Wikipedia

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 13

< Talk:RuneScape
Latest comment: 18 years ago by J.J.Sagnella in topic Fansite
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

General Reminders

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • Fansites- Wikipedia policy is that the one (1) most popular fansite by site traffic may be included and no others. For this reason, only RuneHQ.com shall be allowed. Wikipedia's rules also say no more than one fansite is allowed.
  • RuneScape Wiki - Ok, I'm advertising the RuneScape Wiki, but it's probably a good idea.
    For those of you who get your edits reverted with such nonsense explanations like "cruft" or "linkspam" or whatever, you might want to check out the RuneScape Wiki. To put it plainly, your edits are more likely to be appreciated there. Hyenaste (tell) 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision Hit-Parade

Latest comment: 18 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

Guides I've started/completed already:

Adding citations to these would be a huge plus.

Guides I plan to revise:

History and Development - This part cites NOTHING about the first MUD client.
Gameplay - Some of it is a bit on the fancrufty side, going to try to polish that up a bit.
Community - Consider ripping it right out of there, since we already have another place for it.
Criticism - I plan to actually add some critique in there! I'm not talking about, "Feature A in RuneScape is good, whereas Feature B isn't.", the kind of stuff you'd get from GameFAQs. I'm talkin' about genuine, 100% bonafide RANTS about the game. On top of that, adding citations would be a plus there, too.
External Links - Removal entirely of this section, since a recent archived debate in WP:EL sparked a lot more controversy than the issue is probably worth fighting.

I'm not too happy that this article has failed Good Article status and Feature Article status - twice, at that! If you want this to recieve the credit it probably deserves, you're going to have to work relentelssly at it. This list is just what I want to accomplish before too long. If you want to help me, go ahead, the more the merrier. If you don't like the direction I'm going in, then let's see you present the authors of this Wiki with a better solution. Makoto 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Good suggestions - one point is Community should be about the people who play and their interaction with each other inculding outside of the game in forumns fansites ebay etc. Also its still needs to be a short 1 or 2 para section in the main article with a {{main|runescape community}} link to the article. Runescape Economy doesnt fit within community and shouldnt be merged, that said they can have an overlap and link to each other. I do agree with the creation of Runescape locations by merging wilderness and dungeons --Gnangarra 00:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the support Gnangarra. I could defintely use that. By the way, let's make sure that we don't resend it in for any GA/FA noms until we're sure it meets those criterium. Makoto 01:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created a copy of this article at User_talk:Makoto the Knight/RuneScape suggest that this aticle get the rewrite/rebuild and then we can move it back to here to replace this when its finished that way vandals dont disrupt the process. Gnangarra 01:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew that there was an easier alternative to editing this Wiki instead of having to call on someone to semiprotect it. Thanks. Makoto 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but you are forgetting one thing, one very major thing. You are not the only person/people who gets/get to decide what stays and what goes. I have been editing this series of articles for months now, only to see a bunch of names I had never seen before come in and destroy a lot of hard (and good) work. You are taking control of this rewrite of this article/series of articles, and, while I agree that it needs work, the work that it needs is not nearly as extensive as what it sounds like you are planning.

For instance, one of the things that we have tried to keep OUT of the article in the past is player rants in the criticism section. That is completely and totally POV. The criticism needs to be as NPOV as it can possibly be in order to meet my standards, and I hope everyone else's standards as well. Having a bunch of player rants in there could make the article 200 pages long. And who gets to decide which rants get to be included? As I have said more than once in the past, the thing that absolutely, tee-totally pisses you off the most may not bother me in the least and the thing I hate more than anything may be something you like about the game. Player rants are not true criticism; they are POV, opinion, and highly volatile. The thing I hate today may be fine with me tomorrow.

