Talk:RuneScape/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

General Reminders

• Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used. This rule applies to all articles in the RuneScape Series.

• Fansites- Wikipedia's external links guideline is that one major fansite may be included as an external link. As fan sites all offer similar information, an effective measurement must be made to decide which is the most appropriate to list. The method that contributors believe is the most effective is by Alexa ranking. However, Alexa recently has proven that the difference between two fansites is negligable. RuneHQ.com and Tip.It are the lowest-placed (most often visited) by Alexa rank and are therefore listed. For more information on this, plase click here and for information on why more fansites than one are being used, see the discussion below or in the archives.

• 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)

• Recent Articles for Deletion - Since we're trying to improve the quality of this Wiki, we must get rid of the fancruft from the sub-categories. Remember, they have to pass the rigorous inspection of not being a game guide, being verifiable and representing all sides equally and fairly, so no weasel wording would be allowed. Makoto 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Semi-protection - Please do not change the {{sprotected2}} template unless the article becomes unprotected. As stated on the sprotected2 page, "This template should be used for pages that are semi-protected for longer periods." As the protection is extended, this template is more suited for the article. Please do not change it to or add the {{sprotected}} template, as the lock image on the top-right of the page (along the header bar) already displays its protection status. Agentscott00^(talk) 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous server locations.

The rs would select page now says things like US East 3 as server location. That could make locations a pain if it becomes even more ambiguous. Keep your eyes peeled... p00rleno 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) PS I was bored of typing timestamps so I just used the standard sig this time.

The information we have would be true if each country only had 1 server, except the UK. It doesn't really matter to the article. And you know, you can set your signature to something else. Just click "Raw signature" and copy in the signature you normally use, excluding timestamp. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

i dont know where raw signature is. p00rleno 00:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In Preferences, where you type your signature. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

TEST → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Random events

In this it says they were created to stop "automated programs"?

It was created to stop java based G.U.I.s that use scripts made by the users, to click on specific locations of the window which has runescape located somewhere within the window , if you want to get technical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshua090909 (talk • contribs) .

A "script" that plays the game/clicks in pre-programmed spots (macros) *is* an automated program. It doesn't necessarily need to be made from Java, many aren't. Agentscott00^(talk) 04:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not literally "play the game". It uses the pixel scale to tell the mouse where to click. Such as "MouseClick(X,Y,Right or Left click)" Just to mention --Joshua090909 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ^{even though this does not matter?}

The information can always be added once you find a reliable source for that. Also, signatures are important, so that we may identify who left a comment.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I myself as a java and pascal programmer know it is the simplest way. Such as the once popular pascal color clicker S.C.A.R., it used the command i showed above. Java bots simply just use there jar file "runescape.jar" and place it on a java applet the same way jagex would if it was client based.I also know that "bots" can be made in Java,Pascal,VB .net,etc. . Joshua090909 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Im not trying to argue im trying to find out if im right or not}

Oh, I get it. You mean bots that reverse engineer the RuneScape client/applet? You might also be interested in the Captcha article, as this is what random events effectively are. Computer programs don't do randomness. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

It says that the most trafficked fansite is RuneHQ without any proof at all? Do external links need to cite there sources?--Joshua090909 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the messages at the top of this talk page, and see here. They provide information on why there's one site. Agentscott00^(talk) 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There have been many questions about this recently. The community decided that RuneHQ was the most trafficked web site, backed up by a ratings system.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i see that now, i just didn't see that page before.Joshua090909 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of servers

Due to the fact that some servers are taken offline and the number of servers often changes, we are only providing an approximation. Currently, the number of servers should simply say "over 130," and the maximum number of players need not be exact. So, please don't change the number of servers unless Jagex actually adds new servers. For RSC, of course, the number can be exact because there's only 2 servers with 1250 people each maximum. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there is too much arguing over this. Using an exact number of servers is nothing but trouble, and a nightmare to keep correct and up to date. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just got tired of people editing to "correct" the number of servers every day. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, people are like, Arrgh! Im gonna cut someone's head off if it dosn't say 137.59 servers capable of 2_x10³ players per server! Now dont rv my edit or fear my wrath mwahahaha!!!! ^{Sorry, felt like being silly...} But seriously, more than 130 will suffice for now, till theres over 140, and 150, and 160, 170, 180 190, 200, 210, 220 230... u get the point. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of players per server

