Talk:RuneScape/Archive 29

Criticism is an essential part of ensuring that a

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)[reply]

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

• 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

Though we may have discussed the number of fansites, we didn't discuss that a fansite must be above an arbitrary rank. What drew you to this conclusion?

1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Later Note: Yes, I know I said that it should be considered if the 4th fansite were to get close to the top 3. But that doesn't require an arbitrary rank.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

user:rdunn and me were cool on that number and noone objected to it, so I put 'keep it at 3' and that together. If your not cool with it then ditching that and just putting it as 'keep it at 3' is fine with meFlashNerdX (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape no longer begins in a secluded area. Rather it now begins in Lumbridge where you are given a mini quest that helps you to navigate the game. The citation [23] is no longer valid. Is someone editing the main page on a regular basis? I first posted this over a month ago and nothing has changed. --Robertsmom0 (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could be really blunt and say "

1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I would fix it. But I can't access the page. --Robertsmom0 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, according to this [1], your character begins on Tutorial Island again, which would be the "secluded" area referred to in the article. If that's true, does that make this a moot point?

1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I was checking through the refrences at the bottom of the page and several of them are invalid addresses. Currently looking to see if I can find information similar to what they should contain.Cencere (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PvP worlds have been launched, so we need to put the changes into the article. If anyone wants to join me for some 'research' I'll be in world 23 ;-p FlashNerdX (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started it, happy editing!--Megaman en m (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the section (spelling, mainly), so that it hopefully falls into line with the rest of the article. I guess I should expect some more merciless editing by people later.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey I agree with you about PvP updates. I'm researching on World 90, but I haven't gotten very far due to high amounts of safers who like my armor ;) FlashNerdX, I would be happy to join with you and 'research' the new worlds. Maybe a picture of some multi-com fighting would also be a benefit?
-Mastermattt (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I think that a controversy section should be added talking about this games addictive properties and its anti religious philosophyRunemaster24 (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how RuneScape is anti-religious, first it is a massive-multiplayer online rpg, this means that it's audience is varied in their beliefs, so to emphasize one religion over another might alienate prospective members. Second, in contrast with what I just said, RuneScape displays several Christian elements, such as holiday events of Easter and Christmas. The several monotheistic and polytheistic religions Jagex created also support the concept of religion, perhaps your arguin against Runescape not portraying other religions besides Christianity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cencere (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Runescape promotes religion since it is a world full of Gods. The idea that a God or multiple Gods exist is taken for granted. A Christian world view is not promoted, but a religious one is.

As for the addictive properties of Runescape, I strongly believe that the repetitive nature of the tasks in RuneScape actually can train the brain to function better.--Robertsmom0 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any verifiable references to support these "controveries" then, please, find them and add them. However if there are non then, please, keep it to yourself. Having a pantheon, along with a couple of vaguly described rituals, in a work of creative fiction does not mean that they are promoting a religion of any sort, and (the only mention of RuneScape addiction that I can find from a credible source) one parent in Australia describing their kids playing habits as being like a heroin addiction does not mean there are people turning tricks for membership FlashNerdX (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the Gods in RuneScape are completely fictional.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gower is a catholic so I don't see why the game would be anti-religious. --RS Ren (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is? Any chance on a reference to that, asking as I thought the guy was rather quiet about his personal life.FlashNerdX (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference or not, that isn't relevant to this article. You'd want

1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think Runescape Wiki is usually considered a major fansite. I know an earlier rule was just to stick with Zybez, Tip.it, and RuneHQ, has that changed? 76.27.55.64 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus has not changed. But as I see it, the RuneScape Wiki is not really a fansite, so it isn't covered by that agreement. It's simply a wiki giving detailed information about RS.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with 1ForTheMoney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al1012 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The runescape wiki is not considered one of the major three sites. My vote is to remove it. 75.163.240.140 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As a reference, when I referred to consensus in my previous post, I was referring to

1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If you ask me, as the RuneScape Wiki has

^[talk] 23:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As far as i'm concerned it's a lot more useful than the other sites, and to a certain extent it's more updated. And don't ask C Teng on this matter, he's a sysop on the rs wiki. 218.102.143.152 (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On July 9th 2008 Jagex released the Jagex store which currently only holds one product: the Runescape Novel "betrayal at Falador" by T.S Church. Jagex has mentioned that more merchandise will be available, including many from the "Shop till you Drop" player poll which was conducted in April 2008(http://news.runescape.com/c=-5f5a3863/newsitem.ws?id=1300).trevor.eh (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also another published book on the market: "Runescape: The official Handbook", written by Tracey West. This book was published January 1 2007 by Scholastic and covers the basics of the free version of the game (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Runescape-The-Official-Handbook-Tracey-West/9780439877725-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+%2527runescape%2527&sterm=runescape+-+Books). trevor.eh (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{

