are all the pictures still now? They were moving before and there were alot more? They were god the first time for over a year, why change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.73.32 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

More isn't always better. And all those animations were, with hindsight, unnecessary and slowed down broswers. Sometimes they were just silly. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:RuneScape/Archive_30#Excessive_animated_images for discussion of this. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape Forums

Hello,

Just to let you know, I've created an article on the RuneScape Forums located at RuneScape_Forums, you might want to include it somewhere. RuneScapez (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this really noteworthy enough to include in Wikipedia? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that - it's been speedied. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that again - but I don't think it'll survive the deletion process. RuneScape is notable, but I doubt its forums are enough so for an article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh... Would Wikipedia consensus allow a link to http://runescapez.com/rs_forum_history.php instead? The RuneScape forums are a large part of the community and that page contains a lot of history on it. 86.132.116.11 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No. See above discussion about adding a link to RuneScapez. (You probably are User:Runescapez, in which case: please accept the fact that your fansite will NOT get added here!) Xenon54 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line: it's not going to happen. We're not quite at the point of beating the dead horse, but we're getting there. There are plenty of other fansites more qualified to be listed here than RuneScapez. Not being listed isn't the end of the world. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Nothing but praise with the references. Very few {{citationneeded}}'s needed, and all of the references have footnotes.--Unionhawk (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice if there weren't any {{fact}} tags to deal with. It'd be a big help if the article goes up for another GA candidacy. Of course, we also need to make sure there are no dead links. If anyone has a link-checker program, maybe they could give the article a sweep and report it back here? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought: Actually, reference 32 (hiring Brazilian Portuguese translators) is returning a 404 error, which suggests it's a dead link. Removing that, and possibly the sentence it references, might be in order. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I tried fixing a couple of links which, according to a link checker, were being returned as "soft 404s", meaning that they existed but had been moved to other locations. Also, in fixing the links, I found a way to remove the {{fact}} tag in the History & Development section as well.

Unfortunately, reference 3 (downloadable world map) is highly susceptible to linkrot, since every time the world map is updated, the URL changes and the link dies. Anyone got a better solution? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rankings

You will appear on the rankings (for a skill) if you have level 30 in a skill or be in the top 2 million players. Someone please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KamiFlame (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be too trivial a detail to me. Anyone else? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia. Wikipedia doesn't need to list every single little detail about RuneScape. Xenon54 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Static Jad Image Conversion - rollback nescessary?

I agree the change was necessary, but I believe the animation of Tz Tok Jad should be re-added: it is highly illustrative of two of his three attacks (the other one is melee based, and no one is crazy enough to run up to him!) Anyone who has proceeded far enough into the game to fight him would agree that the animation is very accurate, and actually informative for anyone who has not fought him but wishes too: it is a text book example of how to pray against him, better than any online video. As the character in the video no longer contributes significantly to Wikipedia (but is an active member of runescape.wikia.com) I am arguing this case partly on her behalf. The Wikipedia policy says animations should not be used excessively: I believe one does not violate this ruling.

In summary my proposal is that the animation should be reconstituted into the article [/rant]Elemael (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This may seem an odd thing to say but when the image was "stilled" it was the first time i could see the monster in the image, so i think the still should stay. also showing only two of its attacks is techneckly unencyclopedic as it does not give a fair view (3/3 is better than 2/3).  rdunnPLIB  15:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to give textbook examples of how to beat videogame monsters. If it's of encyclopaedic interest that this specific monster has three particular attacks (if this particular monster was, say, groundbreaking enough to get coverage in the videogame press), we can write about that in the article itself. --McGeddon (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. What encyclopedic value would a moving image have over a static image? Remember, those images aren't there to pretty up the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus it brings older computers to a halt whilst the browser is loading all these fancy animations. Xenon54 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be of more merit to have the animation (it demonstrates said creature in action, and I think an animation of real time combat on this page would be nice), but it looks like popular opinion is against me. So I give in, unlike some people over Flagged Revisions... On another note, does anyone mind improving the caption on my behalf: it is fluffy and not very relevant. Similarly I have created a more up to date version of the server map at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Runecape_server_location_map_current.png , which would be of more use Elemael (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Be bold! If you think the caption needs improving, or we should be using a more up-to-date server map, go ahead and make the change yourself. --McGeddon (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot: this account cannot edit the article for another four days, due to the account being new and the article partially locked =( ... Elemael (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I've updated the image for you; I'm not sure what you mean by the caption being "fluffy", though. --McGeddon (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I propose, as captions:

For the Jad image: TzTok-Jad, the former highest leveled NPC, if beaten provides players with the fire cape. Firecape linking to its wikia page at http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Fire_cape

For the fishing image: A player catches a swordfish using a technique learnt in Barbarian Training, a miniquest.

I have also just noticed under Gameplay - Skills the word utilize, with a z. As this is an English article, should that not be an s? Elemael (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

non. Utilize wiz a z is the correct spelling (just checked in ditionary).  rdunnPLIB  08:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

on 2nd thoughts s is right (curses to ms word)  rdunnPLIB  08:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for utilizes a few lines below, no...? Elemael (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Both these stray into WP:GAMEGUIDE territory, and mention aspects of the game ("miniquests", "fire capes") which aren't mentioned at all in the article. We should be describing the picture and establishing its relevance to the article, not providing unexplained terms (and certainly not linking to external sites from the captions themselves).

