Talk:RuneScape/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Grand Exchange/ Economy

Talk about how the Grand Exchange works such as if people buy items on max price, the market price will rise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GotMoney999 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What is it with all the edits right now?? In any case, isn't this enough (noting that prices of trades affect market price)? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Make sure that you read the artical before you give any ideas because they may be on the page already GotMoney999 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope that wasn't directed at me. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no i wasn't being specific, I was directing it to the "editor" or request person for this article. Sorry for the inconvenience. 99.154.0.165 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that i find these requests annoying or stupid. I just don't expect to receive lots of them in a short space of time, and not late at night, when I get rather tetchy. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help in making the article of Runescape better for the community. GotMoney999 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from I pker lol x, 12 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

it ses that it has 25 skills but now it has 26 due to the new skill called dungeoneering so please change it in the skill section thank u I pker lol x (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Doing...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Unless I'm counting wrong, I only count 24 skills including Dungeoneering... I'll leave it up, and if somebody wants to look and count (I'm at school right now, so I can't look it up) that would be awesome.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, definitely 25. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew I was probably missing something...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DirectX update request

Runescape HD mode now supports DirectX rendering. I edited the article to include it under the sub-section 'graphics and sound', and would welcome any improvement ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usbdriver (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've removed it again since it went into lots of detail which isn't always a good thing. Most of one paragraph dedicated to being able to press buttons and change graphics settings isn't much use. Besides, I'd already made an edit to acknowledge the update.

On a related point, I've being thinking that information on the more technical aspects of the graphics (the RuneTek 5 engine, the OpenGL/DirectX rendering, SD rendering using Windows, etc) can be combined into one paragraph. Doing that would gather related points and help to balance the paragraph length. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Surfjamaica, 15 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add "Jagex can now celebrate becasue today (15th May, 2010) marks the 3000th day since the release of RuneScape in 2001." after "RuneScape is a fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) released in 2001 by Jagex Ltd."

Surfjamaica (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Aside from being unnecessary, that would be highly promotional in tone. We're not here to celebrate the perceived success of anything. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need a landmark saying the RuneScape has been online for 3000 days. It's a little redundant, considering that we already have "released in 2001" in there, and any landmarks like that would sound promotional in nature.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 21:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Release Date in Lead

Ok, which release date are we going to use in the lead? If we're using the initial beta release, 4 January 2001, then it wasn't released by Jagex. But then again, maybe the actual non-beta date should be used. I'm not sure...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "2001" to "early 2001" because the word early can mean anything. As for a specific date, I'm more inclined to go with the date of the first public version, since that's when RS came into existence. RS can't be the only example of a game that started off small and was later taken up by a company. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ShuShumuX3, 20 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Excuse me I wanted to ask you if I (or you) can add dungeoneering on this.you did so well describing it too!i didn't even know about a RuneScape classic!but dungeoneering was just recently made.Can you? Heres My Edit:

Dungeoneering The Dungeoneering skill was released on the day of April 20th,2010.This skill was released to mainly bring friendly Quests to the players of runescape.The Home of the Dungeoneering Skill is Daemonhiem.To start and/or Have a Raid you must Have the ring of Kinship.With this ring you can check your Journal,Teleport to Daemonhiem, or start a party.A party is a group of players doing a raid or just simply going solo.To have a party you must invite people only in the lobby of Daemonhiem.A not so hidden secret is if you look at your party log and click a players name you can see there stats,inventory,and much more.You must also choose a complexity that is acceptable for your team.The complexity levels are 1-6.Remember,The higher the Complexity,the harder it is!For an area,you must choose a floor.The floors can be from floor 1 all the way up to maybe even 70!Almost finally there are challenges.Challenges mostly Appear in complexities of 5 or 6. Challenges are puzzles that you need to figure out to advance a door.As i like to call them,Blockages are another thing.Blockages Are Things that can either be Wood,Rocks, or maybe even a spirit.To get through these doors you must have a high level of any skill from Rune Crafting,Magic,Fire making,and Mining.Sometimes Even Crafting.For the last there are Bosses,Monsters,and Keys.Keys and any shape and color that you need to unlock a door.Some keys are found in bonus rooms (Challenges and Blockages).The monsters in Daemonhiem are much different from the ones in The outside area of Runescape.The monsters in the dungeons Seem to drop large amounts of items,including money.The money and items seem very Beautiful and great in this game,and are.but you don't get to keep them.After you win and want to leave the dungeon the items you had in the dungeon will be gone.you can Maybe get (or make) them back once you play again.Finally,bosses.The Bosses in this game are sometimes either a higher level than you or lower.Most of them are very unique.One of the hardest and common Bosses for New Dungeoneerers is the Gluttonous Behemoth.This monster Attacks you with brute strength and power.The worst part is if your not standing in front of his food then we will heal very quickly and theres is nothing you can do about it.Once you beat the boss you get a certain item.If you like it and want to keep it throughout The dungeon Realm,right click and click bind.To bind another item you must have a high level in dungeoneering. ShuShumuX3 (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. If you can supply such a reference, please reinstate your request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

N Not done I'm sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a complete guide to RuneScape. Information like this belongs on the RuneScape Wiki. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chiffmonkey, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In 'player reception', although stating that player versus player was removed in 2007, player versus player was infact re-established in 2009. Chiffmonkey (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The reintroduction is already covered in detail in the appropriate section of the article. Is there some aspect of it that needs to be covered in the player reception section? Algebraist 11:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is covered adequately. I find it subjective to say that PvP reappeared on any specific date. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape peer review

I have posted replies to comments made at the last peer review. Comments should be made here as the peer review is now archived. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

Not even one measly sentence on unique Bounty World +1 drops? (Rune Tip It, RunescapeWiki, ect.) Think about it? <http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/pvp_worlds>

I'm sorry, could you please delete one of these two???