 Not done It has been removed along time ago. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there wasn't anything about minigames in this article. Should we atleast put something about minigames in this article? Infernal495 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we explain every minigame the article will be too long and it will look like advertising.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something about minigames look for an article on runescape minigames and if u cant find nothing make one. if you can put a link in the runescape page.Al1012 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman's quite right. There's no way to put a section like that into the article, without it being perceived as unnecessary/in-universe/advertising, or a combination of those (if we ever want this to become a

Good Article

again, that MUST be avoided at all costs). As for a new article: we used to have articles on seperate aspects of RuneScape - they all ended up deleted/merged into here.

And yes, I'm aware that we have a few named examples of minigames which include player-VS-player combat, but that's as far as it needs to go.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, just wondering if the fact about RuneScape being the #1 Free MMO needed to be added to the current article. (The Guiness Record) Mr freeze128 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no adding. Plain and simple. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should add that and this will show to the world that Runescape is now the 2nd most popular online game beating World of Warcraft(WOW) that is now number 3.Sorry for my lack of grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zird345 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is says that WoW is number one.[2]--Megaman en m (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WoW cant be number one because it isnt free, the offical runescape site is a source also you can find it on the offical Guiness World Records site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.59.226 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Guinness World Records either hasn't updated the website, or WoW is disputing the finding. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape holds the world record for most popular FREE mmorpg in the world, so it should be addable. WoW can't dispute it because WoW is NOT free. According to the Runescape website, it is the 2nd year in a row they have won this award. Wolfbite110 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still couldn't find anything from Guinness World Records. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the book to come out. I don't think Worlds Most Popular Free MMORPG appears on the website, but I belive it does in the book. If Runescape is listed in this years edition of the book, then it deserves mention in the article. Wolfbite110 (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2008, page 184: "Largest free MMORPG runescape. More than 10 million free accounts have been created and more than one million who pay for added content, such as extra quests". Someoneanother 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may say that in the book, but that cannot be used as a reliable source. I can find nothing on the official site- http://gamers.guinnessworldrecords.com/ Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a book published by Guinness World Records not a

reliable source? Someoneanother 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A better enhancement to that question, how is it not a reliable source to something related directly to it?--Jakezing (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in

1ForTheMoney (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

"citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion."

WP:NOT#OR

.

"Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books"

WP:BURDEN

FlashNerdX (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we dont have a editors opinion on this since this is a world record they themselvs announced as well, fact is, noly people not wanting us to add it are the idiots thinking since the site dosnt say it, it isnt true--Jakezing (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can http://news.runescape.com/newsitem.ws?id=1386 be used as a reliable source? A book surely should be a reliable source.--Robertsmom0 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in the to do list there are three of the same type. update the article, Update the article to include the current changes and standards, and update the photos. and does anything else needs updating besides the photos?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of anything needing updating, apart from that photo of Jad (though you can replace that with any mid-level monster and it'll still do the job). Might as well change the list so that it only says "Update Article" once.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: I was checking out the latest news for RuneScape, and came across a news item,[3] which states that Jagex are selling RuneScape merchandise. Now, we have a section entitled "RuneScape in Other Media", which consists of one sentence. I wonder if this would be considered notable enough for the article? Thoughts, please.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I would have no real argument to changing it to "over 160", since there was a recent influx of new servers catering for smaller countries and regions. As the hidden comment suggests, trying for an exact number will only lead to bickering.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok i wanted to make a edit in the Runescape wikipedia article because i wanted to represent all the player names that play this game. I play myself to TJ 945.Pilotman555 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... You want to name all 11.000.000 players?--Megaman en m (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At an average player name length of 10 characters and assuming that Jagex's figure of 135m accounts is correct, a list of all player names alone would add about 1.25 gigabytes to the English Wikipedia's text (currently about 6.9 gigabytes if my calculations are correct). Are we misunderstanding your post? Perhaps you wanted to make an edit about player names in general? Xenon54 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could somehow figure out how many are main accounts and not alts... then we can get to work weeding out the mess of the # of players on neopets!--Jakezing (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway naming the all the players is completely out of the question and writing about the names that players chose has nothing to do with RuneScape.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond all the uidiots who named emselvs zezima... back when he was the best player and not 51st--Jakezing (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the players that play the game are listed in the high scores. --Robertsmom0 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this, Pilotman, you get