If we've painted ourselves into a corner by accepting an obscure illustration of the "fishing" skill, we should consider replacing the image, rather than having to explain it as being a particular technique. --McGeddon (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, we have a decision to make. We either keep the current image and text, change the picture to someone normally fishing (which is an animation of them wiggling a rod), or switch to another skill such as mining. At any rate, if a new picture is needed, I will not be able to personally provide one until Friday the 13th of February (boarding school s0x...). Elemael (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Some fresh screenshots would be good - as has been said before, the fact that the current screenshots were all taken by the same player unhelpfully suggests that there's only one character model in the latest version of the game. --McGeddon (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Right may I suggest EVERYONE compiles a list of content that we want photos of. Then from the 13th to maybe the 16th I will do my very best to get them: I am high levelled enough that only the most extreme requests should present difficulty. May I suggest a new section titled 'Necessary Photos' or something similar through which people like me (but probably exclusively me) can work? BTW, you manage to do an awful lot of editing given that you should probably technically be working or something similar lol. Elemael (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Content Photos

Post here if screenshots or animations are necessary of certain content, and I will do my best to oblige. Be bold! Elemael (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't say we're in desperate need of any photos (many of the images are fair-use, so it's probably best not to use too many). But McGeddon noted above that you could change some of the photos to a different character model. At this point in time, I'd be inclined to do that.

And for what it's worth, if I could change the photos myself, I would. But I don't have any good imaging software, and I'd rather keep my Wikipedia and RuneScape identities seperate. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not contributed much to this article, or witnessed its development. Ergo, I am looking to existing editors for guidance. From what I have read, it seemed like new pictures are necessary, but I do not know specifically of what. Therefore I created this section in order that people can decide what we need new pictures of. I agree wholeheartedly with you point about them being fair-use, but I was thinking more of replacement than adding 100s to the article. Just to clarify the situation, my intention was for this section to outline what new photos are nescessary, mostly as replacements. If we do not need too many, so be it: less work for the person who has to go about it. Elemael (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I always tried to stay as far away from image policy as possible (too complicated for my liking). I'll just defer to what everyone else thinks (depending on how many people comment - it's possible you won't get many responses). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

More than possible - I think there will be barely any. Not sure whether to be happy or sad... Elemael (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

New CEO.

(Already put this on the Talk: Jagex page) http://news.runescape.com/newsitem.ws?id=1648 Misortie (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Geoff Iddison is now noted as a former CEO, in the one spot where he's mentioned. I'm not sure if noting the new CEO on this article is necessary, since he's CEO of Jagex as a whole, not just RuneScape. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Edit- http://www.jagex.com/corporate/Press/releaseCEO_2.ws this link is a bit more informative.Misortie (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

http://news.runescape.com/p=kKmok3kJqOeN6D3mDdihco3oPeYN2KFy6W5--vZUbNA/newsitem.ws?id=1648 Mark Gerhard is new CEO. 216.47.221.217 (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape Quick Chat for the Kids

JaGeX already stated that they don't only want the little kids to play but for everyone, so they made the new improvement that if you are under the age of 12 you will be remained on quick chat until your 13th birthday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ara Ftw (talk • contribs) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's already been noted in the section on the chat system. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Relations to Wicca?

I think that there are many references to the Wiccan religion in RuneScape. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasonscurse (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Such as?--Megaman en m (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of relationships between fantasy RPGs such as RuneScape and pagan religions such as Wicca. It's not specific to RuneScape. An example is simply the manipulation of magic, but more specifically, the idea of runes and the four classical elements.i belive this gives no connection purposely. I don't think this is noteworthy enough to include in the article.--Russoc4 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's too trivial. There are many, many references to religions, television shows and other things in RuneScape and many other games. Listing them all would be too much indiscriminate information. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, well, I meant. Okay, here are my thoughts.

i believe that it makes sense for magic to use elements, becAUSE, AFTERALL magic is based around them. (edit by Brunnerz)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:52, 6 March 2009 (talk • contribs) 81.154.96.40

-Guthix's religion focuses on nature, which is extremely similar to Wicca and his followers are the Druids in Taverly.

-High alchemy, runecrafting, and the Magic skill in general

-Summoning. That's a big one.

Wicca (and other such pagan/neopagan religions) do have summoning and the suchlike in them but they are based on many older religions and not any one in particular.  rdunnPLIB  10:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also druidism and wicca are two different things.  rdunnPLIB  10:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ichi mei mei says: "Players can be transformed temporarily into objects, plants or animals, depending on the circumstances. These "morphs" sometimes allow players to avoid negative gameplay effects or access otherwise unreachable areas; however, they restrict certain normal activities.[66] Players can also express emotions through the use of specialised animations called emotes, some of which are standard and others earned through gameplay or released during holiday events.[67]'=on the explanation of the fact that players can turn into various objects they didn't list that you can turn into creatures such as the goblin in land of the goblins quest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichi mei mei (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

erm... what your saying appears, to me anyway, to all be circumstantial evidence and is taking a couple of points of similarity then using them to claim a connection. Its a fantasy game, it has fantasy themes, there are a number of fantasy themes which are similar to Wicca. That does not mean RuneScape and Wicca are related. If people think the genre is related to Wicca then it might be worth doing a specific page on the topic, I'm sure there are many other MMO's with many similar connections. Also unless you can find some good, solid, references where people are connecting the two topics then this is all getting incredibly close to WP:NOR, and thus really shouldn't be going into Wikipedia in the first place. Could we maybe end this discussion and move on?FlashNerdX (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. This started on speculation and has gone nowhere. I heavily suggest we move on to other issues. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Runescape critiscized for its bad community, bad source.