I do agree completely that we should not resend for any additional reviews or anything until it is done. That is counter-productive. I think that we can all work together to make the RuneScape articles the best series of articles on Wikipedia, but not if one person or group of people decides that their way is the only way. Flame away - I am a big girl - I can take it. 8^) Xela Yrag 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I came off as "I'm commandeering this project, like it or leave it". I do that sometimes. On the more serious note, the so-called criticism of the game only comes from one source, and I'd like to add more sources from other places. What's wrong with player criticisms? They play the game, they pay to play the game, they should have a disagreement about something.
Relax, the work that I'm going to do isn't truly extensive at all; just a bit of polish to this article. What I've finished so far is apparent here, and my talk page shows what a semi-automatic JavaScript bot thinks is wrong with it so far. Makoto 20:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the third time in recent months some has suggested this then nothing happens, the page I copied the article to is linked above. The idea being that its easier to edit when vandals arent attacking the same page because its there doesnt make it exclusive everbody is welcome to edit that page the same as any page. Gnangarra 12:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I've cleaned up substantially 80% of the original wiki, which is still viewable here. All that's left is gathering citations for it. Remember, what this Wiki has to maintain is an encyclopediac tone, so keep the fancruft to a minimum (which includes talking about items, monsters, etc.). In that sense, I've also started to put up AFD's for some of the more irredeemably fancrufty articles, so keep your eyes peeled on that and voice whatever opinions you'd have on those issues. Makoto 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Note, I'm going to start wrapping up my little crusade against the really fancrufty articles that are part of the series. This means that there's probably going to be a lot less when I'm finished; maybe 4 or 5 at the max. Some of these just unhappily fail WP:NOT, and others are jargon. If you're going to get this article to GA/FA status, not only do you have to redo the structure, you also have to redo its foundation.
On another note, I've also finished most of the revisions I'm going to do to the main Wiki. Please don't revert them. Since the picture about the first MUD client goes unreferenced, it has to go. I've also noticed a lot of other irrelevant things going around in place, in the middle of the article, and I hope those troublespots are cleaned up. I'll begin the hunt for citations on a later date (and please, citations need to be a bit more current than 2003). Makoto 01:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does armour and weapons need to be deleted? It is possible to decruft them with a merge, by merging everything non-crufty. It is not fancruft to say that, for example; "Scimitars are a weapon available in the game". Furthermore, why does the DeviousMUD image have to go? How is it not referenced, when it says 'DeviousMUD by Andrew Gower' at the top of the picture? I think it should stay. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Fails WP:V. I'd love for it to stay too, but it can't be proven. Find a source for it, and then it'd be permitted. Makoto 02:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
(I'm assuming you mean the image fails WP:V; the armour and weapon articles pass that easily) The uploader, Ben goten78, took the shot himself, his userpage says so. Therefore, it wasn't lifted from a fansite, if thats what you are worried about. The source is the game itself, and it states this in the image. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I found some info at [[1]]. Could we replace all of the DeviousMUD info now??--Edtalk c E 03:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Since it's verifiable I don't have a problem with it. I'll add the information now. Makoto 03:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The 2nd Google hit is the source, and that is where the pic came from.--Edtalk c E 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a nightmare trying to keep up with all this *headache*. Could I make a couple of suggestions? Rather than AFDing armour and weapons, would it not be better to write some prose in the combat article covering these topics first then cutting those articles loose? By the same token, Magic and the Wilderness could be merged into combat too, leaving it a well-rounded article.

The RuneScape locations and RuneScape dungeons articles completely bamboozle me. They're both scrappy as heck and don't seem to establish an iota of notability. RS locations are just where 'things' are, there's little else to say about them. It's not like they're usually steeped in RS history or offer any difference to every other location in the game. The only two locations which (to me) seem anything more than a palette-swap are Mort Myre swamp and the desert south of Al Kharid - they have status effects and are generally inhospitable. RS dungeons is just a tiddly list of the location of the dungeon and what's in it. So we can fight giant rats there with our non-existant accounts... and? See what I mean? I'm a little puzzled as to why they seem to avoid the scrutiny shown to much more polished articles which are no less notable (though still not suitable for the wiki). Your thoughts? QuagmireDog 02:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, a hurried return to WP has resulted in a few speedily added posts which are less than helpful. Let me clarify the above and restate it properly please. QuagmireDog 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, let's try that again shall we? :D

The weapons, armour, magic and wilderness articles all have something in common: There's not enough material to make a full article without cramming them with non-notable info. or borderline game-guides and in their current forms offer no hope of becoming good articles. All of these could be tidied up and merged into the combat article, after the details have been rewritten. The result would be flowing prose talking about combat in RS and not listing spells/equipment/places of 'interest' in the wilderness. It would be a good, useful read.

Mini-games, whilst still uncited (have yet to even attempt citations), is now virtually game-guide/cruft free and should be safe from AFD. Skills should be safe as houses.

Both the Locations and Gods articles both look good but cause concern - are these topics going to prove to be citable? Continuing to remove vandalism/NN from them should keep AFD at bay until contributors can give these two a good going over and get some major citing/writing done.

Economy and community both look extremely shaky to me. If enough information on MMORPG economies could be found for citation, the Economy article could be an informative article useful for more than just RS. Community doesn't seem to have much purpose, I mean what is there to say about the community? Why is RS' community a subject requiring an article? Details about the moderators don't seem particularly relevant either, their inclusion seems more about what an RS player would be thinking about than a reader needs to know about. Community could be boosted with a section on POH, which are indeed community-related and are a departure for RS.

The dungeons article is a lost cause. It contains myriad subsections commenting on how this particular hole in the ground has giant bats and hill giants whereas THIS particular cave has hobgoblins and pirates. No relevance to readers at all. Merging what little material there is in the Dungeons article into the Locations article would just weaken Locations, as it has been written in good prose (from what I can see). Likewise, the RS Wiki currently lists four dungeons, each one a guide to levels/monsters etc. and written in a short, concise manner. I very much doubt a single paragraph talking about bats would help them write another dungeon article. To this end, please can this article be put up for AFD? QuagmireDog 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