 Done —chaos5023 (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Already done - this has been in the article since before the request was made.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Right here, fourth paragraph. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Player Reception/bias overall

I added the second paragraph the the player reception section to off-set the clearly biased first paragraph, but this is a fairly consistent theme. The quotes used throughout are very out of date, especially the "not easy on the eyes" one - made long before the High Detail update. Large parts of the article should be rewritten to reflect the current state of the game. Finding new quotes as well is necessary, I know of several useful ones that I will add in. Lewis06593 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your additions had no sources, so I have removed them again until sources are provided (the forums, or observations made on the forums, are NOT suitable; please don't use them.) Not to mention that they were written with a personally invested tone. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I intended to add sources. I don't think that the tone was incredibly personal, especially compared with the above paragraph. Also, the entire "player reception" section consists of a single event, and not an overall atittude of the game from the players. I concede that the shouting fire metaphor was a bit much. Lewis06593 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it the wrong way, this makes a change from statements of "PLZ ADD INFO ON <insert obscure bit of trivia here>". As for the paragraph in question, it is unbalanced and that was mentioned at the current peer review. Player reception is a constant in RS, but for that reason only really major things should be included - sources may include statements from fansites (the Tip.It Times comes to mind). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a source for the fansite information, I assume using the Runescape knowledge base is acceptable? Lewis06593 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what page of the KB you were planning to use. We may already be using it somewhere in the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The fansite section, so I doubt it. Not exactly sure how to insert in-text citations, so here's the link: http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/fansites Lewis06593 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I was just looking at that page, and no, it's not in the article. Silly question, but how does it relate to player reception? Or did you want to use it in the bit of the article on fansites? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To quote myself, "I have a source for the fansite information", so... But, can you insert that source and fix that section up? Lewis06593 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... No promises, though. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, don't have any worries. Lewis06593 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the bit about Jagex not recognising fansites as that wasn't borne out by the source. Unfortunately, there's not a huge amount of pertinent information so I couldn't exactly revamp the paragraph. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as it no longer directly contradicts Jagex's actual position, that's fine. Lewis06593 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a news release by Jagex about the Machinima competition http://services.runescape.com/m=news/newsitem.ws?id=2119&allcat=true, I suggest replacing the part in the third community article about the restriction of web-address sharing with this. Lewis06593 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why that would affect web-address sharing, especially as that rule hasn't changed since May 2009. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Taken care of. If this goes ahead I shall have to request the "reviewer" right. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(will also post on WT:VG) I do intend to change the protection level from semi-protection to Level 1 Pending Changes when the software gets turned on, which should be shortly (unless another admin beats me to the punch, that is). –MuZemike 22:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There went a genuine IP revision and acceptance! - at least I assume it was genuine..... Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Genuine enough. If it wasn't, I might have zapped it with my new reviewing toys. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think what happened was that when I went to make the edit to change the template [1], the IP butted in right (good edit, BTW) before I could [2]. I thought my edits would be automatically accepted (since I'm an admin), unless the previous edits need to be accepted first. –MuZemike 23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to do the same thing for other similar game articles that have been semi-protected for years. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's slowly going to be rolled out to other articles. Right now you can see more information about the pending changes trial for video games at this discussion here at the video games Wikiproject. Eventually it'll be rolled out for all of them, I'd guess. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I only started watching this page to help with the pending changes trial, so forgive me if this is a stupid question: Why is this article such a target for vandals. -23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The primary demographic that plays the game is also the primary demographic for vandalism here, we are ever so fortunate to be a primary search engine return. Gnangarra 23:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And the fact that I'd never heard of it until I saw it in the pending changes trial queue more or less confirms that. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll start keeping track of the ratios between accepted and "rejected" edits. I urge others to do the same on other articles to evaluate the effectiveness. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I requested pending protection on this article on the basis that there might be plenty of anonymous editors with good intentions. Based on how many reverts I've seen to this article, that has not been confirmed, but I'll be checking the anon edits made to this page since protection was initated to confirm that.

On the other hand, vandalism levels are not massively high, so they don't really justify going back to semi-protection (and I'm worried that protection won't be restored once the pending trial ends.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the history, and there's a lot of IP vandalism lately. I fully support moving this to level 1 pending changes protection, or back to semi-protection.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 03:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I misunderstood. Scratch that.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 03:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What to do with images?

Now that the peer review has been closed, we should look at the images being used in the article, and whether they meet the non-free content criteria. We presently have 5 images being used under fair-use, and per criteria 3 this is too many and one or two should be removed.

The 5 images affected are:

• The RuneScape logo - I can see no issue with using this.
• Image of RS-Classic combat - this is the only image of RS-Classic in the article and could be used to compare RSC to modern-day RS. I see no issue with keeping this image.
• Image of person fishing - a typical skill in RS. Not sure which way to go on this one.
• Image of TzTok-Jad - I'm not sure how much this adds to the article. Jad is hardly a typical NPC.
• Image of random event - if a non-player looks at this, all they'll see is a character doing a star-jump. Players will know this is a random event, the general audience won't.

Personally, I would definitely lose the image of a random event, but that may not be enough. Does anyone else want to share their opinion? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with taking out the random event pic - it seems almost like cruft to me...Nolelover (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not knowing anything about this game, I thought that the image of the random event was useful. I found the attempt to stop cheating interesting and I appreciated the image demonstrating what a player may look like doing one of these events. But if star-jumping is a regular part of the game, I can see how the image is no useful. The prose and caption may better describe what is going on, but it feels more meaningful than #3 or #4 because it shows a unique aspect of the game; fishing and NPCs are not uncommmon in video games. Although your point is taken about #2, right now it seems trivial; it could be more meaningful if the article explains the changes in gameplay from Classic, but it just feels like a needless picture of a Beta version at the moment. —Ost (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I reverted the removal of some images today in the hopes of getting further discussion. So, to pick at the points:

1. You could be right about #2, since RSC only constitutes a small portion of the article, and discussing gameplay changes would be trivia (although describing RSC as a beta is inaccurate, it was an actual game.)
2. Fishing is certainly not uncommon, but it's difficult to think of a skill that is both unique and can be conveyed through an image. This may well be a candidate for removal.
3. Number 4 is most certainly a candidate to be removed. Though not a good argument, consider that the image caption discusses "player fighting NPC", and an alert person would note that the player is actually just standing still and not interacting at all. In any case, it doesn't say a lot to me.
4. Number 5 could be allowed to stay - most of the events are pretty unique. To be fair, without an image, the Random Events section would seem even shorter than it is now (there's not a huge amount to say on the subject, and the third paragraph doesn't seem necessary.) This one will probably remain. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Closure

First, my apologies - I had intended to close this some time ago, but I have no Internet access at home and won't do for some time, so I've thought about it some more.

• Although there's not much to indicate a consensus, the impression I get is that the image of Jad is not useful.
• Fishing is a common activity which could be summed up using the article on fishing. In any case, this makes having an image of a player fishing somewhat redundant.

To that end, unless someone argues otherwise, these images will be removed. Anyone who wants to offer a new opinion can revert be, but please explain why. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for article's improvement

The article is not organized at all, I'll make a list of suggestions that (I hope that) should be considered for its improvement:

• The article's sandbox is not fully filled, it lacks some details including its mode, rating, the media is not clear enough and the system requirements look too dull.
• The Gameplay section should be the first one, inside it, there should be info about Characters, Setting (inside Setting, Quests, Skills, Combat, PvP, Interaction, Economy, Events and I think Chat System should be put inside interaction hence player communication is a type of interaction), Subscription and Miscellaneous.
• There should be a section about Runescape's early and recent development and projection into the history (The development of DeviousMud, the actual Runescape classic release, the beta RS2 and its release and worldwide release, because the games has server spread across the globe, the release of RunescapeHD and future development. A sub section about audio environment within this would be great for article's sake.
• The article lacks reviews and reception by critics this is very important for the relevance and reliability of the article.
• The article lacks a section about problems, controversies and issues.
• The article used to have a section about its server, now it is gone, but it should be brought back with a cleanup.
• The novel needs a section within the article.
• The community section needs an overhaul.

