Talk:Construction (RuneScape)

Images

Could someone upload some high quality PNG images to replace these highly compressed JPEGs? I'd do it myself, but alas, no membership for me. Hyenaste ^(tell) 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I know One person who Is very good at images on RuneScapeat Wikipedia:Tarikochi, perhaps we can be cheeky and ask Tarikochi for some help? I tried to make the images better, but I'm having some problems due to the images at the start were very bad. Not only that, the kitchen picture is virtually beyond saving. It looks hideous.J.J.Sagnella 06:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I offer up this image: File:Wiki-kitchen.PNGMike 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it's better than the current kitchen one. Not so sure the "walk here" should be there though. I would probably cut the top of it off. J.J.Sagnella 06:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an image being taken at a horizontal angle, closer to the ground such as the image currently at the top of the article would look better? I might be getting members again soon, so I can help with images. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I do have my image request still up despite being away. However, asking within the next week would probably be a good idea, as I'll be on a long vacation in a different country before returning. Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 20:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry the article won't go away when you're gone. Have a nice holiday, you've earned it. J.J.Sagnella 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not interested in obvious sarcasm Sagnella. I'll fit these descriptions asked later today. Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Srry if it offended you. No harm meant. J.J.Sagnella 21:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the tardiness. Here's another option: Image:Runescape locations house-standard.PNG File:Runescape locations house-standard.PNG

Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it ready yet???

• I'm not a member, but has the majority of the construction tale been put forth in the article yet? Debate it, and if the result is Yes, I'll cross it off on the RuneScape page's ToDo list. p00rleno 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're asking whether this article is of a high standard as of now? Have a look at it and compare it to other articles. The answer is a deinitive No. J.J.Sagnella 15:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As a side note here, I've noticed that you've been striking out most of the things on the To-Do list that still have some work to be done; keep in mind that most things on there do still need work, and just because something looks good doesn't mean it's up to standards. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

okay, thanks 4 the feedback p00rleno 14:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a couple of things to the construction guide that I thought should be included.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taito2004 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Falador world 111 rampage

I made an article about the Rampage caused by the bug, could someone put it in the article, I tried but it got edited out by an admin, thuoght I better let someone more experienced do it after that... here's a link the the article Falador World 111 Rampage Shadoom1

It wasn't an adminstrator... Besides, It was a minor event. It'll be forgotten soon. J.J.Sagnella 12:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the article to Proposed Deletion - we don't need it. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to do that, but I forgot. J.J.Sagnella 17:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article, and put the reasons for it not to be deleated in the discusion part, the event will not be fogotten by Runescape players for many years, lots of people (including me) have spent hours trying to find out what happened, it would be very useful for people like that not to have to seach the whole internet to find out what happened and just use a wikipedia article. Also the main point in the deleat article thing was that the information was unreliable, the information was reliable and I have put the reasons for that in the article. shadoom1

Could the selfish person who deleated that article pleas explain why they did that? shadoom1

They were not being selfish, they were following Wikipedia's deletion policy, although the regular 5-day-period for proposed deletions wasn't followed. The article had NO reliable sources (although some places may seem to have proper information, they are not considered to be proper citations per wikipedia policy, and are therefore unreliable), was overrun with English errors, and wasn't notable enough (not important/of enough significance) for its own article. The event will be forgotten soon, and will not be remembered for "many years". Already I am hearing almost nothing of this event except for vandalism edits on the Contstruction page — it has already faded away. If you have a problem with the deletion, and want it re-created, see WP:DRV, or contact Zoe, the user who deleted the article. The log of the delete is located here. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 03:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Google", if you've ever used it then you will see that the event will be remembered for many years, the vdeo that he said could be found with google does exist and is reliable because it is IMPOSSIBLE! to fake a viedo like that, of you had a problem with the enlish erros in the article, FIX THEM! and as for the event not being signifigent enough to have an article then you should get rid of half the articles in wikipeia. I compleatly support Shadoom, your a selfish, arogent person to delete that article, by continuing to do stuff like that you and people like you will destroy wikipedia ::GM::

Sry that GMs insulting every one because of my article, shadoom1

You are both the same ip address. And please sign your posts with four tides. (~~~~) J.J.Sagnella 10:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Making insults at us isn't going to fix the fact that your article isn't allowed. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 17:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, just thought I'd make a point here. This event was of such big signifigance several VIDEOS were made of it. Also, just so you know, the one that made the most kills outta this bug has the username Durial321. Or Durial123. I'm thinking it's the first one... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamesfreak22 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 June 2006.