After a further read, I'd say Locations is a lost cause too. It's all just OR, NN or irrelevant game-guide material. The Feldip Hills section for instance rabbits on about the ogres not seeming to realise that they could move onto the flat plains. Let's get real a second, who on earth reading these articles really wants to hear theories about the living conditions of NPCs? Without pasting a glut of text from quests in-game and from the knowledgebase, these NPCs are just a character graphic and a drop list. Without this kind of text, there is nothing that can possibly go into the locations article. So it's a list of places and what monsters/resources/quests are located there, IE re-repeating what every RS site under the sun has done a hundred times over. Whilst other fantasy universes can and do have location articles, in RS they are little more than landmasses with monsters and resources. Quest details aren't particularly useful either. I suggest that any useful nuggets could be transplanted elsewhere and that the article is put up for AFD. QuagmireDog 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*Sighs*. I don't believe this.. today there's been another update to the knowledgebase, guess what it is? Area guides. They have monster lists, maps and images. So far there's only 4 dungeons and about 9 towns, but presumably these will continue to be constructed as time goes on. Perhaps a mention of dungeons and areas in the gameplay section of the main article and links to these parts of the knowledgebase would now suffice? QuagmireDog 17:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd believe so. I'll start setting up the AfDs for the articles we know we can't do anything with later this weekend. Makoto 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Please, would you just list the dungeons article for now? Whilst I'm firmly of the opinion that too much time has been spent polishing NN information in the series, the AFDs are coming so fast that the entire thing is going to disappear up its own backside. Locations can be trimmed a little and discussed at length after the dust settles, merging the afformentioned articles into combat is going to take time, the community and economy articles can be poked and prodded when we've all got a minute. It's just Dungeons which is the fly in the ointment. QuagmireDog 01:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it is time for me to admit my total ignorance here. I have been editing the RuneScape articles for months now, but you guys have totally lost me. What the hell is NN?? and OR? I figured out POV and NPOV, but those others are just nonsense to me. I cannot be the only one who doesn't understand what you are talking about. I understand the need for brevity, but not everyone is a "wiki-expert" and not everyone has time to do the research that would be required to find some of what you are talking about. At least give us links when you use an abbreviation that is not common knowledge. Also remember that something is not common knowledge just because you know it. When I figure out what you are talking about, then maybe I can answer you intelligently. Xela Yrag 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NN most likely stands for WP:NN and OR for WP:OR --timdew (Talk) 16:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I encountered a similar issue during my first few months on Wikipedia. NN stands for not notable, while OR stands for original research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Those are the links ^ WP:NN and WP:OR. In the case of original research, there is/was very little, such as that business with the ogres (which I've since deleted anyway). The real bugbear is non-notable information, which the dungeons article is almost entirely composed of. Some of the dungeons could be listed within the prose of locations, along with appropriate citations directed to the knowledgebase, particularly the stronghold of security. All that's left of Dungeons then is a few tiny paragraphs with a couple of sentences each talking about what monsters are available in the dungeon. Dungeons is currently the only article in the RS that looks like a little list of unimportant info, if it is given the heave-ho then those who love to list AFDs rather than help with the reconstruction of the articles will have nothing to go on. I'd be happy to merge/rewrite dungeons into locations then report back here when it's done, so they can be compared. QuagmireDog 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"6/6/6-Fally Massacre."

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

Hey, you have to add something about the "6/6/6-Fally Massacre." It's significant to Runescape's bug/glitch record. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.227.150.137 (talk • contribs) .

Hey you need to sign your comments. And it wasn't 6/6/6. Nor was it a massacre to speak of. Unfortunate for the few victims, true. But not particularly significant in the long run. Cain Mosni 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Who cares about the "6/6/06" glitch? It didn't affect me. It's not encyclopedic. Let's say for instance that I was an Atheist; I'd just think that was one weird coincidence. Long story short, doesn't belong here. Makoto 19:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
We did once have an article about this, remember Runescape glitches? I can't think of very many worse ideas for an article, and any mention is poorly verifiable. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth being mentioned. Besides, it was 6/6/5 or 6/6/7 for americans ont hat day. :P Rhotty 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fally Massacre is an important part of Runescape History and should be documented as so. It demonstrated the failure of Jagex to properly check for bugs.

Here's a video on it: [2]. I still don't understand what happened with it, though. Oh, and the Runescape glitch page was deleted. --71.109.37.168 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

i think there should be a article on it because i dont know what the 6/6/6 glitch is :( Drrake 04:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

All it was was just a player who took advantage of a bug and attacked people outside the wilderness. It went on for an hour I think and then Jagex shut the server down. All it was was just some guy who used a bug to his advantage, "just for fun". That video link above shows some of it.--Richard 12:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
ALL? lol, that was a big deal for runescape players at the time. Usually they are safe from fellow players outside fo the "wild". The players that were targeted, by the guy who discovered the glitch, were mostly high levels and had the most expensive or rare items stolen , things that are hard to come by in runescape. very un-nerving in you are a player and in an area considered safe. lol—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.96.237 (talk • contribs)
Whatever. Still, it was only a bug. Not significant.--24.109.220.202 16:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The player feedback part of the criticism needs a pov check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by some ip (talk • contribs)

Every article should always be checked for bias. Care to add any details to this useful advice? Hyenaste (tell) 04:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits reverted

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Oh my! What on earth happened to this article?! I really can't agree with the changes made in the last day. For instance Since I last looked the history and development section has gone from an easy to read point by point summary of the main points in the development of the engine, to some prose which isn't even accurate or well written!

For example the section used to start:

"RuneScape's first version began as a one-man project. Andrew Gower started working on the original game in 1998. This version was very different from the RuneScape of today. It had isometric graphics, and was originally titled 'DeviousMUD'. This version was never released to the public."

and now starts:

"The first two tries were both done by Andrew Gower and Paul Gower in 1998 and 1999. Despite efforts to clean up both versions (as they used isometric graphics), both versions looked similar and were scrapped."

I'm not sure how to put this nicely, but I personally really don't feel that is an improvement. The facts have been changed so they aren't accurate anymore, and the writing style looks less professional.