The problem of writing a good article about games and online games is that inside wikipedia there are few article for reference, template and style, but there are (somewhat) well written articles, and runescape's one should follow they criteria. These include EverQuest, Warhammer Online and World of Warcraft.

Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Once sections are expanded, sub-articles should be created to keep and maintain the article clean. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

New major fansite link.

http://belo.dk/ is a new fansite. Is it posible to add the link? Stras77 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:ELNO discourages "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.", and English-language links are preferred. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What McGeddon said. Only the top-ranked fansites can be linked (which says something since having lots of fansite links is discouraged anyway.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dredpk, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to edit some of this information because i find some of it incorrect.

Dredpk (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. Semi-protected articles can only be edited by "autoconfirmed accounts". If you want to request a change to the article, say so and someone will have a look for you. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Betrayal at Falador

Betrayal at Falador, a novel based on RuneScape, was originally released as a limited-edition in 2008 and has now been mass-released as a paperback. Unfortunately, the last article on it didn't make the grade, but I've found some secondary sources and think it might have a chance. Before I recreate the article, I want to be sure it's good enough (or not).

I've created a subpage at User:1ForTheMoney/Betrayal at Falador. Please feel free to comment. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like the sourcing is strong enough to stand up at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be, but I haven't found any more secondary sources (reviews especially, as not all sources agree on the release date). Any pointers would be nice as I don't see this as a hopeless cause. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Small detail

Hey, not a big change, just noticed as I was skimming the article that you called runes "runestones." I play runescape and that's not what there called. Maybe just change to runes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolrok (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly true, but the term "runes" is ambiguous and redirects to an unrelated page. Although we could link to "runic magic", I'm not sure how relevant it is. Bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't go for jargon or in-universe terms. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I was about to change it to "runes" (and I thought I did), but "runestones" is a more specific term, that really describes what they are anyway. In fact, I think they are called runestones on several occasions.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Crufty sections

Specifically the "Random events" and "Economy" sections. RE aren't even that big within the game, and I don't see why we should have more then a couple sentences in the article. Same with economy. Does that really need it's own section? I really don't think we'll ever get to GA with stuff like that in there. Furthermore, could we merge and shorten "Chat system" into "Community"? and then maybe rename that section (Player interaction, Player community, etc.)? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your points aren't the only thing keeping this article from GA, but here we go...

• Recently an editor removed a superfluous chunk of the section on Random Events, and I then took out another sentence. Kinda shows it's not that noteworthy - perhaps we can mention it under "Rules and cheating"? This might also mean we can remove that image of a random event, and thus have only 3 non-free images in the article (4 is kinda pushing it).
• If we look critically at the "Economy" section, much of the second paragraph doesn't seem necessary, or is that just me? Parts of the first paragraph (namely player-to-player trades) look like they could be merged into a section on player interaction. The chat system, also being a form of player interaction, can be cut down to fill out the rest of this new area.
• If a section on player interaction is made, does this mean we need to rename the "Reception" section already in the article to something like "NPC interaction", just to be disambiguous? I'm not sure.

I'll post more points if the need arises. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with 1. We lose cruft, and a non-free. We can keep the first paragraph of economy, or at least merge parts, like you said. I had thought about us having to rename the NPC section, but I wasn't going to bring that up until I knew whether or not we would do it in the first place. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 02:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points I hadn't noticed before. To properly distinguish player-NPC interaction from player-to-player interaction, the third paragraph of the "Interaction" section also needs to move, since that's about minigames and such. I'm also wondering whether it should be mentioned under "Rules and cheating" that players can be muted as a form of punishment (although this is really for a specific rule and could be left out without much bother.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We could put the mini-games section under Quests....and I wouldn't feel bad about leaving out the muting point. Anyways, here's what we have so far:

1. Random Events, and its associated picture, are totally removed, or briefly mentioned in Rules and Cheating.
2. The second paragraph of Economy is removed, and the first is merged into a new Player Community/Interaction section. How about leaving the Community section as is and calling the new section In-Game Player Interaction, etc. That or we could separate Interaction into Player and NPC. This way Community would continue to discuss forums, fansites, Jagex, and other "out-game" stuff.
3. Chat system is also shortened and merged into that section.
4. Minigames > Quests?
5. Muting players is removed.

Also:

1. Second sentence on tombstones, in the Combat section, is removed.
2. Last sentence of second paragraph in Combat section is removed. This seems redundant coming after the previous sentence.

Your thoughts? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I keep thinking there's too much on combat, but I've never put my finger on why. As for a "player interaction" section, I produced a mock-up of what one might look like, having copied and pasted three relevant paragraphs. I would post it here, but I haven't figured out how. Or should I just go ahead? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We can always revert. Do it! :) Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, a section on player reception has been produced. It's been slotted between the "Community" and "Rules and cheating" sections for the moment, although since it's gameplay I'm gonna move it again.

• The "Economy" and "Chat system" sections have been made redundant, so they've been removed.
• The "Random events" section has been left for the moment, so we'll come to that.
• What was "Interaction" is now "NPC interaction". Could/should be changed to "Non-player interaction" to avoid an abbreviated title. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Now what about the RE section? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not worth keeping around, although I'm just wondering how to incorporate it into "Rules and cheating", since it's used as an anti-cheat measure. I'll get right on it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

One more :). Is the last paragraph of PvP combat (on bounty worlds) really necessary? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 01:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we mention bounty worlds in two different paragraphs. How about we merge the last paragraph of PvP combat into the second paragraph, where there is a natural transition. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 01:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got no issue with that. The last paragraph is mostly cruft anyway. (And in fact, I've just had a go.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. I'll tell you if I see anything else. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

While the article still has some cruft and sourcing issues, this article appears to be vastly improved from the last time I saw it. It is far better off than the other MMORPG articles I have seen, that is for sure. IAmSasori (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's always work to do - see the points below if you'd like to help. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To be done

For readability, I'm splitting this into its own section. The main issues to be resolved before any GA push (as I see them) are:

• 3rd paragraph of "Graphics and sound" is mostly dated information and needs to be merged into other paragraphs, assuming it's still accurate. This is no longer an issue as I've gone ahead and nuked it.
• "Player reception" has an unsourced statement, which I'm intending to remove. The whole section focuses on a particular incident and might want to be expanded to more general stuff.
• Do we need more secondary sources? Many references are from the RuneScape website, although that might be unavoidable. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a closer look at the sources: a lot of them came from either runescape.com or jagex.com. More secondary sources, preferably not from other gaming sites, would be a necessity to improving this article, as it'll give more real world references that shows the relevance of the topic to non-player readers. IAmSasori (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's basically what the third point is about: using sources that are not affiliated with Jagex. Of course, secondary sources aren't appropriate everywhere. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not appropriate everywhere yes. The idea is that they are properly used. Just slapping on a source without using it/having a tiny mention does not constitute appropriate usage, which occurs quite often in the other articles. I have not read thoroughly enough to say that this issue occurred in this article also. IAmSasori (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Doing this quickly; will return to this tomorrow) I don't know for certain (I just made this edit which effectively removed 5 primary sources.) Certainly, the balance of primary/secondary sources is not ideal. Because RS has been explored through media such as novels and other games, I did think about making an "In Other Media" section, but it would be very short. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

An "In Other Media" section may work, and size doesn't really matter as it could be expanded (of course, secondary sources are still required). I wouldn't suggest doing it though, as "In Other Media" is often very similar to the "Trivia" sections from a good time ago which, if I am not mistaken, were ridden of. IAmSasori (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Yes, I find that trivia sections are discouraged because they're usually too trivial to mention (hence the title). On the other hand, the lead mentions that RS has been explored in other media; anything in the lead is expected to be covered in the article. So we either make the section, or remove that bit of the lead. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fan artwork

Okay, we need to decide about this image. Does it stay? I personally agree with it being taken out, despite it being free-licence (which is not a reason in and of itself to have a picture included). Thoughts? Let's refrain from an all-out edit war. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This applies as well. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 16:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested before that there should be fanart in the Communities section a while back in the discussions to avoid having too many fair use images. The fanart serves the purpose appropriately for this reason.

The fanart is far more appropriate than a basic map showing locations of servers that is likely to be glanced over. Tarikochi 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to link to that discussion, since this isn't the first example of claiming consensus that didn't exist. I'm all for more free-license images, but they still need to be useful to the article. A single example of fanart isn't useful when we can simply link to the Players' Gallery which has lots more examples. (If you're really concerned, I've asked that the latest offline version of Wikipedia use a version of this article including your image, provided that they act on it.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That drawing should stay. Before reading this article, I didnt know that there was a community with people who drew things related to Runescape. That picture was a useful example of one of the things people drew. I agree with Tarikochi. That drawing is more useful than that pointless map. 99.98.187.106 (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The ultimate question is: does having an image significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic, which is the guiding principle for images? If so, have an image, and if not, don't. (I'm not against using fan-art if it's useful to the topic, I'm just annoyed that it has to be the same character.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A reader would be able to understand the magnitude of the RuneScape community's effort more thoroughly if they were to see an example of good artwork. Tarikochi 03:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

But as editors, our job is not to make sure that readers understand just how "awesome" RS is, or how it has more fans then WoW, or how well their fans can draw. Does the image make the article more encyclopedic? That's the only question. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 16:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is one suggestion in regards to using fan art. It conveniently even mentioned the fair use issue. I am sure you can find more discussions if you're willing to dig into the archives.

The fan art image is useful as it shows a notable example of drawings created by those not affiliated to Jagex. It is an example of artwork drawn based on the setting within RuneScape.

Linking would not work, as Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Tarikochi 03:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(Tarikochi's comment moved for readability.) Your link is from over 3 years ago, and image policy on Wikipedia, and definitions of "what the article needs", has shifted in that time; a more recent discussion may well be needed. I should note that we already use the Players' Gallery on the RS website as a reference to show examples of artwork. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you (1ForTheMoney) have a personal bias against Tarikochi rather than any legitimate reason as to why the image should be removed. This shows when you changed the Runescape Classic image simply because Tarikochi made it, even though your image is essentially no different.

I see no problem with that image. There's already a lack of images on the article to begin with and removing a free image that can only improve the article does not make the article any better. The reasons the others have stated is good enough of a reason for it to stay.

Being "annoyed that it has to be the same character" is not is a good reason for it to be removed.64.134.103.25 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna throw up my hands here. Yes, I would like more free images, and I'm not the one to provide them. Yes, I'm being biased and I shouldn't, because there's a history of image contributions which are well-intentioned if a little unrealistic. Yes, my comments about using the same character aren't helpful at the moment, but I don't want those problems to resurface when they can be avoided easily (it's free to change your character's look).

I admit it - images annoy me because I can't do anything about them, whereas with text I can just tap the keyboard. But in order to avoid driving away contributors who can work with images, I'm gonna stay out of this one. Does that work for you? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Working with images, I imagine, would be far more difficult than making simple text edits in an article. A lot of effort must have been taken for the contributor to obtain the image, and having it removed for poor reasons would not go well for them. It certainly doesn't help that there's already a strict limit on fair use images. Attacking the free images is not the most generous thing you can do for both that contributor and the article itself. Removing the images is comparable to putting up the entire Runescape article for deletion and it successfully passing, disregarding the efforts of those who have contributed (it does appear that Tarikochi did not draw that image him/herself, so it wasn't only Tarikochi's efforts that would have been wasted). This especially applies if such images do not even break any policies.

Image contributors are badly taken for granted. I'm surprised Tarikochi wasn't driven away by such policies. If I had a talk page like his/hers, I would certainly not be motivated to contribute images any more. 64.134.103.25 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not notice it earlier in this section, but are you talking about this fan-art drawing from [3] this edit in the community section? If so, I see no problem with it being included in this article. It's a free image which helped improve the article. If it was a non-free image, then it would be a different story.

As for whether or not the fan-art is useful: that is a very silly question. It improves the article and people have already given their input on why it is useful. "It isn't useful enough" is subjective and a poor reason to remove it, especially before discussing about it first. I would say to look at WP:IGNORE, but I do not think this image even broke any rules in the first place. Removing it, however, is certainly keeping it from improving (or maintaining) the article.

There are more important things to worry about, such as the remaining cruft that still exists on this article. IAmSasori (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can put this discussion to bed and say that the image may not appear to be useful, but it is an improvement. So I won't argue if it is readded. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, I will restore it myself if you do not mind. Good luck on getting the GA status on this article. IAmSasori (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's good that it's settled. I find the existence of this discussion silly myself. 64.134.103.25 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Adabon, 18 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please replace:

On 18 October 2010, RuneScape's game engine was updated to allow "real world" sound effects, replacing the synthesised sounds used previously.[87]

With:

On 18 October 2010, RuneScape's game engine was updated to allow "real world" sound effects, in addition to the synthesised sounds used previously.[87]

Because the former is incorrect.

Also, the reference was from Mod Bond, not Mod Bono.