Additionally players have also criticised RuneScape's purportedly weak community. These complaints focus on incidents of scamming, general spamming, and arguing amongst players

The source points here, but then redirects to the toms games homepage. I also ran a search from the website itself and no results turn up. It should also be removed because Runescape does not suffer from an abnormally bad community as compared to other major MMO games. 76.238.131.219 (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is obviously very difficult to say whether Runescape has a bad community, and it could be said to be a personal view: thus any link could be rendered useless as it is not neutral. Unless you have any good proof Runescape has a nice community (as opposed to the mostly silent one I encounter :P) then I think the offending text can be removed. That is my view at least. Elemael (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in order to neutralise the statement, the opposite viewpoint should also be made. I've done a quick Google search and didn't find any independent website that said RuneScape's community was strong/'nice' (hardly in-depth, if someone else wants to do more research, I'm sure I'll have missed something). Maybe the fact there are so many fansites is proof its community might be strong? After all, we're arguing over perceptions. When displaying opinions, there's little objectivity. GW(talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, In comparison to most other MMORPGs Runescape has very few fansites (4-5 worthy of mention) and these are heavily used, but most users do not bother to sign up or say thankyou for what they are using. Even registered members on sites such as zyzbez.net/community rarely comment, and thread owners often have to ask for replies. I believe this demonstrates a lack of community spirit, and could perhaps be referenced. But this is really to dependant on point of view... Anyway, this page is meant as a description, not a recruiting agent, so why should it matter whether or not the community is thought of as good or bad? P.S. You aren't very likely to find people expressing how much they like the community unless you set up somewhere for them to do it, which defeats the point as you are backing yourself up with your own research... Elemael (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The source given for that statement always gave me the impression of a bias, but that's my opinion and it's probably not relevant. But given that that statement could be construed as an opinion rather than a concrete fact, I would have advised multiple reliable sources to confirm its credibility. If not, removal should be considered. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a vital part of the article, and over 90% of players would agree it is true. But I cannot think of a non-biased way to say that unless someone sets up a poll or walks round runescape asking people... Elemael (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we all guessed it's not plausible to walk around polling everyone (there's too many people, then there'd be disagreements over how much is an "accurate sample", and that's just the start). No, I can't see a way round either. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Found the original Tom's Games source at the Wayback Machine. Xenon54 (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Now i don't usually make comments like this but the statement "RuneScape does not suffer from an abnormally bad community as compared to other major MMO games" is pretty laughable. Ok so it is not so bad on the premium version of the game but it is still poor compared to games like World of Warcraft, for example. Misortie (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is anecdotal, but I play several other MMO's and games besides Runescape (guild wars, savage, air rivals, loads of fps) and I can say that Runescape is easily not the worst. In fact, The party system in Guild Wars has caused me much more irritation than Runescape because Guild Wars depends on other players for gameplay while Runescape does not. One other thing is that the only real griefing I have experienced in Runescape is at the bandit camp when training, or spammers/chat abusers, and those are easily dealt with while not disrupting gameplay. Nevertheless unless we can find a source that says it, it cant be included and should be removed. How anyone could single out Runescape as worse than other games is beyond my level of understanding. Also, the source for toms games cant be used unless it actually exists. Not in the wayback machine database. 76.238.131.219 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Its been over a week and a suitable source has not been put in, someone with editing rights please remove it. 76.238.131.219 (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just replace it with commentary from this large Eurogamer article published this month, problem solved. RS Ren dug up a load of sources awhile ago (they should be in the archive) and don't be shy about regularly googling for more sources. Non-retail MMOGs have only started to get any serious coverage very recently so the sourcing situation should keep changing. Someoneanother 05:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Added the Eurogamer Ref and changed the text to matchFlashNerdX (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, but I would attribute the source to that particular writer and website since currently it states "commentators" (plural) when it's coming from one source. If multiple sources which say the same thing are used then it's good to summarize that way, but be careful not to spin one opinion into a blanket statement. Someoneanother 12:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether this will make any difference, but according to the new CEO there will be new 'noob' free worlds, potentially leading to a more grown up and potentially better community on some worlds. Statement at Runescape Forums Elemael (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New direction

So with things like to 2009 'year of updates' and all the QA'a I think we should start updating the History section of the article. Anyone want to lend a hand?FlashNerdX (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That section could use a certain amount of work. Something about its layout seems kind of crowded and busy. I think it has something to do with the two images shifting the text. I advise either seperating and placing both images on the right-hand side, or removing one (preferably the RS-Classic one, since we already have such an image). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Started work on it with a couple of additions and tweaksFlashNerdX (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong, as far as I can see. I was initially reluctant to add information on the new CEO, since he runs Jagex as a whole and not just RuneScape. But that additional information is good. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to give the section the once-over as well, though my change was less noticeable, changing some references to use the {{cite web}} format. The only one I haven't touched (as far as I can tell) is ref 20, which includes multiple links. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, stop editting my stuff so that it reads about 100 times better than how I wrote it. Your making me look bad here ;-pFlashNerdX (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Oh noes, I iz improvin teh wiki article!" Nah, seriously, thanks. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no chance of making your work look bad this time...I've now adjusted nearly all refs to use {{cite web}}. Again, ref 20 is risky, since I'm not sure if that format like multiple URLs and page titles.

Also, a number of links to the RS Knowledge Base were in a format that doesn't seem to be used anymore. I've adjusted them and all seems to be well. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweet :-)FlashNerdX (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for the section Combat

Instead of: Before 2008, Player Killers ... mentioned above and below respectively.

Before 2008, Player Killers (PKers) were player that went to an area know as the Wilderness to fight other players withing a certain combat level range, hoping to gain their items. In RuneScape Classic, players could opt in to PvP in most areas outside the starting town of Lumbridge. Many player killers created "pure" versions of their characters, with which they trained exclusively some of the combat related skills, willing to achieve a desired advantage over other players. However, in December 2007 the Wilderness was radically changed to prevent players from exchanging in-game items with real-word currency, a process known as Real World Trading. [46] New creatures known as Revenants were added to keep the adverse pressure on players in the Wilderness, while PvP was restricted to specific mini-games and, subsequently entire worlds dedicated to PvP, as stated below.