I'm sorry, I appreciate the effort which has been made to update the article, and I know WP says to be bold, but in this case I think the original read much better, came across as more factual and less POV, and was more accurate, so I'm reverting. Runefire 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that the other changed sections (also reverted) weren't an improvement either. Sure some individual sentances and revisions were better, but there are loads of changes all heaped in at the same time with no explanation or reason for many of the changes. Many of which actually make things much worse than before, with various important facts removed and other facts changed to be wrong.

A huge number of people have worked on revising, tweaking and perfecting this article and coming to a consensus about what it should say and the writing style which should be used (a passive writing style should be used). Two people shouldn't just come in suddenly and change the entire article around for no reason. You've not even tried to avoid corrupting the accuracy of what is already there! If it read better and great care had been taken to preserve the integrity of the article then I'd say fair enough but given the almost random nature of the changes that certainly isn't the case! Runefire 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You came in here with a storm of fire and started to revert the work that I put into it. May I ask why you would do such a reckless thing to this wiki? What I was trying to do was outlined above in "Revision Hit-Parade", and meant to get this article closer to GA status. If you took the time to read this, you'd see that the revisions I made before were a lot more constructive than what was there initially.
I started that hit-parade with good intentions and made the best attempt possible to transform this wiki into actual FA/GA material. Why you would completely wreck the work that I've started instead of tweaking it to better accomodate the wiki is just outlandish. I'm trying to help the editors of this wiki improve this article's quality, and I don't really appreciate revisions that completely set progress back. Makoto 22:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This looks really horrible. --Edtalk c E 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I did explain why I reverted it! Because I really genuinely feel it's a lot worse. It's further from GA/FA status than it's ever been. I know you had good intentions, I acknowledge that. But try reading my explanation for the revert. It's you who has "completely wrecked the work of other instead of tweaking it". Practice what you preach. Tweak, don't complete wreck! It's completely demoralizing to spend hours trying to get this article accurate, neutral and well written to see it uniliterally destroyed by the edits of one person. I don't claim to own this article, but neither do you. I'm not going to get into a stupid revert war by reverting this again, but if everyone else really agrees this is better and this is the way you want to go I'm certainly not going to waste on more time trying to make wikipedia accurate just to have it all undone. Runefire 09:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Makoto, but I have to agree with Runefire here. The section was much better before you rewrote it. Your revision starts somewhere in the middle, talking about the first two attempts without ever mentioning the "who, what, where, when, and why" that are required for a good, well-written article. This version may need some work, but it needs to be worked within the context of what is already there, factual, and makes sense. It does not need to be rewritten for style or whatever you were going for. And it does not need to be chopped so short that it looses it cohesiveness or clarity. It just needs to be concise, factual, and flow smoothly, with proper grammer and NPOV. Xela Yrag 17:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did some of the tweaking; however, the entire creation of Jagex and the turning over of RuneScape to it has desappeared from the article. We go from talking about Andrew and Paul to talking about Jagex like people are supposed to know who or what the hell Jagex is. If this article is really written for "the general public", the I really feel that the creation of Jagex is an important part of the history and development of the game. I, however, cannot find what was originally there right now. If someone could put that back, I would be grateful. Xela Yrag 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but feel a little put-off based on two people's opinions on what they thought was right. Before I even bothered to make an attempt on this Wiki, I put up notice well in advance so you'd know what was coming. I posted the links to what you'd be able to see twice in my hit-parade list, and encouraged others to help with this project. I wasn't trying to commandeer this project in any shape, form or fashion, but do you think it's progress to revert in whole instead of editing a few select places? Maybe this is the reason that the other people have given up on revising this project. However, one thing remains certain; this Wiki will not progress any further unless a consensus is made on what goes there. Thanks to two reverts in the last day, I've lost the motivation to keep going on with debating with what people think is right without trying to reach a consensus. Pending my return to the project, I'll try yet again to reach a peaceful concensus without having to deal with revert wars and edit wars and whatever other wars you'd like to get into over this. I just don't want to deal with it.
I'll continue to silently edit the one on my talk page and make every attempt to keep the facts and elminiate the jargon, and try to have this article fulfill Criterion 2a. Until then, I'll be taking my leave from the main page and I'll just return when the revisions are completed. All other editors are encouraged to help whichever project you think would make the best read. If you want to contribute, don't hesitate to; but for the main Wiki, "I shall return." Makoto 01:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should try and come to a consensus/compromise on this. Why not take it to mediation? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms arent even Criticisms!

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Really, the Criticsm section is the worst. Its suppoused to point out things people DONT like about the game. The "press review" section is just ridiculous. Its blatant advertising for the game, did you guys even try to make that any good? Its basically telling us why we should play Runescape instead of doing anything else! And then the Player Criticsm section is overly long and every point is put with something "Good" about the game. This section needs major overhaul. (Koolsen0 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Watch out: some of the editors don't appreciate someone else trying to fix what's wrong with the article. Trust me, criticism is in my crosshairs, and I'd more than love to revise it. Makoto 01:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The criticisms are the worst section of this article. Why does it look like this article doesn't have any hope?
Anyway, I have a discovery. Has anyone seen this sentence???

"Some people are also annoyed with the enormous amount of words that are blocked, claiming that since the game has an age minimum of 13, mild swearing such as "damn" should be allowed."

