Jump to content

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

The Below is old Discussion. If you feel anything below needs to be commented on, bring it up in the RuneScape Talk Page. J.J.Sagnella 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please edit section by section.

When massive changes are made to the page while multiple users are editing, we step on each others' toes a 'lot' and revert many needed corrections. Please edit one section at a time to minimize reverting others' edits, and check the history page after saving changes to see what other changes might have beed made while editing. Cilencia 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you actually used edit summaries, as well as proper English and grammer, we would know what the hell you just edited. I dont think we should edit each section seperately, especially if you are making minor edits, as the history gets clogged up. Making hundreds of minor edits, although small, also cause edit conflicts. Ever think of that? - • The Giant Puffin • 17:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I try to, but it does get frustrating when fixing something for the third time because bigger edits inadvertantly reverted them, including the area appearance, which I fixed about that many times, making it subordinate to the graphics section. And repeating minor edits clogs up the history much faster than making them onec in the first place. I appreciate your improvements to the page, but doing it in smaller bursts would better preserve others' efforts. Cilencia 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for local edit @ 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC). It did not even interfere with my edit of that same section just 5 min. prior. If you are editing a large section, it is perfectly fine to edit larger sections of the page, but a good rule of thumb is to edit just the part of the page being revised and to check the history after edits to see if others' edits might have been jepordised. And I'll try to comment my edits better, too. Cilencia 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Area appearance

Area appearance is about graphics, so it should have a type 3 header, so it comes under the graphics section! - • The Giant Puffin • 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fashion, moderators, and economy are about community; PvP Combat is about Combat. Should those sections be merged as well? Cilencia 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if economy is about the community, but PvP Combat should definitely be in a subheading under combat, and fashion and moderators should probably be in community. --Rory096 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

I think the article is pretty much done in terms of a clean-up - • The Giant Puffin • 17:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It still needs a lot of maintaining, since IPs tend to be a large share of the edits, and we all know they're edits aren't always up to par. --Rory096 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that does not seem a pretty valid reason but a slight discrimination against anonymous edits. Anyways, anonymous edits have nothing to do with the article content. Also if the article is controversial, it does not applied that required the "Cleanup process". this article seems pretty "cleaned up". Aggree (remove tag) GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I also agree, the size issue has been cut down, now it's just some minor edits to conform with Style and maitenence. I shall go ahead and remove it as there does not seem any more objections.
Of course anonymous edits have to do with the article content- they all do. And yes, I am biased against anons- hard not to be when you revert vandalism. It is not, however, discrimination. It also has nothting to do with the article being controversial; what I'm saying is that it's never going to be stable, content is going to be removed and added all the time, and every new section and sentence will probably need cleanup. --Rory096 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal

Removed ip editbut way easier to use. Just a little too pov.--Dakota ~ ° 19:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Monster page

The monster section of the main page is huge—10 monsters are featured. I think we should summarize the variety and behavior of monsters on the main page and move what we currently have to a separate page altogether. What do the rest of you think? Cilencia 07:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheating information

In my opinion people who cheat in multiplayer games are nothing short of scum. The cheating information that has been added (and deleted) a few times should NOT be there in my opinion. I am not sure if there is any wikipedia rule about it, but unless there is a rule stating that information like this is allowed, I would say it is just wrong. Thoughts please? Clq 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of that, and therefore asked in the wikipedia chatroom what would be the right thing to do. The general opinion was delete, and noone was sure about official policies on the matter. Clq 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't be here. Even if there's nothing in the policy about cheating, WP:NOT a game guide, so there shouldn't be instructions on doing anything. --Rory096 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It could be argued that this is factual information, though it was obviously not all factual (100% undetectable), but otherwise I wouldnt say it was a "guide", just information about programs used to cheat. But yeah, obviously we are on the same side on this. Clq 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Game guides are usually factual too (at least I'd hope their factual, otherwise why would people be buying them?), but that doesn't mean they're encyclopaedic. It gave players instructions on how to do something in the game. Perhaps describing the problem of macros would be encyclopaedic, but not instructions on how to use one. --Rory096 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Something off topic. i think information should be judge by "is it encyclopedic?" rather than "is that right or wrong?"...

  • Rules of particular party (ie:the rules of runescape.com) should not affect wikipedia article and be aware that describing someone as a "scum" is a very negative bias point of view.
  • Article describing something that do not please people does not mean that it should not be in the wikipedia. Think about nazism sadism and masochism
  • Your logic that "unless there is a rule stating that information like this is allowed" seems to have problem. Basically, rules are to state what is NOT allowed.

GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 10:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is why I brought this up for debate on this talk page. However, if there IS going to be cheating information, it must at least be factual rather than promoting cheating by saying stuff like "It is 100% safe". Firstly it isn't, secondly, would it be necesarry to link to the cheating programs in question? As an example, I am sure a lot of people would be quite mad is the CS page linked to Counter Strike wall hacks. Clq 11:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Scamming section was really well written and fits well. Cilencia 07:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional Fansite

It has come to my attention that a major player in the Runescape world, RunescapeRealm.com is absent fromt he fansite list. While I completly agree with your reasoning to not have dozens of small, corrupt, and badly managed sites listed, this site is one of the biggest Runescape Communities out there. Google 'runescape', it is the 2nd fansite listed. Comparing forum statistics, is is also one of the biggest, often with the same or greater number of users than other sites previously listed.

Without being harsh Runescaperealm looks pretty poorly managed as well. I couldn't find all the skill guides!!!!! I think a better measure to check for is traffic and Alexa and not Google. Google is better for confirming articles, not really very helpful for links. J.J.Sagnella 15:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Alexa is a scewed system that is bad for measuring statistics as most people know. A true measure of a site is by its forums, which this particular site has over 849,000 posts, thats almost as much as the biggest site you have listed, Tip.it, and way more than any of the other sites you have listed.
You are entitled to your own opinions but It s the main way of testing on Wikipedia. J.J.Sagnella 15:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nmknhdragon : Runescaperealm is a awesome communtity and provides good information on just about everything related to Runescape so it just has to be added

Then how come it doesn't even have a theiving guide? J.J.Sagnella 16:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It does, http://www.runescaperealm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79063, one that I found in a 10 second search, and is currently being expanded to include more information from suggestions from its users, sound familiar? Rifleman000 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix1300 - I believe Runescaperealm shoild be added in as it provides the best guide, and every guide is well thought out and proof read. The members there are also really nice. Runesscaperealm contains numerous amounts of members, thus I believe it should be added.

Nmknhdragon - pff you really think you are something judging people by their first edit, And what if they asked us?

I have been a wikipedia user for over a year now, I use it for everything, however I saw something that needed to be changed so I posted an edit. Do you have a problem with that? Why should you exclude one of the biggest sites that is deserving of this position. Perhaps you have connections to these other sites and are merely trying to limit others. Wouldn't be the first time I saw these edit wars on wiki. Rifleman000 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Some_One_1_1 - Runescape Realm is a massive community, with nearly 80,000 threads and 850,000 posts, and 12,000 members... It has more posts per member than most other Runescape forums, is growing amazingly fast, and has many high quality guides. It has helpful and kind members, and active mods and admins. It has guides to answer most questions about Runescape, and members will answer any more, and contains a monster database, so it must be added.

Well, Both tip.it and runescapecommunity are bigger forumwise than that site, as runescape community is now also on its 3. or 4. forum. Both also have more members online at this point in time.
When it comes to my opinion on the quality of the site, I would not rate it above average. While it might be as good as some of the sites listed, I do not feel that it would be of great value to those reading the article, as they would probably find it from google anyway. Again though, this is 100% my opinion. Clq 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nmknhdragon - Finally someone with a usefull opinion :) but you might be right that those sites are bigger but if it comes to my Opinion then i would say that RunescapeRealm is a nicer community with nicer members and being almost a 2 yeared member there i think i should know :)


Yup i'm right. These people were aked on the forums. Here is the evidence. [1] J.J.Sagnella 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Nmknhdragon - Duke asked us if we wanted to we have the choice to do so your just a Tipit or RSC user who doesnt want RSR up there so dont complain

I don't have a personal favourite site. And if you were to read the discussion in Archive 3 or previous discussions like this in Archive 4 you would know why sites like yours have been removed. J.J.Sagnella 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nmknhdragon - looking through Archive 3 i have not found any thing what so ever that says why RSR was removed in the first place