Artur (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

couple of minor spelling errors but other than that it reads okay to meFlashNerdX (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Major Fansites

Some other fansites I've seen are Sal's Realm of RuneScape (runescape.salmoneus.net) and RuneScape Wiki (runescape.wikia.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.237.27 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your point being? We already have the RuneScape Wiki (by consensus, it's not classed as a fansite), and Sal's Realm isn't going to be included since it isn't among the top 3 fansites according to Alexa.com. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing the page

How do I edit the page? Fire of Angels (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the page is semi-protected, only established users are allowed to edit it. Note, however, that I prefer the passage as it is now (it's less wordy and uses less game-guide material) - this refers to the previous section. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you add a link to wikia:UnRunescape Wiki, as a page that is a funny parody of RuneScape? Fire of Angels (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny parodies are unlikely to meet WP:ELYES guidelines; in fact, linking to open wikis is generally discouraged. --McGeddon (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(Quiet muttering: Great, now I have to edit my previous reply because this was split into its own section.) But I concur - Parodies are discouraged. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also lacking notability. If it were to gain some prominence then it *might* be admissable (as with any other fansite) but atm its not big enough (though, imo, has some classic pages in it)FlashNerdX (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an error on this page, if an authorized person could correct it, that would be great. In the Gameplay section, it defines the acronym NPC as non-playable character, which is wrong. NPC stands for non-player character. It might seem like semantics, but every account that you don't know the password to is, for you, a non-playable character. NPCs are those in the game that are controlled by the game itself, AKA non-player characters. Peabody80 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well, it's been  Done, though it seems a bit fussy. I haven't corrected 1 wikilink for "Non-playable character", since it redirects to "Non-player character" anyway. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Zybez breaking the RuneScape rules (remove link?)

Basically Zybez is breaking the RuneScape rules by advertising real world trading. I think the link should be removed based, on the fact it's advertising such websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.227.86 (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

the problem with removing the link is that most pages about runescape that have advertisements on the side/top that are organised by google, are going to have links to realworld/GP trading because of google scanning the page and putting the most apropriate (or inapropriate in this case) links automaticaly when you load it.  rdunnPLIB  15:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RDunn has hit the nail on the head. Most, if not every, fansite will have those advertisements, and it's not necessarily their fault. To remove Zybez simply for this would set a dangerous precedent for other fansites.

This discussion may also be relevant - the reasoning was different, but you may draw something from it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right but those other fansites show some actual effort in filtering those ads. Tip.it has the Report Bad Ad function and RuneHq calls players to filter their ads. Also RuneHq, Tip.it and Salmoneus have had contact with Jagex. As far as I know Zybez didn't have contact with Jagex. This is because Zybez shows no effort in removing them (since they can make a lot of money off them), other sites filter and get rewarded by Jagex for that. I think such a thing could just as well be done by Wikipedia. However considering the actual outrage this has caused in the past we might just leave it like this. 86.89.227.86 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why RuneScape rules should play any role in determining Wikipedia's policy regarding external links. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The RuneScape rules should not effect Wikipedia's policy in this matter, which is largly based on a neutral point of view. We are marking this site Zybez as a fansite, but it is not really honoring the rules of the game they are 'fan' of. 86.89.227.86 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's very true, and I'm going to share some of my thoughts, which are not necessarily correct. We are not subject to the rules of RuneScape (hence, I take different attitudes there and here). Therefore we have different ideas on what is and isn't a fansite (I don't know what those ideas are, only that wikis are not fansites, and that any such ideas are not necessarily "set in stone").

Of course, we cannot guarantee the content of external sites; that's not really within Wikipedia's purview. If you really have an issue with a site's content, you'd have to take it up with that site. Of course, consensus could possibly be found to remove Zybez from our article, but then we could have needless arguing and possible edit-warring over why the top-ranked fansite on Alexa is being removed.

I guess what I'm saying is that "it doesn't necessarily honour RuneScape's rules" isn't really a good reason to remove it. If it violates Wikipedia's rules, then that would be a valid reason. When on Wikipedia, wear your Wikipedia hat. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on that but Zybez it just a guide help isn t official--Sistemx (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2 things. a) from that argument there shouldnt be any links to google or yahoo on thier pages becuse of this/ b) can we not have another discussion about fansites please coz' it okay like it is now and it gets tiering reading everyones arguments for and against when we go back to the same thing!  rdunnPLIB  08:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also very true. Unless somebody has a new argument, and not just a reiteration of an old one, this discussion is going nowhere. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How zybez pays for its website is of no relvence to if it stays listed as a fansite in this article. The content of the site is aimed at supporting RS players, rather than cheating, and it is primarily focused RS/Jagex products. It's alexa rank, membership levels, and the amount of activity on it make it one of the largest RS sites.

So, like it or not, it is one of the largest RS fansites out there, so it is valid to include it in the links section (via the precident agreed to previously. 81.149.13.127 (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we only judge a fansite by its Alexa rank, not by its size, content or how many members it has. Wikipedia doesn't make judgements of quality in that respect. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Zybez is one of the biggest fansites out there. The fact that the only people who submit ads to Google Adwords with the keyword "runescape" are Real World Trading sites is just an unfortunate occurrence. Zybez should absolutely be included, regardless of any ads on their site.--Unionhawk (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

runescape tutorial island

Jagex has decided yo put the old tutorial island again, because some players wanted the old and traditional tutorial island so fix the article --Sistemx (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jagex put it back ages ago...  rdunnPLIB  08:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Speedy Merge Don't Merge - Does this even need discussion? I mean, Varrock very clearly needs to be merged deleted without being merged, and maybe salted from recreation.--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Varrock article is currently up for deletion. --McGeddon (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware.--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As others have made clear on that AFD, and which I have reiterated in my vote to Delete, that article and all others like it should not be shoved into the main article. All that would do is horrendously bloat the article with pointless game-guide material. No thanks. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hence me striking my Merge vote, and changing it to Don't Merge--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 16:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am a little aggressive when it comes to keeping game-guide material away from the article. I just want to see this article get back to GA status sometime, and that can't happen if we start loading this sort of thing into it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I agree. Seeing this back at status would be awesome... I'm going to seriously go through the article this week to see if it could survive a reassessment. (in fact, who got rid of the delisted tag? I remember suggesting a reassessment a while ago (which it failed))--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you need a reference, I do keep the link to the GA review on my user page. Ah, here it is. Prose is the main issue to overcome, I feel. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"In other media" Section