I'll just be BOLD and remove the material.--Edtalk c E 02:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jagex stated that the word "Damn" was origonally allowed in the game, until a parental group protested for it to be removed.. You know the type; flinging themselves into a corporate building with a giant catipult until violence/vulgar-words are removed from a game/show..Karozoa 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah this section sucks.--Richard 21:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Makoto, it's not fixing what's wrong that raises confrontation, it's monkeying with what was perfectly good enough to start with that causes a problem. I hadn't comment before because Runefire's criticism your recent edits was wholly correct and pretty much said it all, and his reversions perfectly sensible. However, this criticism of the segments of the article supposedly critical of the game is perfectly valid. That does need some attention.
Sniping just because people haven't previously agreed with your (IMO poor) choice of language when it's not even your edits being discussed does not put you in any better light. Cain Mosni 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"According to BBC News, playing RuneScape as much as working on homework is not necessarily a bad thing. It can instruct players about working hard to achieve goals. Studies show that the nature of most games...blah blah blah. " This is critisism??? If anything, this is criticizing parents for not letting their children play the game more! Come on, people! If that's criticism, then criticize me 24/7!

It has got to be changed. --71.109.37.168 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... well since this part of the article is sorely lacking im going to be BOLD and remove all old press criticsm remains. I fell that part of the section is beyond hope while the rest looks (Barely) OK. if you have any objections to the deletion of that para graph bring it up here. I mean that section is enteriely fluff. It doesnt belong under critcsms. Perhaps if you wanted to make a section about why Runescape is good for you you might put it there but it has no place in a criticsm section.(Koolsen0 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Please remember that the word "criticism" has two meanings. Your argument is based on the first meaning, "negative feedback". However, "criticism" may also mean "objective reviews/evaluations". For example, a literary critic's job is not to say bad things about books; it's to give objective reviews on them. I used to have trouble understanding this as well, but remember that the press reviews are the second meaning of criticism. The press reviews are needed both to establish RuneScape's notability and to adhere to the verifiability policy by referencing reliable sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I hardly call saying Runescape is better for you then homework a "Objective review" If we could find a review that actually evaulated the game then it would be good. About one of those things in there meet that. Besides isnt Criticsm used in the first form of the word? Look at criticsm on any page its always used in the negative conotaion. I propose a serious rewrite of the first paragraph and that it go under its own Reviews subsection if you want to keep it. It doesnt belong under criticsm section and its details are pure fluff. Well anyway lets just keep it as it is now until we come to a valid conclusion. Koolsen0 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We need press reviews from reliable sources to adhere to the verifiability policy. I agree that the way that paragraph is written is definitely not NPOV. I will work on that paragraph to ensure NPOV. If you can find any reliable sources which have negative reviews of RuneScape, please include them to help keep it NPOV. The Criticism sections in some featured articles about games use the second meaning; I think using both meanings is the way to go. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It reads even worse than an advertisement, if that's at all possible. I highly doubt that there is any good place on here to place RuneScape above one's schooling. It's completely POV. --71.109.37.168 10:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Forums

Why can't we talk about the RuneScape forums in th article? It is in the topic of RuneScape, and once I added it in, but just as quickly, someone edited it out. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.2.119 (talk • contribs) .

Fansite

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I suggest Rune Tips (tip.it/runescape) be put in place of Rune HQ in the fansite section. While Rune HQ has more traffic, Rune Tips has more accurate, relevant information, a better community, and exponentially higher forum use (over one million posts and 119K accounts, compared to 330K posts and 35K users). Furthermore, Rune Tips is the first major fansite created, dating back to its ownership by Silverion, with the original ScapeBoard forums. Rune Tips is just alround a better fansite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.108.163 (talk • contribs) .

We have discussed tip.it before, and decided not to add it. There was a consensus to not include it as a fansite, as it has had too many security problems in the past, along with a few other reasons (see the archives for more, I forget the other reasons). Agentscott00(talk contribs) 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather send someone to a less safe site with more accurate information than a site with less accurate information.

Rhotty 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The infiltrators who abuse it would rather you did, too. You may be perfectly capable of defending your self and your machine against such abuse. Not everyone is, particularly not kids. Cain Mosni 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Security breaches in the past five years: Two. Correct me if I'm wrong.--24.84.108.163 02:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, lord have mercy on my poor tired eyes. Again! Can you people read what has already been discussed a THOUSAND times before you post??? Sorry, but this is really getting ridiculous. It is not a fanclub for a fansite. It is supposed to be the one, single, solitary fansite with the most traffic per Alexa counts. That is RuneHQ. There is nothing to discuss. There is no "this one is better, let's use it instead". It is there because that is the way it has to be. Period. Should be end of discussion. 75.109.30.35 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to log in, so this is make sure you all know who this is. Xela Yrag 22:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit by Hemhem20X6 in regards to fansite makes sense (ie; don't show any while there is debate). I can't believe it wasn't thought of before... I am in support of this, if we can't agree on one fansite, none should be shown. Nathan M 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no debate, it is settled, solved and can finally be laid to rest. There are many things more important to be done with the article, and even if you can't find anything, there are subpages which need a bit of attention. There is no reason whatsoever to change it now as it is settled and calmed down, warnings made and idea agreed on, so really the best thing you can do is leave it. J.J.Sagnella 13:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? The only reason why Tip.it has more members/posts is because they don't delete anything! Many, many accounts there are either inactive or duplicate accounts of banned members. RuneHQ has the most comprehensive item/person/monster database. Who cares about forum traffic, Alexa says that RuneHQ is the clear winner. OwnerA 18 September 2006
Correct, it is only site traffic that matters, not number of posts, age of site or whatever. J.J.Sagnella 15:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary articles

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Well, you guys certainly let these articles run rampant.