Adabon (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First is  Not done, because the source says "We have now updated the game engine to allow us to add ‘real’ sound effects instead of synthesised ones". The second is  Done - not sure how I let that happen. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but only a minority of sounds have actually been replaced, so I've slightly edited it for clarity Muskeato 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to "instead of" to avoid using words like some/many, which are a bit vague. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

Could we list some more quest series? Just like a few more important ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollersox (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a game guide. It's also subjective to describe particular quest series as important. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

a few more quests listed here has nothing to do with game guides. Important quests include rune mysteries (introduces rune skills) and other quests that introduce skills, useful items, and pets. Please recheck the quests you put in here, as they are not in the least important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domecraft (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - Sorry, I don't see any quests that we could add without making it too game guidey. The longest series (Plague City) is in there, and general ideas are in there, and that's probably about all.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 03:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Who makes these users in "charge" of the contributions to a public wiki? I think you both should take time to review the guidelines for Wikipedia contributions. If the person can cite legitimate references on a contribution, then all the rollbacks in the world are only going to make you look like a vandal. This is not what being an admin or useful contributor to Wikipedia is about. It is not about what you "think" is the right thing to put in a wiki, its about following the guidelines and allowing the free flow of information as long as it is reputable and it maintains the factual basis for information reference. If this same ideology was applied to military pages, then pages for operations in the middle east would not be allowed to exist as wikis. Perhaps, I would suggest, making another page which lists the quests as a factual account of what occurs during these quests, not as a guide to completion, but as a reference to the existence of game content. Just an idea. Aetern142 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not in charge of anything (although it seems that way). It's just that we don't want to write a game-guide with everything that exists or has ever existed on RuneScape. It's simply not manageable. Also note that reverting good-faith edits isn't necessarily vandalism - edits can be good-faith but still not helpful. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

{edit} I agree that there needs to be more of the important quests added in. IE Wolfs Whistle. This is the quest that actually allows you to use the Summoning skill. You mention all of the skills in the game but not the fact that there are three different skills which you must do a quest before you can even use a freaking exp lamp to raise the skill. please add the important quests as it will add more depth into how the game mechanics work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.12.250 (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, it will also be too trivial. So  Not done. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

At that point why not at least add to the quests or skills section one that some skills are unlocked by the quests? or put the quests in parentheses after the skill to show the connection. IE "...Summoning"(After Wolf Whistle quest) in that case it isn't a major addition and will satisfy those who know about the game and think it needs to be added...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enm7 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because you've misunderstood the target audience. Keep in mind that this article isn't written for people who know about RuneScape, it's for people who want a general, encyclopedic overview of the subject. Things like "players can do quests" is fine, while "players need quest X to unlock skill Y" is not. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

At least add that skills are also rewards in the Quests section as it mentions different rewards. This is neither specific nor is it something that you would have to play the game to know.

Yes, for exactly 3 quests out of close to 170 (yes, I keep count.) Rewards are only mentioned because they apply to the vast majority of quests and therefore count as general information. So  Not done - please stop asking. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please add an article on the controversy behind the report system. For example, why does Jagex feel they can permanently ban paying players without giving evidence of their offence, not allowing players to contact them or giving a personal response.

(Neofighterx5 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

This is almost certainly not going to happen unless you provide a reliable source that we can draw on for the purpose. The way you're presenting it, it's very much about personal axe-grinding regarding Jagex's business practices, which is not what Wikipedia is for. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Make that "definitely not going to happen". I personally am unaware of any controversy, so (excusing a lack of good-faith) at best this is an exaggeration, at worst someone with, as Chaos puts it, an axe to grind. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, some add the refferendum of wilderness and free trade. This is pretty major part, but since I kind of suck at editing, can you guys do it? Jun Hao Wu 06:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juwu7 (talk • contribs)

We've got that already. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1 February 2011

The pre-2007 wilderness will be re-added to the game tomorrow, so should the article be edited in advance? --43?9enter (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)43

Not really, just in case there's a last-minute change. I plan to deal with this later (I've even written a new, shorter, section on PvP combat to account for the changes) but there's no harm in waiting for a bit. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Image diversity

Am I the only tired of looking at the exact same character in every screenshot on this page? Even the fanart picture is of this character. It's not even a typical looking character, which is what we should try to include in screenshots to show how the game normally looks. There used to be a screenshot of another character, but it was recently removed. --66.169.101.69 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since most of our screenshots are done by one person, that's probably inevitable. We got rid of the fishing picture because it wasn't useful (then again, neither is that fanart. If User:Tarikochi sees this, I apologise, but I detect a hint of showing off.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember, we can't have too many non-free images in the article that are similar in nature. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The fan-art appears to be under a free license, but you're correct. I see 4 non-free images, including the logo. That might be too many. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd, that all of the in-game images, and even the free fanart are actually all of the same person's account. If you take a look at the images, they are all from the same source. It kinda makes the article look like some kind of shrine to one person's character. I recognize this same issue from the RuneScape Wiki and great lengths were taken there to assure that images weren't all of the same character (in the same outfit, etc etc). I would hope the this article would use images from different users in the same way. Thanks, 72.240.84.105 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, you've put your finger on it there as they are the same person. Trouble is, nobody else is willing to contribute images (and putting more in the article is a bad idea anyway, due to the minimum use criteria for non-free images), so somebody has to replace the existing shots with equivalents showing different characters. I'd do so but I've always kept my Wikipedia and RuneScape lives fairly seperate. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I have replaced the RSC image with one that isn't as glamourous, but serves an equivalent purpose (it's my character but it doesn't matter as much on RSC). I've also removed the fan-art image because ultimately, it had no purpose other than to show off someone's work. There's a place for that and it's not here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of free images from the RuneScape Wiki. 76.180.164.245 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but we're not the RuneScape Wiki. Our definition of "useful image" is very different from theirs. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

cheating

I would like to see some information added regarding the negative effects of Jagex's anti cheating programs, such as when an account is banned for legitimate activity. I am not familiar with any reliable source on the issue, but I think it would be reckless not to mention it, as well as Jagex's policy on not providing proof in "cheating" cases. Also, I would like to see info on the apparent lack of attention paid to appeals, youtube videos confirm that users with legit appeals remain banned, and non-real appeals are approved. I can link two videos specifically to illustrate the issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That there's no reliable source is exactly why there's no information on the subject. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

just a quickie: i notice the first image used of the graphical user interface is in low quality, i think it would be worth mentioning this as people viewing that poor quality image may judge the game before theyve even played it. i.e "A screenshot of the typical user interface in RuneScape on the minimum graphical settings." As it looks far far better on the higher graphical settings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zukias (talk • contribs) 09:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Without further images to compare the screenshot with it isn't possible to say that the image is low/high quality (we don't make judgements of quality anyway, for neutrality and original research reasons.) From personal experience, I'm fairly sure that image uses higher graphical settings anyway, but unless a person has actually played RS in high graphical detail they won't know any better. Our aim is to provide information, not encourage people to play. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Free trade and PvP Referendum