I don't really know of very many more other media RuneScape has been in. Does anybody else know of anything?--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 20:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, which will make expanding that section difficult (it wouldn't be appropriate to list the various items sold by Jagex). I wonder if it's possible to merge the information on RuneScape media into another section? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I thought I remembered Scholastic making an "Official" RuneScape Guide book, which listed the most basic and/or useless information ever... I could be wrong though...--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard about that. From what I heard, it wasn't exactly a useful read, but that's irrelevent. Of course, you'd need a source. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what, thinking about it, that section should probably not be included. I went ahead and removed it, but if you disagree, go ahead and undo it, and discuss here.--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Psudo-GA Assessment

If I were to give the article a GA Assessment right now, here's what I would point out:

Quick-Fail Criteria (tags such as {{expand}}, {{fact}}, {{in-universe}}, ect.) was found. Article would probably be put on hold, or maybe failed but, for the sake of improvement, I'll continue.
Criteria:

Well-written:✗ Fail
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;✓ Pass and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.✗ Fail - Biggest problems in italics

Factually accurate and verifiable:✗ Fail - Fix the tags first. -
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;✓ Pass
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;✗ Fail - I did see some tags, so, I'm going to have to go with a no on this one - and
(c) it contains no original research.✓ Pass

Broad in its coverage:✓ Pass
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;✓ Pass and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).✗ Fail - Occasionally goes into too much detail. Not too often.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.✓ Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.✓ Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by images:✓ Pass
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;✓ Pass and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.✓ Pass

Result: Not Listed

I have highlighted the biggest issues hindering this from Status above.--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Personally, it's nothing I hadn't expected. Here's my thoughts:

• Some of the {{fact}} tags will be easier to deal with than others (in some cases, the questionable statements could just be removed or refactored). The number of active accounts, though...One of the given sources does have a number, but it's from May 2008 and significantly lower than is given in the article. Could that be made to work?
• {{in-universe}} tags are a bind, since that involves rewriting the offending sections to be more non-fictional. Any specific paragraphs that come to mind?
• The image of RS-Classic in the Combat section doesn't seem that relevant. Ideally, it should be an image of RS today.
• The In other media section will be difficult to expand (unless more books suddenly pop up out of nowhere). I'm still looking at the possibility of merging that into another section, or possibly the lead. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and tag the crap out of this. Then, we can at least know what we're missing, exactly. Remember, the one doing the peer review is probably not going to be you or me... It's going to be somebody who hasn't contributed significantly, to avoid a Conflict of Interest, and they might not let some things go that we are...--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Sure, we could say something like, "As of 2008, there are X number of free accounts(Citation Here)"
  • Hmm... Not at the moment. (will look harder later... not much time now
  • Yeah, probably, but we would need a volunteer. If I really needed to, I could do it, but free time isn't exactly in large supply...
  • I went ahead and got rid of the "In Other Media" section... That's like, the permastub of sections...--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 18:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to tag, within reason. I can source most of that stuff (in many cases, using existing references). I'm aware that GA assessment requires whoever does it to be a little...pedantic, for want of a better word. I'm not sure if I'll have access to Wikipedia for the next week (if I don't edit in the next couple of days, the answer will be obvious), but here are my responses:

• • The source I looked at notes roughly 8.5M active accounts per month (it's being used in the last section). It doesn't say how many are paying or non-paying, but for this purpose, it doesn't really matter.
  • As I noted in the To-Do List above, we do need a volunteer for possible image replacement. I know nothing about fair-use and have no good imaging software. I had my hopes pinned on User:Sistemx - unfortunately, we didn't get off to the best start. Their talk page, and my archive, shows why.
  • I have no issue with removing that section. The world will not end tomorrow, and we include a link to the RuneScape book in the {{Jagex}} template. If more information arises, it can always be put back. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I'll try and get on over spring break and update the applicable pictures, but, if you get a random event, be sure to take a screenshot since they updated the random events system. My RuneScape Name is Unionhawk.--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 11:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That could be difficult. My account's total level makes a random event less likely to appear. And then I'd have to reveal my account's identity when uploading an image to Wikipedia, something I swore I'd never do. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ah, so, maybe I can steal an image from a fansite. It's still a screenshot either way.--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that's such a good idea - I'm more in favour of "fresh" images. Besides that, I don't think it's necessary to replace ALL the images. Leave some as they are; that way, we have multiple character models, and thus don't give the impression that RuneScape only has one character model. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Technically, Drill Demon is still there, so, that image is still accurate.--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the combat picture is the only one that needs updating. All others are essentially up-to-date, or in the History section.--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Very true. An image of combat isn't too hard to get. Just challenge somebody at the Duel Arena, Castle Wars, etc. That said, though, 1-on-1 combat will be easier to fit into an image. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to let my brother do whatever it is he's doing on Pokemon, then have him friendly duel me for the Screenshot. (He'll win... 72>58, lol...)--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 19:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(Forum-like comment) You wouldn't catch me in a duel. A level-3 could have me, and my character's combat level is in triple-digits. No, seriously, I'm terrible at PvP. Hehehehe...1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(Back on Topic) I went ahead and got a screenshot, uploaded it, and put it in the article.--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

New images

Somebody has replaced many of the images in the article. Some I like, and others I hate. The image of TzTok-Jad is (to me, at lest) leaving a huge gap in the Random Events section. I'm prepared to revert back to the previous image pending a compromise. In fact, I just did. That image is too big, and I suspect it's been lifted straight off the RuneScape site. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

New Project

There are WAY too many redirects to RuneScape. I'm trying to point these to an appropriate section and/or get them deleted, but there are still over 100 to sort through. Help!--Unionhawk ^{Talk Review} 22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Names of players are a good candidate to be removed (nobody outside the RS community is likely to use them). I'll even find a few which I disagreed with at the time - here they are.