Whacked with a wet trout, lol--Unionhawk (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

runescape is afree online game but when you want to be a mitglied you have to pay 11,euro you can have more skills weapons etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.133.236 (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? We can't add prices in an encyclopedia if that's what you're asking.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err...Ok...CelticMuffin (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um... no its like $5.95 here in the US and your getting ripped off credit card is much cheaper(if you have one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.28.212 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im still paying $5, its fun having been playing for 3 years and knowing to member up before the money update... gonna suck when this card runs out.--Jakezing (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI (kosten = cost) (mitglied = membership) Since the costs of playing runescape are well described I think this page can be deleted. .02 --Robertsmom0 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current animations on this article represent RuneScape as a whole. Almost all of them show a single player in the same outfit, and the combat one shows four identical players. I think new animations should be added showing various players in different outfits and armor. 66.189.89.112 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See

Wikipedia:BOLD Ecopetition. (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Eco's right, you could try

1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Correction: My mistake, it is 7 different players, all looking the same. I wouldn't have an issue with 7 different players fighting, assuming they all looked different. That's not too much to ask.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree. The image of the players kicking one another in firecapes is just plain silly. --Robertsmom0 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we know it. She's posted her character's image all over RuneScape Wiki, aswell. However, if you want new animations showing different players in combat, make one and replace the animations that are already there. --LordHeinz (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree they need to be changed Rdunn (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 10 million active free accounts on Runescape. I changed this number to reflect the true amount of active freeplayer accounts. Also, I added the fact that there are over 135 million accounts created today. I think this will better inform the people reading this article to how many players there are. Also, one quick question :Who is the user in the animations?The Beatles Fan (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia editor who uploaded the images is User:Tarikochi; she identifies her character name in some (if not all) of the images you refer to. It's best to ask her about them.

As for the number of accounts, I'm undecided on whether or not to include the total number of accounts created (though it would reduce confusion, as we've had from a couple of editors on this talk page, thinking that means 135M active users). Either way, a source on the number of free-players would have been ideal, though I won't jump on that point right now.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You're not the first to ask this, and you won't be the last. But as I've said many times before, the picture you refer to is silly. It should be changed to something simpler (2 non-identical players, for example). To me, that image says, "Look, I got all my friends to dress up like me and kick each other." I want an image that says, "Look, this is a RuneScape feature".

1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You want an image to look a certain way? Make it yourself. 76.197.12.178 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like all online games there is always the nerd that tries to hack it. why would they hack it? they must be really dumb to think they are cool because they hacked some online game. now in days we have sweatshops to make the runescape money for us to buy. yes some of us BUY the money. and for what? to be banned the next day for realworld trading?

we buy hacks we hack some online game we get banned

to sum it all up its a waste of money so what if more than one thrid the 135m players are made by people working in sweat shops. it was their choice to do it

you might be thinking "omg who made this ugly page? this page is going to get deleted since we can't talk about this here hahaha!"

jagex has even tried to prevent this problem trade limit random events anti hacking program more

And your point is? This is a talk page, not the article. I don't even know who I'm talking to... I need to figure out how to make a signaturefix bot...--Unionhawk (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a template for this kind of thing. But for reference, it's IP address 70.23.23.144.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your point being? Accounts are never deleted, and "135M accounts" refers to the number of accounts created. It doesn't mean they're all active.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that one of the items on the list of things to do was to create a new image for moderator identification. I created this one: Image:Runescape_Moderator_Identification.png. I hope that someone that can edit this article can use this image. Murgatroid99 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That image is too pixelated to use. Also, this article already has an image that displays the moderator icons. - techietim (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The item on the list says to create a better image, not just a new one. But Techietim's right - the crowns are too blurry, and the image itself is rather large.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I smell copyright violation. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the current one?--Megaman en m (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, I'm affiliated with the website in question but I must point this out.

There is a new RuneScape Fansite growing, RuneScapez, they're planning to open up MechScapez and FunOrbz soon aswell. This site doesn't have a massive member base, however recently it's been growing fast. It's certainly within the top five RuneScape fansites out there. I'm not asking for it to be added to the link section, however I'm just advising you to keep an eye on it, it might be worth adding in future.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuneScapez (talk • contribs) 14:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you admit to having a

1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No disrespect to your site but you currently have 310 forum members and an Alexa of 2,210,980. There is no way that this is the top five fansites; Zybez.net, tip.it, salmoneus.net, runevillage.com, and runecrypt.com all have far more members and a far higher alexa ranking than that. If it gets bigger than those sites then it would be a candidate but its going to be a long time before that happens. However if you prove us wrong I'll be utterly impressed and over the moon at your efforts :-) FlashNerdX (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, might be worth nailing this one down so that we have an official concensious. Can't find a reference to how many links there should be so, given the number of large RS sites, I suggest that we put in the 5 sites with the highest Alexa.com rank.