As a former player of Runescape I have been e-mail, within the last few days, that there is currently a user referendum to repeal the ban on Free-trade and PvP battles in the Wilderness. It may be worth putting this on the page but as this is protected I can't. If someone thinks that this would be useful could they make the necessary adjustments. Thanks Shadoinslomo (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the section on rules and cheating, and when the outcome is known it will be included as well (I haven't had much Internet access but that should change soon!). When I wrote it, I made it a single sentence to avoid putting too much weight on a single event. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

2 small edits

Can you mention how leveling up is signaled by fireworks and how when you get level 99 you get a bigger show

Under community about the events can you say about the event for winter where high leveled players can kill the hati wolf for a decorative mask and a pair of gloves with a limited charge that gives you 2x combat xp --Ulmuchiha (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't add to an uninterested party's knowledge of the game. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Leveling up and holiday events are both already mentioned in the article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid both of these are too trivial to mention. Levelling up is mentioned, holiday events are mentioned, but only the really core stuff. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this edit acceptable?

I'm worried that this analysis is a bit dubious in its material.

• The thing reads like an analysis and makes suppositions about China and gold-trading. It is not our job to analyse sources or events - we use secondary sources for that.
• The second reference appears to be a site that collects information on accounts and has a price parameter. At a glance this indicates a site that sells accounts - if so, should we be linking to such material?
• The third reference appears to be a website for a bot. Again, this doesn't strike me as a great source.

Opinions, please. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The section is WP:OR, and should be removed just based on that. The paragraph on China has nothing to do with the article, unless it's an example of something that "has gone unexamined in much detail." The second, third and fourth links do not link to any prose that actually supports something stated in the section, and the chinese-brouhaha link is not WP:RELIABLE-looking either. All told, this is gone. If Scarmudgeon continues to push this, he will be in violation of WP:3RR, and I'd consider asking for a short page protection or block. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd revert it again, but I'm treading on 3RR as well and I don't know If I can get away with it (the edits aren't vandalism, just very very bad.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also left a talkback notice on his talk linking to this discussion. Just so he doesn't have any excuses... Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Another edit by Scarmudgeon

Give him time to ref it. Then we can take action. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It belongs on the Jagex article rather than here, but if references are found we can move it rather than delete it. I think Gamasutra had something on this - let me check. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking as well. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed that it was already being discussed here...and I've already removed it. It belongs on the Jagex article if anywhere. --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've dug up the Gamasutra link. It talks about Jagex being denied a preliminary injunction in the case. More will be required on how the case began and progressed, but it provides links to other pages that should do the trick. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 No you're right, Onorem. I did find this though. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

whatever you guys do, i'm gonna counter it

you're all paid people from jagex trying to spin the message and revise history. you can't stop Wiki. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to respond, but since I'm shredding 3RR to bits fighting with you, I have no choice. We try to help you build a well-referenced piece on Jagex's lawsuit, you make unfounded accusations of spin. We tell you your sources aren't reliable, you jam it back in without discussion. You're being disruptive and I would ask you to stop. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Me? working for Jagex? I'm a broke teen without a job - I wish I was. Unless you have proof for your claims, please stop bringing them up. All you are doing is making acusations and pushing the same material when multiple editors have explainged why is doesn't belong here. Please calm down. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 17:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Closure

Since User:Scarmudgeon has been blocked for 48h for edit-warring, I've requested a return to indefinite semi-protection as he was the only one fighting to keep the material in. Thanks to imminent changes in the game, I want to make an edit to the section on PvP combat to account for these changes. If trouble resumes, we can just apply for more full-protection. Are there any further problems? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I think that's about it. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 01:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an idea

To expand this article, we should add a list of quests, and their plots. I am a professional at Runescape, so i can help with that quite a bit. What do you think?UserDarkJak495 talk orange 23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't suitable for Wikipedia, since we're not a game guide (see this as well; it covers information not suitable for video game articles). The RuneScape Wiki would be a better place for it, but I imagine they already have this info. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I can see that Wikipedia is not a game guide, but if you look at the article Elder Scrolls: Oblivian, you will find a quest, and the plot. If I were to make a list of quests, and write the plot down as well, it is not a guide, it is saying what is happening in the quest. Please tell me what you think. Cheers!UserDarkJak495 talk orange 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's a bad idea, partly because it would massively bloat the article (there are 170+ quests. I know. I've done them all.), partly because it would be classed as "excessive fictional detail", and partly because one article having such information doesn't mean it needs to be included in another. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• What would you say if I said I would pick some major quests? I wouldn't be listing all of them, but I would be listing the major ones. Hows that?UserDarkJak495 talk orange 23:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of a similar discussion here a couple of months ago. We'd have to decide which quest series are "major", how many and how much detail to include, and so on. Trust me, this won't happen and it isn't worth the bother. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• What if it helps the article go up to a good article status? Can you at least give me a chance on it?UserDarkJak495 talk orange 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just can't let this one fly, and when the article was delisted from GA a few years ago it was positively riddled with this sort of information. To me, adding this sort of information would just push the article further from GA. I'm sorry, but the bottom line is that the article will not have stuff like this. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I agree with you, but what can I do to get it up to GA status again?UserDarkJak495 talk orange 00:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

First thing would be to look at our to-do list - it's up at the top of this page as well. At present, the main problems are that we don't have enough secondary (non-Jagex) sources in the article, the Reception section needs more critical review, and the Player Reception section needs more general information. For now, that's the main stuff. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, what about the books that came out for Runescape. I own them, and I could do something on that!UserDarkJak495 talk orange 00:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Last comment for now since I need sleep) It depends on the books. We got "Betrayal at Falador" and I have some sources to confirm that. It doesn't even have to be books - any media (videos, films, other games, etc.) that you can find good reliable sources for is fair game. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

External Links

If you add Sal Realms to the external links, it would be very good. Sal Realms has every thing you would ever need to know about Runescape. UserDarkJak495 talk orange 13:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been many discussions (I'll try to link to them, or you can just look through the archives) about the external links, and consensus has always been the three that are presently there now. Sal's Realm was actually linked in the past. Sorry, but if we add Sal, then what's to say we shouldn't add five more? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 13:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that the consensus is to have the top 3 fansites according to Alexa traffic ranks, and those top 3 sites have not changed in several years. Sal's is presently 4th according to traffic ranks and has been for a long time. This comes up so often that it's in the Frequently Asked Questions for this talk page. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