The decison was for all other sites to be removed. J.J.Sagnella 17:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, for this reason I think this site should never be considered. It is ok to discuss the matter in the forum, but asking members to come and "Sign a petition"? That is not the way it should be done. If it wasn't for that forum post I would probably have voted to add it along with the other sites, now I will definatly not be for it. Clq 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone notified the admin who posted and he closed the topic. http://www.runescaperealm.com/forums/showthread.php?p=857255#post857255
That was me by the way. J.J.Sagnella 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that was a few people as I just saw what he said for the privledged posters. He simply wants this issue to be resolved, giving RSR its rightful place and avoiding any further argument. Rifleman000 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Duke probably didn't know that it isn't suppose to be like this, if he had known it probably wouldn't have ended like this. He is a reasonable admin. Anyway, I think RSR should be added because it is a growing community with several other links to forums created b Duke. If we get members at that forum, surely we will get some members to RSR. Tip.It and RSC might have the better and larger community, but there members and mods aren't really nice. I was a memeber at RSC for 4 minutes before I got banned... And I didn't even do anything. :P Anyway, the final decisions are up to Wiki, but I do believe and always will that it is a worthy site. -Phoenxix1300

'Wikipedia' doesn't base decisions solely on 'traffic', either. It's a combination of factors, and a friendly community might well be one of them. Certainly the site seems like a reasonable candidate for a link to me, it's just a question of whether it's better than the existing links, or whether we want an additional link. --Fuzzie (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that reasonable assement. What concerns me is that every site on the links page be considered evenly, on a fair playing ground. The Wiki page is to give information about the game of Runescape, so why not have ach of the major players equally represented. To make a comparison it would be like having a neutral CNN only mentioning one canidate for President, even thought here are more major players. Obviously they can skip some of the smaller canidates, which dont have the necessary popularity, but why only list some of the major sites and not others? Rifleman000 17:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a link farm. The question really is where to stop in accepting links. The decision was to stop at 5. J.J.Sagnella 17:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
But why 5? Why not 4? Why not 6? Why not allow a board that has the same or better qualifications not to be allowed when it is a huge part of the Runescape world and thus deserves its place on Wikipedia. Rifleman000 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Where do you find the RuneScape links currently? :$ I will try my best to make constructive arguments. :)

To view the current article go here. The links to the current fansites are on the bottom of the page. Clq 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Duke closed the topic, I guess we can all forget about this. Thanks for all your time. :)

He still wants Runescape Realm to be added as it is on the same level as the rest of the boards listed, and deserves its rightful place, he read your argument and could see how you would view this as a "petition" and agreed to close the topic to take that out of the equation. He still wants Runescape Realm added.Rifleman000 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Because the topic now is closed I would still concider a positive attitude to adding this site. I would still like to see arguments for and against. Clq 17:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your unbiased view, I'm sure Duke would feel the same way when I say that we wish to present our arguement for being added fairly and be considered on a level field, and if it is decided that we do not meet the requirements, then we will accept it and only strive to improve ourselves.

Nmknhdragon - Some comments on the current fansites up 

   * Rune HQ - Great site great content should stay
   * Sal's Realm of RuneScape - Reasonable site though not sure if itshould stay
   * RuneVillage - Very inactive dont think it should stay
   * Rune Tips - First ver fansite + Great content + Forums lidded with Flames and spam = reasonable but should stay for content
   * Zybez - Great content Linked to Swiftswitch (AkA a VERY good worldswitcher for Rs) should stay

so in my eyes RSR could replace RuneVillage EDIT: Btw i maybe a small against from me is that not everything is up to date(meaning the guides

Hmm, RuneVillage seems to be used as a reason to get other websites on. Perhaps RuneVillage should be removed. What i'm concerned with is whether RSR should be on that list. It would most definitely become the weakest and most useless of the 5 and probably get the same treatment as Runevillage got. J.J.Sagnella 17:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I would sign that assesment, though I do not agree with everything on it. Then again, I havn't played in six months. But I would say RSR and RV are the weakest of them (my point of view). Clq 18:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

nmknhdragon - Well in content RSR and RV might be the weakest of those(in my eyes) but RSR (in my eyes)Has the best forum off all of those

Correct, if RSR was to replaced RV, it would be the most useless up there, nevertheless, RSR is striving to be the best. RSR has created several forums, guides, and HoL's. RSR has added more guides, and have some guides even other forums don't have, it is completely unique. RSR also added a lot of different forums yesterday and the day before, including Sports, Tunes, Movies, etc. RSR has grown, and the reason there are so few members is because Duke deleted 10K of unactive members, that might be the case of your concern. Anyhow, RSR will continue to grow, and maybe at times be the most useful upon there. So definately, RSR should replace RV. - Phoenix1300

I am sorry, when I said RSR I ment Sal's Realm of RuneScape. Sorry about that mistake. As far as I am conserned, the fact that the topic was closed, and that forum members has not yet started flaming us here says a bit about the quality of the forums. I am also of the opinion that size may be a referance as to how popular the forums is, but might not be accurate when it comes to quality. I would be in favor of replacing RV with RSR ("your" site). Clq 18:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ay, it is very confusing as both are RuneScapeRealm. :P Thanks, I'm glad you are in favor of our RSR. We may not have much quantity, but we have quality. :) I guess Duke should never have deleted those members.