If you agree then say so below If you think it should be more or less sites, or suggest a different selection process, then say so below If you think its a bad idea and we don't need a guideline then say so below

Whatever the majority view is after a couple of weeks I'll put up at the top of the page.

This is a non-binding, non-agro, non-trying-to-be-a-mod poll. Your statutory rights are not affected.FlashNerdX (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know, current consensus is to include the top 3 fansites according to Alexa.com. At about 17:15PM (GMT time), I did a sweep on Alexa of 6 fansites (runeHQ, tip.it, zybez, salmoneus.net, runevillage, runecrypt).

Based on that completely non-binding and non-scientific sweep, runeHQ, zybez & tip.it are still on top. salmoneus.net is behind by a few thousand ranks, and the others are nowhere to be seen. Therefore, at this point, I would leave it at 3.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

for reference the ranks (in a looking-it-up-and-saying-what-I-see experiment) are: runehq - 4127, tip.it - 5995, zybez - 7057, sals - 11946, global - 113691, . I'm thinking

1ForTheMoney has it right but would suggest that if anything else gets inside 4 figures then it goes in (you never know, it might happen)FlashNerdX (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep it at three (its what has been agreed for ages why change it). the point about adding sites over 4 figures is that there would eventually be too many sites in the list. rdunn 11:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Comment: Obviously if the 4th-ranked fansite were to get very close to the leading 3, I'd certainly consider that (this is one of the reasons for having 3 sites). But allowing too many sites goes against the point that

1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with that. rdunn 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, added it above. Please feel free to annihalate as you see fit ;-)FlashNerdX (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just thought of an interesting section to possibly add to the RuneScape page, Jagex's history of fansites and their opinion on them. By this I mean how Jagex have reacted to fansites and how they interact with them, there has been a long lasting hostile atmosphere between Jagex and fansites, I believe this should be published. I'd be happy to contribute to this new section if it is accepted. :) RuneScapez (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't like it should be added. This article is about RuneScape not about Jagex' opinion about fansites.--Megaman en m (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows Jagex' view on the rules and cheating, why shouldn't it show their view and opinion on Fansites? Possibly even external influences as a whole. RuneScapez (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that those views on cheating (and on gold farming in particular) led to some pretty big changes within the game, hence why we include those views in the article. As for fansites, we already say they're not supported or recognised by Jagex, and that they used to keep a list of them. To me, that is sufficient, so I'm not really seeing what information you could usefully add. (And even if you did get such a section in, it would still need

1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I just think that it would be interesting to show the history of Jagex' interest in fansites, for example Andrew Gower himself had a go at a certain fansite for their client blocking adverts in the F2P game. Jagex have posted on the tip.it forums when RuneScape has been fully offline. It's just that sort of thing which is interesting, I'd certainly enjoy reading it, I don't see why others' wouldn't. RuneScapez (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you do admit to a certain

1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Whoever writes it (I might, perhaps) would obviously back it up with evidence. Perhaps I'll write it and give it a trial run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuneScapez (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think as long as its about RS fansites only then it'll be fine as how an MMO's community is handled is relevent to it as a product. Perhapse split it between this and the

I had that thought too. If it's just gonna be about Jagex' overall attitude to fansites, that belongs on the

1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

]

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items.

Somebody has to say it after so long. Why do we need these as redirects? Nobody outside the RS community is likely to ever use them.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to let you know, I've written the section on the Chat System. I don't know if it's ok as it's my first Wikipedia article, however I'm quite sure it's right. Any feedback would be appreciated. :) RuneScapez (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, nothing glaringly wrong there. I've gone in with some tweaking, a little referencing, and clarifying some details; hopefully someone will come along later and add some

1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks a lot. :) RuneScapez (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it; I've got a complusion to go in and edit new sections so they fit the rest of the article (if we ever put this article up for another

1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't actually play RuneScape anymore, so it's hard for me to write about it. :S The main reason I'm doing this is because I have a fansite, as you probably know. I would have written about the current changes and HD, but I don't have enough experience of the current game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuneScapez (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to wonder if we already have all/enough of the information pertaining to those subjects. All the images have been converted to HD, and we already cover details of the game's graphical update, leaving me wondering if we can just cross those items out of the task list now.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm all for it. :) RuneScapez (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know or where did we find out about the under 12 chat limit? Just asking because it should really have a citation and I cant find a reason on the RS site. rdunn 07:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Only thing i could suggest is clarifying the "If a player is found to have used inappropriate language in the game" bit to make it clear that its a gold crown doing the muting etc. Other than that - real good addition imo :-)FlashNerdX (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go, noting that Player Moderators can also issue mutes, but since Moderators are discussed later in the article, should we direct the reader to that section, or briefly explain what a Player Moderator is in the chat section?