An Idea: If you haven't already, go to the article, then click "What Links Here" on the left. Above the list of links that appears will be options marked "Hide Transclusions", "Hide Links", and "Hide Redirects". Click the first option - this should vastly cut down the number of links to sort. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I look at that list, I see some possible candidates for deletion. Many are probably articles that were deleted and turned into redirects.

• Rvnescape, Runescpae and Runescaspe - these are just mis-spellings which somebody has turned into redirects.
• Runescape/ - Who would think RuneScape is spelt with a /? (Afterthought: Somebody obviously did)
• Runescape Xplorer and Runescape 2 Guide - I've never heard of these, or heard them talked about. As far as I know, it's not usually called RS2 anymore, unless you're discussing RS-Classic.

Make of that what you will. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an option on the Auto Wiki Browser to make a list based on redirects. I was crawling through with that.--Unionhawk ^Talk 16:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have that, and have no reason to ask. I guess that job falls more to you. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runescape/ is the one for Runescape/. (which sort of makes sense with the extra /)--Unionhawk ^Talk 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll delete Rvnescape, Runescape Xplorer, and Runescape 2 Guide because hardly anyone will type those out. As for Runescpae & Runescaspe, that's up to you guys to decide. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. I can see reason to have a limited number of redirects based on misspellings - but not loads. How many ways are there to misspell "RuneScape"? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No objections, your honor. I did see one conversation where somebody got blocked for creating 160+ redirects to RuneScape. Most were speedily deleted under R3 (implausible typo)--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted those 3. As for the rest, I'll leave it as-is unless someone really want to see them deleted. And yes, I do recall someone creating redirects for each major city/town in Runescape (like Rimmington, Falador, etc.) as well as the names of some high-rank players. Should I go ahead and delete the redirect of Lumbridge and Varrock? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Varrock was deleted and turned into a redirect not long ago - for now, I'd leave the place names, since having them as redirects could discourage people from creating articles that will only get deleted.

I still wouldn't object to deleting the player names, though - they have nothing outside of RuneScape that justifies giving them their own articles. The only people likely to create articles on them (or indeed, many of RS's features) are members of the RS community. People outside probably wouldn't have a clue. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Economic section

The subject matter here is very outdated- While it mentions the introduction of the Grand Exchange and the economic structure before it, it does not explain the new affects of it, such as mass manipulation (Clans buying out a certain item at the maximum price in the Grand Exchange- forcing the price up- and selling it later) as a new type of instability.

It also mentions that Rare items "tend to increase over time". This is no longer true; they are extremely instable and varying in price, with partyhats crashing hundreds of millions of coins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.170.189 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you haven't provided any reliable references for these claims, they can't go into the article. Note that whilst it may be known to RuneScape players, those outside the game don't necessarily know, and it's them we write the article for. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to dispute current information, not add in new.

http://itemdb-rs.runescape.com/viewitem.ws?obj=1038&scale=1 http://itemdb-rs.runescape.com/viewitem.ws?obj=1040&scale=1 http://itemdb-rs.runescape.com/viewitem.ws?obj=1042&scale=1 http://itemdb-rs.runescape.com/viewitem.ws?obj=1044&scale=1 http://itemdb-rs.runescape.com/viewitem.ws?obj=1046&scale=1 http://itemdb-rs.runescape.com/viewitem.ws?obj=1048&scale=1

Sorry, as I'm self evidently not a Wiki-editer, I don't know if theres a more effective link method. These are the 30 Day graphs for the most prevalent Rare items, and they are all clearly dropping.

Also- There are no sources for the argument that the Grand Exchange "decreased fluxuations in prices" The source only gives the value of one object- proving its over the stated value, but not even proving that they are rising as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.170.189 (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, because those graphs keep changing, they could be going down one day and up the next. Which makes these links highly susceptible to linkrot (meaning you'd have to keep changing them when they are no longer relevant.

Also, on an unrelated note, consider signing your posts with four tildes (~~~~). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to find out different ways to put external links in Wikipedia articles, read this page. Jprulestheworld (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Or use CLICK HERE Junhalestone (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

A little too in-universe for my liking. We have already had that problem, and we don't need it again.--Unionhawk ^Talk 01:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Runescape Classic Picture in Combat section

shouldn't this be updated with a more relevant picture 207.161.22.249 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Runescape Classic Picture in Combat section-shouldn't this be updated with a more relevant picture

I agree, as it makes the game look old, and it shows the game in a derogotive light, which wikipedia pages aren't supposed to do!

Junhalestone (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

"a derogotive light" no it doesnt (the caption does say Classic in it)  rdunnPLIB  09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It acknowledges that the image is from RS-Classic. Nothing "derogotive" about it (especially as the majority of game images are from today's RS). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been  Done--Unionhawk ^Talk 01:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions

• I have some questions about this article.
• What kind of English should be used in the article? American? British?
• Why can't I edit the article?
• Should I be putting information into the article that only RuneScape players would be interested in?
• May I put my opinion into the article?
• Why are only three fansites listed?
• I am a RuneScape player and want to add interesting RuneScape details, why are my edits always reverted?
• And, what does Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.140.24 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

First off all I put bullets in front of your questions so it would be easier to read. I'll just try to answer as many questions as I can:

• Jagex is a British company so British English should be used.
• You can't edit this article because the article is protected for vandalism, therefore only people who have an account can edit protected pages. Why don't you create an account?
• If you mean stuff that will help players play the game better such as tips etc... then the answer is no. You should read WP:GAMECRUFT for information about what (not) to add in a video game article.
• Every article should be written from a neutral point of view, so no, you can't but your opinion in the article.
• Only the three most visited sites should be added, based on Alexa Internet
• As I said before, tips, hints, and gameguide material shouldn't be added, if you edits weren't one of the aforementioned topics, send me a message on my talk page and tell me what you added.
• I don't get what you mean since you gave the answer yourself.