Perhaps we should drop to three fansites, removing Sal's Realm and RV, and just keep HQ, Tips, and Zybez. Three is about as round as five, and perhaps we'd get fewer questions about how we decided how many to use. Four and six aren't really options, because they'd really invite that question. (sorry RSR people—I checked out your site, and it doesn't seem terribly specail to me, but Sal's & RV don't impress me much either.) Cilencia 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have been happier if RSR was one of them. :| It is up to you guys really, so I guess you guys make the decisions.

Naturally—everyone wants recognition for their favorite sites.Cilencia
Just throwing it out there; Perhaps one section with three fansites (besed on the quality of the site), and one with communities (based on qualities on forums), three each. This would all be based on Point of View though. I don't think five sites would be to many though, but personally I think all sites in questions could be considered "Average" when it comes to content. Runescape community HAD many many good guides, then zybez decided that they had the rights to the guide and put modified versions on the site and took them OUT OF THE FORUMS. So in my opinion, there is no "very good" runescape funsite out there. A note to you who don't currently do it; PLEASE put "~~~~" at the end of your posts. It will help establish the time of them. Thanks.Clq 19:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually not a bad idea, one of the few new things said so far. It would correspond with the usual strengths of websites, as some are very good with guides, but lack a strong community, and some are vice-versa. I would be willing to support a move to do this, as it seems like a fair trade where everyone wins and their strengths are recognized. Rifleman000 01:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For those from RuneScape Realm, let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a petition. Also, sign your posts with ~~~~ to show your name and a timestamp, like this: Rory096 22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As for my opinion, we did decide that 5 was a reasonable number of sites to have. Yes, it's completely arbitrary, but that's what we decided. I wouldn't be opposed to removing RV, but I'm not sure about including this new website. Where are the Fletching and Magic guides? The Thieving guide exists, but only as a forum post. While it may be growing, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently large as of yet. Maybe in a few months, if it's bigger. --Rory096 22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't appreciate the assertions that editors are members of different sites and so are trying to keep your site out. Remember to assume good faith on Wikipedia, and DON'T make personal attacks. --Rory096 22:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Please reply to the posts directly instead of at the bottom, kind of hard when you talk about things that happened hours ago seperate. IN response however, Wiki is a democracy, not of votes or numbers, but of ideas and information. I would just like everyone to be recognized fairly. Rifleman000 01:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the entire discussion, not any particular post. And a democracy IS based on votes or numbers, so that doesn't make sense. --Rory096 01:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)~ Did someone delete some part of the edits? Anyway, I believe we do have the guides, and the reason the guide is in a 'post' form is because since we switched to the different server, we need to transfer the things, and we also need to proof read, and add more additions. The magic & the ranging guides are the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix1300 (talk • contribs)

The guides have all been written, and could be posted at any time, however the admin seems like a bit of a perfectionist and wont let anything be officially made until it meets his criteria.Rifleman000 01:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah again this same topic. I also agree with some of the people up there, sites such as RuneVillage are obviously more inactive than sites not up there. Additionally, an older site will have more traffic as it has been in existance longer. Seriously, think about it; it may at once have flourished but go check, RV is becoming less and less active (no offense but it has resorted to selling mugs...) and only has more traffic because it has been on the internet longer. Once again, it seems you (JJ Sagnella) have checked out RunescapeRealm. Have you checked Runecrypt.com? I can guarantee that the guides you're saying aren't on the other site is on ours. --Onejsin 02:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, newer sites, (which Runescape Realm is, compared to other sites, which is about 3-4 years old, compared to the other sites which are 5-6. This just shows even more how Runescape Realm has grown even with a relatively later start. I believe we should carry through with the plan to seperate the links into two sections, one for guides, one of forums, to end this issue once and for all and reach a settlement that we all can agree on. Rifleman000 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Another reason that Runescape Realm has less members is that it allows guests to view the forums, which neither RuneHQ and Rune Tips do - I'm not sure whether the others do... We are the "mother-site" on a up-and-coming network of sites, too... Some One 1 1 07:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion again; I don't see old as a bad thing. That shows the site is stable, and updated over a long period of time. That having been said, new is not neccesarly a bad thing either. The problem is this issue will never be settled. There will always be users from fansites thinking their site is better/their community is better etc. Someone post a notice when the site is actually no longer under construction, so we can all have a look and rate the uality of the guides etc. Oh, and people, PLEASE PUT ~~~~ after your posts. Clq 07:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