February 1, 2011 RuneScape update

Jagex updated RuneScape 1 February, 2011, bringing back player-versus-player combat and free trade which was removed in December 2007, following a vote in which over 90% of players voted Yes, that they wanted to two to return. This information should be added to the Player Reception section of the article which discusses the removal. 99.117.82.109 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, we already have this information in the "Rules and Cheating" section, but should we put it in Player Reception as well? It is a form of player reaction to an update, but I don't want the entire section to just be about a single event (to be fair, it already is, and this wouldn't help). I'll wait for other opinions on this. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this should go in until we have more sources. The rest of the section has plenty of references detailing what the updates did to the amount of players. We just know that 90% of players voted "yes". That could mean a lot of things, so lets wait a while. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will try to get some sources, but in order to do that, I must be told what player versus player combat and free trade is. Then I will do my best for the sources. Cheers!UserDarkJak495 talk 00:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This will cover PvP combat and this covers the trade system. You'll also need to read the last paragraph of this to understand the history here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't get it. I can't get to the link that covers the free trade stuff. Does anyone know what is wrong?UserDarkJak495 talk 00:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I deliberately used an external link since we don't have much information on the trade system. Any info we do have is found here. On a side note, while the referendum to restore content was picked up by a couple of websites (Gamasutra and Eurogamer), I'm wary of using them as player reception. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

5 March 2011

I apologize in advance for faux pas; this is my first comment on a Wikipedia article. The section that discusses the referendum is in error. I have posted a comment on the source article footnoted #99. 90% of players DID NOT vote in favor of the referendum; 91% of VOTES CAST were in favor, but "yes" voters multivoted in huge numbers (by very frequent admission on the forum thread debating the topic - 5 and 10 votes per "yes" voter were not uncommon by these admissions), while "no" voters tended strongly to vote honestly, i.e. once per player (I saw ZERO evidence/admissions of multiple "no" voters). Thus the true percentage of PLAYERS in favor is unknowable to all but Jagex employees.24.130.171.10 (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Warren Houghton

Welcome to Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, if you have a source for that, the current erroneous information must be removed.43?9enter (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(I've moved to its own section to keep things in order) Rather than changing the article, I can just change the source. Eurogamer is assuming that 1 vote = 1 person, when in fact 1 vote = 1 account would be more accurate (although we can't put that in this article). Gamasutra picked up on the referendum as well and they say "1.2 million votes", not "1.2 million people voted". I will switch over to them. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to {{dmoz}}, do we need direct links to fansites anymore?

For a number of years, the consensus has been to link to the three fansites with the highest traffic rankings according to Alexa Internet. See this discussion for more. Because the position of "the top 3" has never shifted, we have never needed to revisit this consensus, although there are a few potential issues with this approach.

• Fansites are links that should normally be avoided, although in our case that may or may not be an issue.
• Strictly speaking, having 3 fansites can be seen as external link spam or can encourage further spam. Again, this isn't a major issue here as semi-protection keeps most potential spammers away, but it's better to prevent a problem than solve it.
• We use a fourth fansite in our references (see ref numbers 26 and 77), so it could be argued that we're breaching our own consensus and linking to more sites than necessary.

Recently, a link to the Open Directory Project was added to the article. This directory provides links to websites related to the subject, including a number of fansites. My point is: do we need to keep linking to fansites when someone else can do that for us without our restrictions on external links and spam?

I want to test the waters by discussing this. Is it valid, or am I making a big deal out of nothing? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Can this replace reference 26? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43?9enter (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me (even if it is a bit out of date, our general audience won't know that.) I'll make the necessary change. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Replacement to reference 77 here. 43?9enter (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikis aren't reliable sources because they can change at any time, and there's no guarantee that they're accurate. Same reason you shouldn't rely exclusively on Wikipedia, come to that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to 1ForTheMoney's question...

If we can get away with putting the Open Directory link and removing the links we currently have to fansites, then lets do it. The fansites only cause problems, as can be told by the archives, and they are discouraged anyway. I see no reason to keep the fansites, other then maybe the wiki. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nolelover. It's quite likely we'll have some sort of huge debate here after the fansites have been removed, of course. ;) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, the RuneScape Wiki is not classed as a fansite, so they've always been exempt. But anyway...

At the moment there is a 3-paragraph hidden comment explaining why we have that many links, so we can just replace that with a short note explaining the reason for the change, similar to {{NoMoreLinks}}. Trouble is, we can't have less links because nobody can agree on which site to use, and having more links just makes the problem worse, which DMOZ solves because they can have all the links they want. Ideally, there should be a way to note that DMOZ includes links to fansites so that people will know to look at it, but if not, they'll just have to bookmark them. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference 77 - Why did I not think of this earlier? http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/forums That was so obvious...43?9enter (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really a problem. Fansites and the knowledge base are both primary sources. I only use fansites when dealing with something that wouldn't appear in the KB. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Now I see the problem. Reference 77 deals with the limitations of the forums (no automatic signatures, image posting, text formatting, etc.), so we need a source that deals with those things. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Closure (possibly?)

Alright, this discussion has been open for 2 weeks. While it hasn't garnered a huge discussion, we seem to agree (or at least, we don't disagree) that the fansites should go. I'm not hopeful that leaving this open will attract more discussion, but I can't think of a suitable way to advertise it. As I see it, a Wikipedian not familiar with local consensus would wonder why we have 3 fansites when that goes against external link guidelines (although we could just say we're ignoring the rules), while readers might argue that they provide useful information and should be kept (although since we're not getting rid of the RuneScape Wiki that argument could be refuted.)

By digging through the archives, I've found that current consensus came at a time when there were a lot more active editors and a lot more arguments over what content to include (leading to lots of sub-articles that took a long time to remove.) Nowadays it is very different, since there is just one article and very few regular editors. As I see it, there is a valid consensus to remove the fansites, and we're capable of dealing with the arguments likely to come our way following this. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm being bold and removing the fansites - if anyone disagrees please revert and post here. There's still the possibility that we'll have some sort of huge debate after I remove them (when regular readers realize they've been removed), but I'm hoping we won't have too much drama as a result. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC) (If someone could write a better comment to leave on the page where the fansites were that would be great ;) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

I've modified it to be a little more forceful (on the assumption that people will notice when DO NOT is written in all-caps.) I've also noted that people should use the ODP for links. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Return to Canifis

1FortheMoney, could you insert sources about the Return to Canifis book? I just don't get the reference format for this article. Here is the amazon page. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added your ref to the article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer Nolelover's query, this article uses list-defined references, where the references are seperate from the main body of the article because in the past, we had so many references that they cluttered up the edit box. As for the reference, I'd rather use something other than Amazon but this isn't much better Actually, no, that's probably good enough - I'd rather provide a review, not an excerpt. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

RuneScape losing 60k players?

The player reception paragraph sources that RuneScape lost 60k subscribers when they removed free trade/pking.

The source has no background information on this and only mentions it while showing no proof.

This kind of information would only be available by Jagex but they never reported how many subscribers were lost. Players have only been left to guess which makes me believe that the editor simply picked it up as a rumor from somewhere else.