Feel free to ask more questions!--Megaman en m (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he pretty much covered it. With the British/American English part, a consistent style should be used. I agree that British English does make sense, seeing that it is a british company. And, yeah, create an account! I don't see why you wouldn't.--Unionhawk (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Both British and American English are used, but mostly Bristish since Jagex is based in the UK. Your edits may end up getting reverted because other users feel that they influence the stragegy aspect of the game too much. I am adding a couple more fansites that I think are rather large communities. Also, dont post any info that only Runescape players would be interested in unless is not about strategies, guides, etc. The Beatles Fan (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Only the top 3 based on Alexa ranking should be included.--Unionhawk ^Talk 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GA-Assessment (sort of) #2

All right, here it goes. GA Assessment (sort of) #2:

Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.✓ Pass

Factually accurate and verifiable:✓ Pass (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;✓ Pass
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;✓ Pass and
(c) it contains no original research.✓ Pass

Broad in its coverage:✓ Pass
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;✓ Pass and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).✓ Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.✓ Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.✓ Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by images:✓ Pass
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;✓ Pass and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.✓ Pass

I think we can get a GA Assessment, provided a spell check.--Unionhawk ^Talk 02:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The article should consistently use British English (since Jagex is a British company). That said, I do have my doubts about the Economy section, and the image being used in the Quests section (I don't believe 1 image can convey the questing side of RuneScape). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the page isn't neutral. See what I wrote below.173.20.4.42 (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi folks, noticed the article's been listed for GA. I have a lot of respect for what you do here in trying to keep the article on track, what with the constant bombardment of editors trying to run all over the place with things, the article gets @ 5,000 hits a day. However, trying to keep the article in shape is a job in itself, and it has always been somewhat isolated despite its importance. I was going to do a pseudo GA review to try and help out, but TBH I think the nomination is premature. What's needed here is outside eyes giving it a thorough review before it goes up for GA, and that would mean a peer review by the games project. Would you reconsider your present course? Someoneanother 16:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. GAN removed, PR request submitted.--Unionhawk ^Talk 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd planned to suggest this after the GAN, as a possible prelude to A-Class or even Featured Article status. But this works just as well. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason the game is called RuneScape?

I think it would be good if someone actually said why its called RuneScape, as it adds a bit of back-ground information. The name is derived from the magical Runes which are used to cast spells in the game, as when it first came out, the Rune metal didn't exist?

Any ideas? Junhalestone (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

thats WP:OR I think.  rdunnPLIB  09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to add that, you'll need a reliable source, so don't add speculation.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

if thats directed at me thats what I was trying to say.  rdunnPLIB  09:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever that was directed at, it's still true. We don't include it because there's no source to back it up, so it would be viewed as speculation by the average reader. If you have a reliable source, then by all means, show it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

hence me mentioning WP:OR  rdunnPLIB  15:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"cause it's a decent sounding name" is the core reasoning behind it afaik.81.149.13.127 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, you need a source, otherwise, it's original research--Unionhawk (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

""cause it's a decent sounding name"" is not a reason for anything  rdunnPLIB  12:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This was explained within one of it's quests, Rune Mysteries. It would be considered Original Resource since they removed a whole NPC chat section from that quest revolving around RuneScape's name. Unless, of course, you got some proof of the NPC chat. LaughingReaper (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of page

I would have logged in to write this, but I can't remember my password. I think the neutrality of this page should be disputed, because under "reception" there are no negative reviews presented. Tentonhammer.com gives it a three out of five, which is like a 60% rating. Also, according to IGN, PC Gamer [UK] gives it 7.2/10, GameZone Online gives it 6.5/10, and Christ Centered Game Reviews gives it a 6.7/10. IGN's average press rating is 6.8/10 for the game, and the average gamer score for it is 7.4/10.

I realize that the article mentions how lately some users have been upset with certain changes, but I think the article should also show some of the lower ratings the game has gotten over the years.

I feel that if there is to be a reception section, in order to maintain neutrality, there should be evidence presented from all sides, not just the ones who say it's a good game.173.20.4.42 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally, somebody who can point to a problem rather than just vague hand-waving (which just leads to pointless discussions that go nowhere. As for reviews, keep in mind that not everything quoted from the reviews is glowingly positive. If you've found those ratings, could you provide links to any online reviews? (This is just a courtesy so that you aren't accused of inventing numbers - which could happen.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want some negative and positive points under that, most people who found Runescape negative were from the Wilderness removal. Most people who find this game positive quest or level up skills.LaughingReaper (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The reviews that i cited are from before they removed wilderness. The links are dead from the IGN page, but I have the IGN link, which is a reliable source, and it's numbers from the other sites would be reliable too. http://www.gamestats.com/objects/550/550093/articles.html. Gamefaqs.com also has a user rating board, and the average there is pretty low too. Also, reaper, even if the game is starting to receive more negative reviews that should be noted and the scores should be reflected. I suggest adding one of those review score tables like almost every other video game article has. 173.20.4.42 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike most video games, this one is constantly updated, so over time, scores could start to lose their relevance, although they are a useful historical reference. User ratings boards are not professional, and therefore can't be used as sources.