you do know that there are several voting sites and most of them have different top 5 sites. Rdunn

Just a quick add to the "hiding forum" idea; Zybez is up there. RunescapeCommunity is completely open in its forums (just to remind you). --Onejsin 13:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

why dont we decide OUR OWN top 5 sites Rdunn 16:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And your idea is....? J.J.Sagnella 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

RuneVillage is still active, just less so, this may be due to the fact that they make updates in batches so it may seem less active at some times and more active at other times. Sal's Realm has some of the best quest guides IMO and has a decent linking to as shown by Google. I don't think RSR is ready yet especially as it just went through a server change and many major skill guides are still not up. I would just wait a couple of months and reevaluate and see if RV has gotten less active and RSR better and then discuss what should be added or removed. SandBoxer 19:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

we should decied amungst ourselfes what the top sites are Rdunn 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what we did see Archive 3. J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There are other sites that have the major guides up. Take a look (once again...) at http://www.runecrypt.com There you'll find the major guides up and plenty of other guides plus an active forum. In archive 3 we didn't finalize what topsites belong up there; you only said it was based on Alexa; which, while a good source, doesn't take into account the time a specific site has been up and therefore an older site will obviously have more traffic than a site which might be only a year or two newer. --Onejsin 04:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexa is a terrible source, a lot of the time. The subdomain etc flaws don't show up in this case because both tip.it and salmoneus.net are mostly RuneScape content, but the inaccuracies in ranking (even Alexa admit their ranks beyond 100,000 aren't to be trusted - generally the cutoff is considered much lower by others) probably do - runescaperealm.com has a rank of 236k, runevillage.com a rank of 99k, zybez.net a rank of 112k, and with those kind of ranks, comparing them and saying "oh, well, X is obviously more popular than Y" just isn't accurate. Disclaimer: I couldn't care less about RuneScape and so have no idea about the worth of any of these sites. --Fuzzie (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

but ye still cant agree what goes where Rdunn 17:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Man, you guys still can't decide which should stay. I still think that we should remove them all and replace them with toplists. Dtm142 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the problem with democracy: it's really difficult to get stuff done without stepping on each others' toes. Wikipedia wouldn't be where it is today, though, if it were run by one person, though. Cilencia 23:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, this section is here because a group from RuneScape Realm[2] (RSR) wanted their site added to the fansite list. While the site has good forums, it was decided that the site is only about as good as RuneVillage. Many ideas were proposed as various contenders brainstormed solutions, the most valid of which were the default (no change), the reduction in the number of fansites listed to three, or the removal of the section altogether.

Since the discussion has been inactive for about 2 weeks, I suppose the surviving consensus is to leave the section unchanged. If that is the case, then this, the RSR chapter of the seemingly endless debate over which sites should be included in the fansite section should be considered closed. If it isn't, then perhaps the pool of participants has been reduced, and we can readily come to a decision. Either way, the section's been left open-ended, and could use closure. Cilencia 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should not be changed at this current time, however I do feel that it will have to be edited at some point. RSR has 885,132 posts in our forums, comparing to HQ's 565,528. HQ's strong point is obvisouly its guides, RSR's strong point is its forums. How come one is allowed, yet the other is not. Its not being consistent. Out of the 1711 boards indexed on big-boards.com, RSR comes in 101. This isn't just RS boards, this is a wide variety of boards. I see no reason why RSR shouldn't be added. I also notice that RS has a wikibook. Perhaps we could come to some agreement, if, for example, you add us to the list, we could be able to help expand your wikibook on the subject. Handmedown