I believe the sentence should be removed since it has no backing of evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is, however, mentioned by a reliable secondary source - and in these circumstances, a secondary source is useful since Jagex wouldn't like to admit they lost players. If you have no counter-source, we cannot remove the information. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1FTM is correct. By current policy, information presented by a reliable source may be included, there is no requirement that the information from that source to be reliable. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if we take a source (The Sunday Times in this case) as reliable, we assume their information to be accurate and to have been fact-checked. If we didn't make that assumption, we'd be endlessly looking for multiple sources on everything. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It'd be hard to prove either way, unless Jagex came out with the numbers themselves. I'm assuming since the source is reliable, that they might have asked Jagex for the numbers themselves.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they checked Jagex's daily visitors and wealth and did math? 43?9enter (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps... but, I'm assuming that they checked their numbers in some fashion. The standard for verification is a reliable, secondary source, not necessarily truth. The Sunday Times certainly qualifies as a reliable source.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 12:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, any good source will have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which I'm presuming The Sunday Times (a mainstream newspaper) will have - nobody seems to be disputing that point, nor the figures stated by the newspaper. By extension, we assume their figures were gained from a reputable source and have been checked for accuracy. I think we can safely say the OP's request won't be honoured here, unless someone wants to dig for more sources? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... doing a little digging, I do see a chart of MMOG statistics (like subscriber stats and whatnot). I don't see much of a decrease, however, the scale has to accommodate for WoW, so I'll need to take a closer look at the data (and the direct source, because I'm not sure how reliable it is). [4]--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, even given the scale I can see that the graph records much lower growth in the second half of 2007 (the affected period), compared to the periods before and after. This would be explained by either lots of subscribers going out or fewer subscribers going in, but I suppose that could be used to support The Times' claim. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Seasonal events?

Runescape has a bunch of in-game event updates for the different holiday times every year. Should we document it? --JJRcop ^{(send msg)} 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

They're mentioned in the third paragraph of the Community section. I don't think it's worth trying to include them all. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRUFT for more details. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Real life links in-game

You've probably not realised this, but Jagex included a lot of links to real life subjects such as Monty Python, Star Wars and even WoW. I think this would merit being mentioned in the article as it shows that British culture is interlinked with the game. 78.146.132.102 Classics (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They're too trivial to mention here, but they can be mentioned in their respective articles. In fact, plenty of the links to this article are about real-world allusions and references in the game. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Cult of Personality and a Single-Character Article

Yellow-clothes-with-green-hair-and-a-fire-cape is clearly trying to dominate this Wikipedia article, or at least try establishing a cult of personality. That isn't even a common avatar for characters. Can we, at least, have a more typically-clothed character be used? --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 06:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in that we need more character variety, but every time we take one out the person in question puts another image in. You're welcome to contribute a replacement image if you choose, as I don't have the tools or knowledge to do it myself (my last attempt at producing an image wasn't very successful.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to come up with another image later today or tomorrow. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 13:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally stay as far away from images and image policy as possible, even though I have plenty of ideas for a replacement interface image. (Whether this situation can be described as a "cult of personality" is debatable. It could be, and has been, a lot worse.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we could pull a screenshot from the RuneScape knowledge base? I mean... an image of somebody showing off their fancy house and total level 2000 is a little much... Not sure about the fan art though...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 14:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, although I'd still prefer a "bespoke" image over ripping a ready-made picture from a website. The problem would lie in finding an image that meets our needs - it needs to show the full interface but still be representative of gameplay. (And no, I don't like that fan-art either, but I was overruled on that one.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see overuse. And without a name to go wit the char, its unlikely the player shown will get anything significant out of its use. In the first image, you can barely even tell its supposed to be the same player. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, there's certainly no evidence of overuse, both in terms of policy and compared to in the past, when this character was on practically every image going (and they identify their character in every image they produce, so we can put a name to a player). Trouble is, having the same character in multiple images isn't representative of the subject, especially when an image has two players identical in appearance. This isn't the first time we've discussed that paricular aspect,[5][6][7] but so long as only one person is interested in contributing images that's unlikely to change. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have produced an image that possibly has the capabilities of replacing the first one, and before I upload it to Wikipedia, I shall present my work and see if it truly does have the capabilities to replace the first one, and I don't like my talk page cluttered with templates. Picture, tell me what you think. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 00:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Elided name is a minus (shrinking the image to size currently being used on the page should make the name unreadable anyways) but otherwise looks good to me. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Based entirely on you saying that my name will be unreadable, I have replaced the white box with random text I cut. Picture, should I proceed to upload it to Wikipedia? --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 05:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (You'll probably want to shrink it down to about 300 pixels or so width before uploading, of course) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, looks perfectly fine. The current image is 348 pixels wide, so just shrink your picture down to about that much and it'll be good to upload. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 23:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

lol, abuse report. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I got one of those woodcutting bots. Sadly, with the reinstating of free trade, bots and scammers are everywhere. This is ridiculous, but I saw some people gullible idiots playing the trust game a while ago. With mass inflation, my bank which used to be worth a lot is now considered "poor", I remember when 100k was rich, but I digress... Well I believe the cult is crumbling to dust. And can I add a screenshot to break up that wall of text around PvP and NPC interaction? --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 02:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

For the moment, I'd say no for a couple of reasons. First, that would add more non-free content to the article, which is discouraged by the non-free content criteria. Second, adding images solely for the purpose of breaking up text doesn't seem like the best reason to add them. We used to have an image of an NPC there, then it was deemed to be not useful and removed. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't mind seeing that girl on the wikipedia page. I don't see what's the problem at all. She's not even all over the page like before. If you ask me, it looks like you two are very jealous of her rather than having an actual good reason to hate her pictures. 64.134.100.74 (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, {{citation needed}} on that jealousy thing. But seriously, I have no issue with it as such, since it's now at a reasonable level. But having the same character everywhere doesn't properly represent the game and could make it seem like we're being biased. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Jealous of what, I ask you? And is there a difference between the current picture and the previous one? Is that a comment? Or are you indirectly asking us to restore the previous picture? And do you have any reasons? Other than our jealousy? --43?9enter ^☭msg_★contribs 23:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Clan Updates

Currently, there is little information about clans other than that mentioning the clan chat systems. Information for the new updates would probably fit under Player interaction, PvP, and community scetions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.105.197 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Possible, Trivial in my opinion, but let's wait for other people. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 07:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a tough one. On the one hand, general information about it belongs in the appropriate article, and anything reasonably unique to RS would belong in this article. Then, you consider that we try to only cover the really core aspects of RS, with quests mentioned because they also have a general article. On the other hand, official support for clans is a recent thing and I'm not sure how much useful information we can write (Clan Camp definitely, seperate websites for clans definitely, rated clan wars possibly). Certainly we need more opinions - it'd be annoying to write a section and later take it down for being trivial. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)