Wow. That's alot. I don't think any of them should have been created, either. The majority of these articles should be deleted, as the RuneScape Wiki is exactly the place to put fancruft.--Richard 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We're trying our best to delete these articles. So far, we have nominated over 5 articles for deleting last week, all of which seem to be going really well. Relax, these articles, along with the main RuneScape article, should be fixed in a few months.--Edtalk c E 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Two, no now it's three, of those articles are up for AFD as it is, another three can be merged into combat. We're already working on these, but it's going to take time even with many hands. Where we are now is lightyears ahead of a month or two ago. QuagmireDog 01:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we have made plenty of progress from 3 months ago.--Edtalk c E 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some of these articles contain excessive fancruft, and should be trimmed or deleted. However, we definitely need several sub-articles. If it seems possible for a sub-article to adequately cover a sub-topic of RuneScape without excessive fancruft, we should keep the article, and re-write it. For example, for RuneScape skills, each skill could have a section, about 2 paragraphs long, and we could have a general description about the skills in the lead section. That would probably not be fancruft. We also need to redefine fancruft. Many coming to this article are players with passing familiarity with the game. Information useful to someone with passing familiarity with the game should not be considered fancruft. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that the following articles are unimportant?

They are what make Runescape different from other online RPGs.Jeeper5 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Press Reviews

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Now that I look at RuneScape with hopefully "fresh eyes", I'm beginning to realize that we really don't need the Press Reviews on the article. It looks like advertising to me.....--Edtalk c E 00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally. Someone that agrees with me. Take that down and put something better in its stead. Makoto 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Makoto. I've been working on this for so long that I suddenly became biased. So I started working on other things so I can be unbiased in a few days.--Edtalk c E 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We definitely need the Press Reviews subsection, if we want RuneScape to become a good article. It is important to document what reliable sources thought of the game; we need more references for this article. If the main concern is that the reviews look like advertising, what we should try to do is to find some negative reviews of the game by reliable sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of negative reviews already, it's just that they are antiRS. Besides, the only reason the press would comment on something is because they think it deserves notability in the general public. If the press wanted to publicly make known a computer game, I doubt they would put in negative remarks. --Edtalk c E 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
And besides, the article's way better without the reviews.--Edtalk c E 03:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It appears that most of the negative reviews come from a single source which some have criticized as not reliable. While I am no fan of the Verifiability policy, we must follow it to satisfy those who will be reviewing RuneScape's Good Article nomination. And this means we must have reviews from reliable sources, in addition to player criticisms. Featured articles on other games have sections for press reviews - why doesn't anyone complain there? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
YOu know what??? You're giving me second thoughts about our criticims section now. Perhaps we should keep it. HOWEVER, we will have to blend both the press and player reviews together so that is looks more "prosely".--Edtalk c E 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Bingo! We should have a Criticism section that blends both player criticisms and press reviews from reliable sources in a prosely manner. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Not even the most prolific game has this kind of fluff.... Im actually begining to think that the whole criticsm section is a bad idea. Koolsen0 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

General Reminder: Fansites?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

While reading, I came across a note reminding users to only refer to Rune HQ as the RuneScape fansite. If I can recall, Tip.It is the first created RuneScape fansite, although when created, it was also dedicated to two other games as well, yet RuneScape's fansite section of it remained dominant, and now it is the only one they focus on. Comparing Tip.It and Rune HQ results in Rune HQ being abhorrently organized and not attractive at all -- lacking useful features. The only bonus I've ever reaped from Rune HQ was the House Planner, which Tip.It lacks, though hardly damaging its obvious greater quality. Also, a note: This is my first time to create a Discussion Thread, or however the lingo flows here, thus if you find any irregular actions or content, then please pardon it.

Unfortunately this has been discussed time over but the best idea is one. Wikipedia chooses which to keep by traffic, not by content, as it is impossible to say which one is better without using POV. J.J.Sagnella 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
How can Rune HQ(RHQ) be verified as the site with the highest traffic without being subject to false data?Jrabbit05 05:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Traffic is determined by Alexa ranking. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone Have the New Edit Counts?

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Can someone get the latest edit counts? I wonder if it's passed Jesus Christ or George W. Bush by now. Hmm... Cheers! The RSJ 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We are currently on edit 73336648.--Edtalk c E 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You can find the edit totals at special:Mostrevisions. Because of the Israeli conflist, RuneScape is now 7th. Although the edits are still increasing, the increase is slowing down - • The Giant Puffin • 09:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to semi-protection, all the moronic anonymous vandals have gone. I hope no admin will stupidly lift the semi-protection, at least not until RuneScape becomes a good article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection is something that should be on permanently, even though there are vandals amongst IP users - most IP users go on to be productive members of WP like the rest of us. There are enough editors on this page to revert any vandalism as it happens. I found your "stupidly lift" statement goes against the spirit of semi-protection and it's also somewhat rude. Rudeness, something else that should be stamped out of WP.