I can't believe you're going so low as to bribe us to put you on the list. You should be ashamed. J.J.Sagnella 06:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to bribe you at all. I am not even an administrator/staff of this site. I was merely suggesting a possibility, which obvisouly, neither party wants to enter into. Look, this is really pointless now. We have established the fact that RSR and Runevillage are equal. So either take down RV or put RSR up. Its not being consistent.--Handmedown 09:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We are being consistent. The decision was made and we are not changing it. If we chnage the plan just a little bit, people will use that as an excuse to get their site on or to delete other sites. J.J.Sagnella 09:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For the point of arguing, if RSR gets 20,000 more members and 2 million more posts, more guides, it would make no changes to its chances of getting in the links? --Handmedown 10:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Autoing

Stop deleting the autoing section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.119.148 (talk • contribs)

No. Editors have come to a consensus that it shouldn't be here. Look under the "Cheating Information" section. Go "protect the users" somewhere else. --Rory096 03:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There should be a brief section on Autoing to alert RuneScape users to the presence of autoers - such information is important and useful, and we should not keep people in the dark. However, there should not be links to download autoers as this encourages cheating. J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, make sure they are aware. Almost all runescape players will end up searching for runescape cheats on google someday, and when they do; Bam! A keylogger, there runescape account gets stolen, and any other personal information as well. There are very few clean websites, and they are not always easy to find.--65.93.119.148 03:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The point is no one should EVER find it as cheating ruins the game for everyone who wants to play it in a fair way. Clq 07:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there is already more than enough reference to that in passing. Cilencia 05:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, a section on cheating the history of it, and what Jagex does to fisght it could perhaps be in order. Having played RuneScape since december 2001, I coulld probably throw down a few sentences (to be added to/modified by other people), but that would all be original research though, with perhaps some referances to official RuneScape news. My problem is linking to it, or otherwise promoting it. There is a high risk one gets banned using programs like that, and there are ways Jagex can detect them. Writing anything else would be lying. Clq 07:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mining skill

Could the problems encountered in the mining skill be addressed in the article?

Often ive found that it only takes one vulture with a rune pickaxe in a location to hog all the ore and ruin any chance anyone else has to gain anything and level up at all.

Ive tried to contact Jagex and perhaps prompt them to put more than one ore sample in each rock (like fishing or woodcutting where everyone gets a chance until the resource fades) but all I ever get is the robot rubber stamp response back. Arwengoenitz 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate. Challenge is obviously part of the game, and unless Jagex actually changed the way mining worked, it would not be the least bit encyclopedic. (And I don't see how you can call the one with the rune pick a vulture. They'd be the main predators, and those of lower levels and poorer equipment would be the scavengers. No offense, but the analogy doesn't work very well.) Cilencia 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Granted theres challenge...and then theres taking it too far. They tried so hard to avoid exploitation that they made the skill near impossible to level up due to the amount you have to do plus the mad rush by all players to do it. The result is endless demand with little to no supply. It wouldnt be much of a change, perhaps two to three piles of ore in each rock before it turns grey. Theres mention of other crticisms in the article so why not mention one of the worst? And example being "Efforts to make skills less repetitive have been criticised for making the process of leveling, especially in the farming skill, too complicated". Vulture was just a thowaway term and not really worth such indepth disection...how about Kleptomaniac instead?Arwengoenitz 02:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If supplies went up, prices would go down. This is not a problem, but rather an aspect of the game. Clq 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a problem for lower level players as when trying to level up their mining skill, higer level players take take take everything in sight. Cant anyone see what a catch-22 (logic) this creates? You have to mine ore to level up - Cant mine ore because higher level players are camped out over the ore taking it quicker than you can - If you cant level up you can never beat them.

Putting more ore in each rock would at least relieve some of the problem. Arwengoenitz 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Or you could mine ores that are less valuable and don't give as much experience—rune essence even behaves like you want (though it doesn't give much experience). You obviously have time to spare if you spend this much time debating the issue here, where it would not change anything. If you want the mining skill changed, the best place to have this discussion would be on the runescape forums, as a member. Then, at least, it might come to Jagex's attention. Wikipedia is not the place to suggest changes to the game. Rather, we need to present the game as it is, targeting an audience that is not familiar with the game, and without bias. Cilencia 19:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Careful with pictures

File:Runescape weapons specialattacks dragondagger-puncture.gif
One of many "Special Attack" pictures on the main page of RuneScape