1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that looks okay, perhaps make "Player Moderator abilities" anchor to the Player Moderator section? RuneScapez (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this article is begining to become overrun with

That does seem like a very small detail, not really crucial to the article. I'll go ahead and remove it, and see what happens. On the other hand, feel free to

1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Article:zh:RuneScape Image:zh:Image:Halloween2008rs.jpg --Sap00acm (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you have a template with all the copyright info in it, everything should be okay to use the image. rdunn 11:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What template and how to get it?--Sap00acm (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you go here en:image:Runescapehd_skills-barbarian_fishing-withoutaharpoon.gif and you look at the "Non-free use media rationale for RuneScape" part of the page it shows you a table or template that you fill in when uploading or changing the picture.

however if you click edit in the summary section of the link i gave, and you copy the table, and you add to or translate some of the words, you will add the copyright info and then you can get the image removed from the "images for deletion"

does that help? rdunn 15:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also you can go to any other runescape image on the Chinese wiki and copy and change a table from there which may be a more simple thing to do rdunn 15:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   * 3 Adding Fansites

Take out the discussion

   * 5 Outdated Refrences

dead since 10th september and can be put in the 'to do' box

   * 6 PvP Needs Updating

dead since october

   * 7 Religious Perspective

no references and less said about it the better (lsaitb)

   * 8 RuneScape Wiki

discussion ended and now redundent

   * 9 Runescape Merchandise

dead since September

   * 10 Minigames?

dead since August

   * 11 World Record: Addable?

dead since October

   * 12 to do: update the article

can be put in the to do list

   * 13 PC Gamer UK review

dead since october

   * 14 kosten

dead since october and LSAITB

   * 17 Tarikochi

covered by Animations

   * 18 hacking

LSAITB

   * 19 the little people

ditto

   * 21 New Fansite Growing

dead since October and covered by Adding Fansites

   * 22 Fansite Vote

resolved

   * 26 fancruft

dunno, the guy has a point but might work better with a 'no fancruft' at the top?

   * 27 Copyright

resolved?

   * 28 Graphics and sound

   * 29 Toktz-ket Jad is the second highest moster, not the highest monster like the picture says,   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt Cajun (talk • contribs) 03:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

WP:NOTFORUM

Any objections/alternatives/whatever then post them up. Assuming that all discussions on this are finished by the 21st the archiving will happen just in time for christmas :-) FlashNerdX (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved thread to the bottom) No objections here. Xenon54 16:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems there, you may as well go straight ahead.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Whoops, I archived before I saw this thread (I routinely track the category that {{

archiveme}} goes to). I chose to archive any threads which had received no activity in a week or more. If you'd like to bring any of them back, just pull them out of Talk:RuneScape/Archive 28. Also, since it looks like this talkpage gets a fair amount of traffic, let me know if you'd like an automated archivebot? I could set that up so it would automatically archive any threads which had received no activity in a certain amount of time, and then you wouldn't have to worry about manually archiving anymore. :) Let me know, --Elonka 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a nice offer, but I personally think we should stick to manual archiving (especially since what you removed should have gone to archive 29, not 28).

1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Update:Well, I've created archive 29 as a new page, and have brought through a few extra sections relevant to editing the article. This was another reason to check before you archive. This section can also be moved to archive 29 if nobody objects?

1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

My apologies if I messed anything up. I routinely archive scores of pages on Wikipedia, and most use pretty standardized systems, but every so often I run into one where the editors at that article prefer a different system. In these cases, I try to respect the wishes of those editors actually engaging in the discussions! Just so I understand, why was #28 the "wrong" archive? Is it a size issue, or a topic issue, or something else I'm not understanding? --Elonka 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrong" was the wrong word, I suppose. Thing is, every time we archive, we create a new page. So the archived sections would have been placed in 29, instead of being added to 28. Usually an editor familiar with this page does the archiving (

1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't know about 'usually' but I've done it a couple of times in the past.FlashNerdX (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]