As per the slowing down of edits, it's all because Xela Yrag hasn't been fixing stupid mistakes. if someone wants to make her name a link to her user page be my guest, i don't know how. --Ace the bunny 11:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

stupid me made a mistake in spelling stupid. XD maybe i'll go to bed now. --Ace the bunny 11:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that semi-protection shouldnt be lifted until RuneScape is a good article. If people wanto to make good contributions they can register an account and wait until they can edit. Its a small price to pay for almost no vandalism - • The Giant Puffin • 14:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

that's what i'm waiting for right now. all though i won't edit much. just fix little things people didn't notice. --Ace the bunny 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

When to use semi-protection

Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page, if the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with. Like full protection, it is usually a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure. Jimbo Wales has suggested that semi-protection may be used in the cases of "minor bios of slightly well known but controversial individuals" which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "subject to POV pushing, trolling [or] vandalism." In such cases, semi-protection "would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often.

When not to use semi-protection

Semi-protection should not be used: as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism has occurred; as a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others (see the protection policy for how to deal with this); in the case of a few static IP vandals hitting a page (blocking the vandals is a much better option than semi-protection); on the day's Featured Article, which should almost never be protected in the interests of encouraging newcomers to be bold; to prohibit anonymous editing in general. Talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances. User talk pages subject to persistent vandalism or trolling may be semi-protected or protected on request.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.96.237 (talk • contribs)

Are you trying to say this should be unprotected? If so, do read what you just posted, in particular these bits- "if the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with" and "semi-protection "would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often". J.J.Sagnella 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah this page has got to be protected if anything wants to be done. However, that's te problem. Not much IS being done. It seems like someone does something, someone else dislikes, reverts, they bicker, someone else does something, others don't like it, etc. This article has very slim chances of becoming a good article too, as it's unstable and the contributors can't seem to agree on anything.--Richard 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Richard. Any good work seems to quickly get undone. For example, we worked so hard on the Press Reviews section (which the GA/FA reviewers asked for), and then it was deleted as "advertising". Then there was a conflict in the History section. After the article was unprotected for a few days, I decided to give up on making RuneScape a good article. I was the one who suggested we collaborate to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, and that's why we're all working on the article now. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen vandals are the tip of the iceburg. What really contributes to the instability of the RS series is the volume of good-faith edits to NN sections in articles to add another layer of NN gloss. These would be considerably easier to deal with if so many of the articles weren't stuffed full of tripe in the first place.

Those who have spent months of editting and adding to the RS series are protective of the pages. Of course they are, look at what they're up against:

  • RS is in the top ten most editted articles on the English language WP, out of 1.3 million.
  • They were told to split the article in order for the main article to have a hope of achieving anything, they did so.
  • The mingling of irrelevant information with that which is needed to complete the articles and the amount of time that this been the case has muddied the waters to the point of gloop.
  • Upkeep of the articles is huge, in terms of AFD discussions, edits, reverts and talk page exchanges.
  • Articles are given 'the knife treatment' instead of being rewritten and merged, leaving stubs floating around, which are then listed for AFD, again.

Who wouldn't be after months of that?

This article is over three years old, yet it hasn't even got a CVG rating but has been nominated for GA once and FA twice. The top of this talk page is like a video recorder manual, there aren't enough days in the hour to digest it all and try to form something cohesive from all the recommendations. Anyone, no matter how well intentioned, who lands here and thinks that the article is suddenly going to jump from zero to FA quickly and easily is kidding themselves. It is going to be a ball-achingly long process with a lot of discussion over even the minor details.

RuneScape is not a single article, it is a collection of them. A genuine wish to elevate RS is a genuine wish to improve the secondary articles. Not just knifing the crud from them - rewriting the relevant material and making something GOOD. The time when the machete was needed has passed, it's time for the scaffolding to go up. To sum up, can I suggest that all you great people out dere consider doing the following:

  • Ask, however it needs to be asked, for the CVG crew to give the main article a rating. Anything, just a rating.
  • List Dungeons for AFD per my argument in 'Revision Hit Parade', above. If that one goes then there is nothing but rewriting before us, any further AFDs can wait until pertinent info is listed in the correct articles.
  • List on this talk page a 'things to do' from the lowest of the current reviews of this page, the peer review?
  • Act upon that, making sure that all the bases are covered. Then strike through it, add the next highest set (GA?). One set of recommendations at a time for such a contested article really is enough.
  • Look at the sub-pages, in particularly economy, combat and community. What can be added in that isn't there, what can be put into combat from other articles.
  • Get the remaining secondary articles in good order, full of useful info, citations etc. These are the 'foundation', as rightly put by someone on this page, of the main article, don't be building a castle on a mountain of sawdust.

Right, that's my twopennies worth, I'll be working on RuneScape mini-games and practicing what I preach. QuagmireDog 12:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to work on the subarticles as well, but for now, we need to concentrate on the main article. I agree it will take a long time and a lot of discussion before RuneScape can become a good article - therefore, please do not rush to nominate it for Featured Article. Besides simple vandalism and fancruft, there's also subtle vandalism, such as deliberately introducing factually incorrect information, spelling and grammatical errors, and other things that easily slip through the cracks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, quite right. My over-enthusiasm about the sub-pages is due to the amount of running around I've felt obliged to do in order to get some of the AFD articles removed without relevant info being lost. I'm happy that the excess articles are gone, but the issue was forced and I'm extremely concerned about articles getting AFD'd before it is demonstrated that merging can happen/has happened and that the remaining daughter articles are being strengthened rather than isolated. QuagmireDog 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Move?