I'm inclined to agree with 66.108.126.56's comments on 24 March. Pictures can add a lot to the page, especially some of the nice animation that Tarikochi has provided, but they are somewhat overused, and should have more variety. Screenshots should be more directly related to sections that include them, the main page should not have so many screenshots with the same setting, and the character ChikoritaPro is somewhat overrepresented. Cilencia 08:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree. Tarikochi has monopolised (if that's a word) the RuneScape Image Scene. I think it might be time for others to be in the limelight. However I still feel all her images should stay and she should do all special attacks for consistency. J.J.Sagnella 08:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Very appropriate—on the weapons page—I don't think more than one special attack should be on the main page. Cilencia 08:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I prefer how it is now.... J.J.Sagnella 08:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
While the images do look very nice, I'm afraid I'm also going to have to agree that they're a bit overused. Each image seems tied to the subject in some way, but I'm still going to have to say some, not all, should be removed. Looking at other Wikipedia articles, RuneScape seems to have a very high number of images.

I might not have a better alternative available, but the illustration of the main page could be much better. Consider the Dagger specail attack: the caption A player fighting with a Super-Poisoned Dragon Dagger, a weapon frequently used in the Wilderness somehow ties it into the pures section. If anything, it would belong in the wilderness section, but that section already has an illustration, and an illustration using the dagger in the wilderness would be more appropriate to the caption. Consider the Mace: the caption The Dragon Mace, a potential reward-to-purchase after finishing the quest "Heroes Quest." links it to the Quest section, but wouldn't a scene from a quest like the one we had from the Recipe for Disaster quest be more appropriate to that section? A player using the Special Attack "Weaken" from the weapon "Darklight," showing the graphical potentiality of RuneScape does not illustrate the graphics of RuneScape any better than any other animation on the page, and wouldn't one of the emotes better illustrate character animations? The purpose of the main page is to give an overview of RuneScape, and the more variety in the pictures—and the more directly related to the sections they illustrate—the better the overview. Cilencia 09:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

When I created the "Special Attack" clips, I kept one thing in mind: everything besides the weapon stays consistent. However, just like J.J. Sagnella's Image:Multi-Purpose RuneScape Image.JPG, I try to make it multi-purposed. In such, I do not clog Wikipedia nor other people's servers and try to make it exactly with what the subject mentions and upload another image, which took long enough to do with the first one.
Making an animation of the Dragon Dagger in action in the Wilderness and in the chosen consistent location would be redundant and only remove more space from Wikipedia, which I heard was one of the policies. That reason is why all of the Special Attacks are in the same setting.
Even more so, I added the image in relation to the article due to the fact it is the image that contains it. I do not intend for the image to always be an animating Special Attack, but adding a stand-still image would add the mentioned space problem. Inside my edit summaries, I mentioned that modifying the clip is allowed if necessary, so if you want to have it not animating, do that with the space problem in mind.
Variety is good, but so is having something to briefly show what was talked about. Having nothing there would make somebody who doesn't play RuneScape ignore the statement. I make sure to not repeat any animation in the same page.
As with 66.108.126.56, s/he blatently removed nearly everything with a single-word summary, even when the relevance is avaliable. Also with such, the reasoning is lacking, as I shown in the responses to such edits. From what s/he's doing, it's like s/he wants to make the articles more dull.
I made these clips to help improve the display of information in the articles and to make the articles seem brighter. It may be used more than once in different articles, but the relevance still remains, no matter how little it is. Repeating it in different articles only help show where certain images/clips could be used in certain areas, as such with J.J. Sagnella's image. And repeating it with my character can show how there could be other kinds of ways RuneScapers look alongside the consistency, not to mention there isn't much of a way for me to change my character.
Tarikochi 18:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, while I appreciate what pictures can add to a page, I don't think that someone who doesn't play RuneScape would skip sections simply because they aren't illustrated. If replacing those illustrations that don't fit well with an illustration that actually applies to the section they're in is not an option, then the best alternative would be to remove them. There are enough of illustrations that do fit their sections that someone visiting the page for the first time would be equally, if not more impressed with the page. And while 66.108.126.56 has done some very contreversial things in the past, s/he did not remove the pictures with a one-word comment; s/he had a one line comment on the edit—more than is typically given.
Regarding the dagger image, you skipped my main point—that it does not illustrate Pures very well at all—and attacked my mention that it does not fit the caption very well. While it's great that the weapon attacks are consistant, so that only the weapon is different, it makes the images less re-usable, since that is the only difference. On a page that does not focus on weapons, they are so similar that it really is like repeating the same image to use two from the same series.
Again, I appreciate your efforts to make the page look better. I just think there is too much repetition and not enough relevance in some of the images on the main page. Cilencia 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
At first, 66.108.126.56 did use one-word comments. His/her further responses either repeats what s/he said or requests for a logical response, which was given. Also, some of the things s/he removed was unlogical, such as the image at the bottom of the RuneScape page which gets updated every time there's an update as soon as possible to correlate with the update.
And while the clips may be repeated throughout different pages, they apply to the section, no matter how little they do. It is still a RuneScape subject, and the activities done upon it still relate in some way to the article. There is also a notable fact that there aren't many people who would attempt to make such clips or images that actually fit exactly into such mentions. My summaries, when they were added in, includes if necessary, replace. I so far see no one who would do such.
As for the Dragon Dagger clip in relation to pures, it is also very hard to actually illustrate pures in itself. I do not think that a screenshot of the stats page is appropriate, and it's hard to depict in action in the Wilderness. As of this moment, the best I can do for such was to include the weapon that pures use very often and how its effects could bring such a reason as why pures use them.
I also focus on reusability on the content of the article, not the content of the image. If the article relates to the image, and not vice versa, then I consider it usable.
The only reason the clips even repeat the same activities with one difference was due to Wikipedia space issues alongside browser issues, as previously mentioned.
I feel as the relevance is enough. However, not many people are willing to work to help include a real variety of equal or better value of the clips as of such.
Tarikochi 02:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Conceeded: 66.108.126.56 has used one-word comments when removing pictures from the quests, locations, and gods pages. I was refering specifically to the removal of images on the main page. I had already acknowleged that his/her involvement in the P-mod chat edit war was controversial.
However, the pures section would be better off without a picture than with the dagger animation, and there should not be so many uniform images on the main page. There's no rule that we have to illustrate every section. And where do you find this Wikipedia space issue? What I've read of Wikipedia policy seems to concern itself more with relevance and future usability of images.
Furthermore, re: if the article relates to the image, and not vice versa, then I consider it usable, if an image does not relate to the article, then it should not be included. Cilencia 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It can be assumed by the fact that Wikipedia constantly deletes images and articles, whether they be irrelevant or underused, or as you may have seen before, "too much related content," that they must have some issue regarding space.