I've looked at most of the videos, and they are all the same version of one file - just edited for time/putting the uploader's name on it. And we already know the user who made the most kills. This subject simply isn't notable, and is NOT getting its own article. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 15:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, we have given this event more coverage than it deserves. It affected a very small part of the population of the game and has very little lasting significance, other than it allowed Jagex to fix a potentially devastating bug before it went any further. I have not met anyone who was directly affected, or anyone who even knows anyone who was directly affected. There are a lot of unsubstantiated rumours floating around and one apparently highly edited and censored video of the event. If thousands of people were "massacred", why have I not met at least one of them since? Why has no one in my wide network of friends met any of them? IMO, it is because there were not that many affected and a few people are trying to blow this all out of proportion and give it a life of its own. I hope the rest of us are able to keep it at its earned level of significance. Xela Yrag 15:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First: The reason me and GM have the same IP address because (I assume) he goes to the same school as me, secondly, the point of Wikipedia is so that someone can find information on ANYTHING, just because only 5 or so people will read an article it doesn't mean that its pointless, Wikipedia is not just for major events, it is for anything that anyone could consider to be important, if you don't think it is nessasary to have an article on a certain subject thats your opinion, you don't have to read it, but if someone else (even just one person) finds the article to be useful and/or nessesary then it should stay. Also with the coent about people under that age of 14, the whole of Runescape is probebly considered unnessesary to mose people over the age of 17. I consider the article nessesary, thats why I wrote it, there for it is nessary, all the information I used was from statents by jagex (on the Runescaoe fourmus, by Gold crown mods, (the thred has now been reoved)), with some examples from the video (which would be impossible to change, but possible to speed up or slow down or remove parts). I will not remake the article but I think that, because someone (me) belives it nessary then it should be there. ~~shadoom1~~ P.S. I'm sorry that GM has been using my article as a reason to insult people 211.27.45.147 09:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)shadoom1211.27.45.147 09:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In the article I tryed to make a point of how it wasn't very important to Runescape, the article would have helped stop the event being blowern out of all perportion while satisfying the desire for information of the people who are trying to find out what realy happened 211.27.45.147 09:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)shadoom1211.27.45.147 09:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If they want to find out what happened, they can use Google - it will turn out fansite pages showing what happened. The world 111 massacre does not meet Wikipedia's article standards - if it did, then the article would not have been speedy-deleted. You may consider the article necessary, but that is simply an opinion - and one that won't do much good. One person thinking something is important is not enough to keep the article from being deleted. As you said, the Jagex statements have been removed, so there are now even less citational references for the event. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Agentscott001's well reasoned explanation, the RuneScape articles, all of them, have a standing policy of not mentioning the names of players. For this reason, the perpetrator of the bug abuse will not be glorified or vilified, in this or any RuneScape article. I agree wholeheartedly; if people want sensationalized information on this, they can use Google. Xela Yrag 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Xela Yrag i CANNOT disagree more about the falador massacre, duplication day and banker attacking day all the way from runescape classic are still remembered, so as you can see the falador massacre is a big part of construction and should be left in the article. Also why insult or question the intelligence or important of people of a certain age of to this event? People of any age will be interseted in this bug which will be remembered for a long time so why be biased against the article and post what only [b]YOU[/b] think is relevant, when indeed many people will want to know about this early bug in construction for a long time to come. 82.37.105.197 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)wraths range (ingame)

I have no problem with this information being in the article. As it stands right now, it is a very good, reasonable explanation of the event. It captures the essence of the problem without sensationalizing it. Again, I reiterate, this series of articles on RuneScape does not mention players by name; that is a long-standing decision that was made before I ever knew Wikipedia existed. I agree with it, but I was not involved in making that decision. I have already stated that I did not intend to put down young teens. I have a son that age myself. But we cannot take unsubstantiated rumour and exaggerated claims of the items that were lost as the truth without verified, independent, objective evidence. We lose our credibility as an encyclopedic article if we do. For people who want to read the rumour and speculation, there are enough sites out there for them to find anything they want to hear/read. Xela Yrag 20:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that a bug was exploited when the skill was new doesn't necessarily warrant its inclusion in the Construction article. It was a bug that should have been playtested and fixed before Jagex released the skill into the game but obviously they neglected it - how is that worthy of inclusion in the article? Mike 01:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not the only person who is interested in this event, if I was there woulden't be so many fan sits about it, I'm not trying to be insulring or any thing, I'm just saying that other people may want the article to stay (or should I say, remade) Shadoom1 07:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC) YAY I've worked out how to sign properly Shadoom1 07:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

Why is this article being proposed for deletion? its fine and theres articles about the other skillsShadoom1 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Question

I am one of those people whoa re interested in the world 111 slaughter...Fortunately I was on world 23(my usual world) at the time.--Centurion Ry 21:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

wasnt that the durial thing? theres a video of it happening on youtube somewhere felinoel 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I tired to do an article about that but it was deleated because someone belived that no one would read it, altho thats not true the majority of people here belived that, so it was removed.Shadoom1 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Crests

i feel crests are an important thing in this skill, as well as the styles of homes you could choose from felinoel 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Uses for clans"

I don't see why this section was included in the guide. None of the points mentioned relate specifically to clans. Is it okay to delete it? --Christn 21:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Date

Did it occur on June 6 or June 5? I remember some sensationalising it saying June 6, but I recall the majority laughing saying it was only June 5. Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It was June 6th in the morning I think. It is sometimes referred to as the 666 event, or "The Devil's Day on RuneScape". Lardor 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)