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Looking at the massive amount of information we have on wikipedia about runescape, it is almost turning into a game guide. I mean, some people are even calling articles they are editing "guides" in the talk pages! Why dont we keep the runescape article how it is, to have an overview of the game, and then take all of the other articles and move thyeir info to a runescape wiki? I know this hs been said before, but here it is again WillieWallieWoo 12:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Too much info, the series has already been made smaller, all the articles are being re-done to be more NPOV. This has been said before, here it is again - • The Giant Puffin • 12:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The RuneScape series has just as much right to subpages as any other MMO, or any other videogame for that matter. Just because it is browser-based, why should that mean there is a lot less to say about it? I'd argue that, because it is frequently updated and has been around longer, there is in fact more to write about RuneScape than other modern MMOs, like World of Warcraft. It wouldn't be a good idea to rely on the RuneScapeWiki too much, as it is written for players and not the general public, and will just confuse such readers in the same way as fancruft does on Wikipedia. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
And just how is the RS Wiki only written for players? It has walkthroughs, it talks about the skills. It can be used by anyone who isn't an RS player. I also disagree with moving articles to the RS Wiki, as most of them are already there, little as they may be.--Richard 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Its the writing style and an assumption that a readers knows what is meant, thats all. A non-player would have to do a little further reading to understand some of the terms, see? Although a player of another MMO would have a little head start on this. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

okay, we need sub-articles to keep down the length of the main article. The sub-articles have to be as good as the main article. But if everybody keeps deleting them, we will have to start over. My goal is to make the whole series great, wonderful, concise, encyclopedic, and grammar-error free. But it takes time, so can we get someone to stop all the AfDs til we are done? Xela Yrag 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could post the major revisions template on every page; that might stop people like me from AFDing. I see no reason now to AFD any of the articles, even if there is "fancruft", because they all CAN be made into good articles. But locations and mini-games... eh, no. But still, I will post that template on the pages to see if it helps. Should that work? Hemhem20X6 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the template:

 
 This Talk page or section is currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping.
However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in a while please remove this template. If this article is divided into multiple sections, please try to edit one section at a time to reduce the likelihood of edit conflicts.

Hemhem20X6 06:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Now that ive seen the other side, I agree with you. We should just revise the sub-pages. However, why does that template say the articles talk page is under revision? Shouldn't it say this article? WillieWallieWoo 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the template adjusts to whatever kind of page it's put on. Hemhem20X6 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that {{underconstruction}} was intended to indicate active revisions such as a "collaboration of the day" type of article, or to avoid a stub being Speedy Deleted. It was not really meant for articles that will be left for hours or days in an "unfinished" state without active editing. Gimmetrow 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Constant Tedder

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I just read the entire Jagex webpage. It has a nice little history of Jagex and everything, but there is no mention of Constant Tedder on the page. The reference used to verify this is another Wikipedia article. The Jagex webpage also says that Jagex was formed to handle several games, not just RuneScape. I am checking further, but we need better sources if we are putting in information like this.Xela Yrag 05:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just read the entire Jagex article here on Wikipedia and, while it mentions Constant Tedder, there are no citations for that anywhere. I looked everywhere I can, short of googling the name and no mention anywhere except here on Wikipedia. Can someone find a citation or source for this name?? Xela Yrag 05:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you go...[3]--Edtalk c E 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Err...did you even look at the new source that I added? It's the one Ed has above, from the official RuneScape website. Do you want to look at another source from Jagex.com? I find it odd that you missed a good Constant Tedder source with your search seeing how there's one on the fourth and not to mention third entry on this Google page. Audacious One 19:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Constant's also the Commercial Director now, so he's probably not doing much with programming.--Richard 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Tedder also gave an interview in that PC Gamer article I posted a while back. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I went to your links. Constant Tedder helped form Jagex per all that. But what is in the article right now says that Tedder helped do the third rewrite, and I do not see that mentioned in any of the articles you guys linked. In fact, it says:

"In December 2001 Andrew, Paul and Constant got together and founded Jagex Limited as a commercial operation to take over the running of RuneScape, underlying technologies and other games developed by Andrew. RuneScape had already by then become a game which had had over 1 million accounts created over 2001!"

So, according to your source, RuneScape was already rewritten with over a million accounts before Jagex was formed. But in the article, it is written as if Jagex was formed as the third rewrite was done, and that Tedder assisted in the third rewrite. I do not have time to go out and google all this. So is there a source for Tedder's assistance in the rewrite or not? Oh, and I said I did not google this in my original post. I read the sources that were in the article, which is what a normal person would be expected to do. Then, when the source doesn't collaborate what the article says, it makes us look like idiots. 75.109.30.35 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Oops, forgot to log in first. Xela Yrag 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about how it's unsure whether Tedder helped with the rewrite. When I added that source yesterday I thought about rewording it in a way so it wouldn't say he did or did not help in the rewrite, as we're not sure. I had a hard time with that so I thought I would leave editing the article until a later time - but we definitely do need to clean that bit up. I misunderstood what you said about Google, but it's good we got somwhat of an understanding of how Tedder was involved. Audacious One 00:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape/Archive_13&oldid=390324157"