The entire section of pures have been removed in itself along with the image, so that should satisfy the condition of removing the image.

It's also pretty ironic that space (said as load-time) suddenly became an issue in the other arguments related to this matter.

And isn't the image in question do relate to the article, as the word "relate" doesn't give a determination of magnitude?

Tarikochi 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Wikibooks

Just thought I'd remind everyone that Wikibooks has a RuneScape article. Now, the article isn't just "blah blah blah RuneScape is a game blah blah blah". No, it certainly is not. It also isn't really a book.

Wikibook's RuneScape article contains guides, quest walkthroughs, and skill guides. Things are continually being added. The article has been revamped totally. However, there is still much that other players can do.

We (Wikibook's RuneScape article) have been recieving much traffic recently, mainly because of the new articles. There's a new price guide that any player and edit and add prices. There's a rare items guide. Many of the member's quest walkthroughs can be fixed up greatly, new ones can be made, and the good ones can be expanded and fixed to make them look nice.

The skill guides are coming along good, though there is always room for improvement. Much info is still missing, and contributions are welcome.

So please, check out RuneScape on Wikibooks, and go ahead and add stuff! The price guide is missing many many member items, so why not start there?

Also, there are too many pictures on Wikipedia's RuneScape article.Richard x 02:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you saw our debate. It's not the first, doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, and likely won't be the last. Are you sure you want our involvement in Wikibooks? Cilencia 06:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wikibooks

Please, excuse my inmense ignorance, but I'd like to ask; if there is a official policy stating that


Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.


...How come that there are articles such as Combat and Skills? Shouldn't they be better at WikiBooks?

I'm picturing every single famous MMORPG suddenly having FAQ's and Guides all over the place. It's not my intention to throw down all the hard work, but I think Wikipedia is not the right place for it.

-Ancanus 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The Only major MMORPGS which have wikipedia portals are WoW and RS. J.J.Sagnella 19:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Permission?

hello I have a runescape fansite, and someone said I had to get permission here to add it to the list, so, do I have permission?

And what is the name of the site? If we feel it is good enough, yes. If not, no. J.J.Sagnella 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you read the discussion about adding runescaperealm here, you'll find that you probably have no chance of getting your fansite on in the links. --Handmedown 20:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape/Archive_5&oldid=1144668625"