(Also note that, if it was that necessary, the omission of a score table would have come up at peer review by now.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Removal of the wilderness was about a year ago. There have been many, many updates have occurred since then, and there's no way we could get a rating that stays put, due to the constant updating. This isn't like The Windwaker, where the game stays the same all the time.--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Other pages for MMO's have score tables, despite the fact they are constantly updated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_warcraft#Reception, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ff11 (which is a featured article), etc. Let's not get caught up on a ratings table though, it was just a suggestion to show more neutrality on this page. I have always felt that this page leaned towards one side. 209.56.116.136 (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think RuneScape is updated slightly more often than Warcraft... And since when is Final Fantasy XI updated, ever? Those are both console games, requiring purchase or download, and RuneScape is an in-browser game.--Unionhawk ^Talk 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's put that side of the discussion to an end now, please. Just because Article X does something, doesn't mean Article Y is bound to. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, world of warcraft is updated anywhere from one to four times a month. FFXI is also updated regularly with patches. Speaking from experience, when wow receives a patch, it changes the gameplay slightly. The patches usually aren't just bugfixes... they change character classes. I don't think this discussion should be at an end. I will stand by my dispute of neutrality until I see fairness and all opinions supported. Also, money, your comment of "the omission of a score table would have come up at peer review by now" is somewhat a fallacy. Unionhawk, although FFXI is a console game it is also a PC game. World of Warcraft is solely a PC (and mac) game. I also think, since RS is a browser game, it would fall under the PC genre. I will cite IGN again, as their reviews state it as a PC game. By the way, a rating table was just my suggestion for a quick fix to a neutrality issue.

If you all feel it would be impractical to cite negative reviews for the game, then there should be no positive reviews, either. As you stated Unionhawk, it would be impossible to get a rating that stays put due to the updating, and this applies to positive reception as well.173.20.4.42 (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

the WoW patches are released when they are sure that they work. 'Scape gets updated daily/weekly with very minor things and they can just rollback if there is a problem. rdunnPLIB  09:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting bringing this discussion to an end. I am suggesting that the idea of a ratings table hasn't taken off (and it's perfectly true; it HASN'T come up at peer review), because it's just not worth it.

Also, we seem to be going off-topic with talk about when patches and bug-fixes are released. They have nothing to do with neutrality. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The current ratings are okay for the moment as they are sorta in the middle.  rdunnPLIB  14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my pushiness. Given that a GAN could be close at hand, it makes no sense to get bogged down in pointless mud-slinging. The quotes from reviews do include positive and not-so-positive comments, just as they should be. And we do cover events that have attracted praise and criticism from users (a secondary source on the latter would be ideal - not a YouTube video!). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for bringing this up at a criticle moment for the article, but my stance remains. I was merely using other games' examples because you can't say a rating is not reliable if a game is constantly updated. Hell, just about all games these days are regularly updated, including console games, with patches and new content. Should the ratings for those games not be fixed also? I was always under the assumption that something is rated at the time it is released, and that rating stands. Therefore, since there were no ratings for runescape when it was first released in 2001, maybe there shouldn't be any reliable ratings?209.56.116.224 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no bother. The ratings apply to different times in RuneScape's history, so even if they aren't that useful now, I like to think the reviews still provide opinions of how RuneScape was in the past. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's good to add a section for past criticism/ praise?216.159.49.251 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well....for now, I think we can get away with leaving it. If it's appropriate, I've no prejudice against discussing this idea in more detail when moving towards A-Class or FA-class. So far, it hasn't come up, let alone been discussed. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to be blunt, but, technically, it's being discussed now. However, I think there is a good balance between criticism and good reviews as it is. I remember when Jargon and Advert-like language cost this a GA. That's not now. Trust me. It could be (and has been) much worse...--Unionhawk ^Talk 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when I first started editing the article, it was a GA and was loaded with jargon and advertising. Editors tried to clean it up, but that didn't save it in the end. Here's where I made my first edit - compare this, Unionhawk's later diff, and the article now. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I remember being the one bringing this article to its inevitable demise; GAR, and DGA.--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Stay on topic please. Don't get caught up on how things USED to be. I have one question: how many of you in this discussion play Runescape?173.20.4.42 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is little criticism. The only criticism is the removal of wilderness and the strict trade rules. There should be more criticism I think, such as the writing style of quest dialogues, how the game has come across as geared more for little kids, and the lack of an option to not filter chat.173.20.4.42 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Get me a source or two, then we can talk. Honestly, I don't see how the past isn't relevant. The point is, this used to be total advert. Now, it's significantly improved.--Unionhawk ^Talk 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, you're honestly the only person I've heard to complain about something other than the wilderness and trade restrictions...--Unionhawk ^Talk 01:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My Conclusions: No results for Quest criticism. The Filter has been changed dramatically, enough to probably satisfy most players. Geared towards children is pretty accurate, but, that needs a source regardless.--Unionhawk ^Talk 01:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To summarize my thoughts on this part of the discusiion, people will always give a mixed score of runescape since the Wilderness was removed. People have always (sometimes) rated Runescape part because of PvP and part because of content. Also, this game isn't fully geared towards children since most of it's forumers have said that they are over 13. It also depends what you consider a child. LaughingReaper (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

All those points are debatable. But, this is not the place to hold that debate. Unionhawk's comments about sources still apply - every time we have this discussion, somebody lists what they think is wrong with RuneScape, but won't (or can't) back it up. As the person making the comments, the burden of proof falls on you. No sources means no addition to the article, and this discussion gets consigned to the archives. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much added that to the FAQ.--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone's vandalised runescape page and has redirected it to a certain page advertising hacks

Yeah, someone fix please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.162.44 (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody else has done it. Would you like me to move this to the archive now? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.162.44 (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Last, ahem, "comment" on the article

Why is the last line of the article (between the end of 'External links' and 'Categories') the "remark", 'Runescape is the gayest game i ever played'? 99.25.118.236 (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch; someone had vandalised the "RuneScape" template. I've reverted it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)