I'm pretty sure it's 1980, not 2000. It may be splitting hairs, but is there any source for either? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this, as I have no official source, but I believe that they can handle up to 2000 players, but stop accepting new logins below that, perhaps at your suggested 1980. --Russoc4 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There must be something about 1980, since I've never seen a player count get above 1979 without going to "full". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Each server can handle 2000 players. When they stop accepting logins is a mystery, but 2000 is the maximum capacity - • The Giant Puffin • 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen it go over 1980 either. Maybe they stop accepting logins before 2000 in case a lot of people click at the same time --JCGracik ^{talk c} 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is purely a guess, but maybe it is displayed as being full from the world-select page when there's 1980 or more players, but players already on the login page can enter when there's up to 2000 players. This would give players more of a chance to log in once they clicked on the world number. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 02:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But guessing isn't very reliable, guesses don't get sources. But everyone does agree on this, so look to see if Jagex said it anywhere. J.J.Sagnella 07:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

uh-oh --- i saw one go to 1985 yesterday. Glitch? Or was it just me? → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(insane on) NOOOO! My theory! (insane off) Oh well. Maybe we should try contacting Jagex through customer support to ask them about it. You know, I think I might have seen this once or twice too. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... last I checked it was Amarkov's theory not yours... =P → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Until Jagex verifies the information, we'll have to just say that each server accepts 2000 players--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I played (I quit a few months ago), the servers could handle 2000 users each. I saw it go to 1980+ multiple times, but I don't know if that still occurs. Nishkid64 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my theory: it stops accepting the link at 1980, but to allow the extra few players that click the link after it becomes "locked", the full limit (where it says the server is full on the actual applet) is 2000. - Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.199.75.203 (talk • contribs).

"which is similar to the real-life game Capture the Flag,"

Should this sentence be mentioned? Who really wants to know how to Play Castle Wars? J.J.Sagnella 07:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't tell you how to play castle wars, it just gives a general idea as to what it is. I think it should stay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I put it in because just "Castle Wars" alone with no definition or explanation seemed a bit confusing. Without that, it could be taken as fancruft. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a comparison. Its hardly a guide on how to play it. It just tells people who dont play RS what it is like - • The Giant Puffin • 15:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Skill Section?

I think there should be a section that lists the skills. -Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.199.75.203 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

There is: RuneScape skills. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful responce. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that - • The Giant Puffin • 13:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol... I third that. :P --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fansite

RuneHQ appears to be the highest ranked right this instant, but it's fluctuating. What do we do? We can't keep changing the site every week. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just keep Rune HQ. Over a long period of time its the most popular - • The Giant Puffin • 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Over all runehq keeps the most traffic. It is generally accepted as the highest rated fansite. - Sheep01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.70.55.179 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 20 December 2006.

I think maybe we really should list both. I mean, those two are by far the most popular fansites, and they're about equally popular. Would one more external link be a big deal? --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only most popular over a long period time if you take the average certain ways. The way I took it, Tipit is ahead. I'm just going to add both, as they seem to have too close popularity to make a call. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you've really got a problem. Look at the messsage beneath. "Per Wikipedia policy, ***only*** the highest-traffic fan site to be linked. As RuneHQ and Rune Tips are the most popular (per Alexa ranking), and they are too close too each other to make a call as to which is most popular, they have been added but ***no more*** links may be added. Please see the talk page before changing this link. If you need more information on RuneScape, a Google search should suffice."- Problems with that: A) "this" is singular, just thought I had to point that out , B)Fan site is singular, and unlike a), you can't change it as the rule says one. J.J.Sagnella 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not Wikinews. We don't have to be up to the minute with this. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When we say "the highest traffic one must be linked", and the highest traffic one keeps changing, we kinda do. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexa is evil *Hides in the closet* Roast beef god has spoken. Roast Beef God 09:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, if it keeps fluctuating, wait until it's stabilized and list the fansite on top. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's that close can we have a rs fansite disambiguation page? like, who cares over 5 hits? just throwing it out there... → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We're stuck at a dead end here. We can't have two links thanks to the rule, but tip.it isn't outrightly ahead. My suggestion is that we Watch it, and if tip.it stays above runehq for say, 7 days in a row, change it, and then if runehq overtakes tip.it for 7 days in a row, change it back. If we find ourselves changing it pretty much once a month, then we will take a step back to consider. J.J.Sagnella 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If need be we can shout WP:IGNORE-- or so I think but then my interpeatations of that have been claimed to be pish-posh. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was going for WP:IGNORE here. Let's name both sites.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Name both sites. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think currently this is a good idea. Unless one of three things happens, I think this idea would work.

• Problem 1- RuneHQ starts having higher traffic than Tip.it for about 30 days or so in a row.
• Problem 2-Tip.it starts having higher traffic than RuneHQ for about 30 days or so in a row.
• Problem 3- Another Fansite starts beating RuneHQ or Tip.It.

As long as none of those 3 happen, this decision could work. Now we need to update a few things. I'll make a list and feel free to cross them off when they are done.

• Update RuneScape Portal Fansite warning

* Update to-do list Done! → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 21:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update warning below fansites in main page
• Make sure all major RuneScape editors knows this change and agrees
• Add new paragraph on the explanation page linked to by the general reminders.
• Merge information on new page into link in General Reminders, good to keep everything in one place.

Once we've done them all, then we can see how it goes. Fingers crossed for Peace for our Time, J.J.Sagnella 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Servers

Idly browsing the Jagex jobs page, I noticed that the advert for 'Systems Administration' asked for someone capable of maintaining 'locally hosted Linux servers' and 'experience with the Debian Linux distribution' being also useful. So there we have the answer to that question that came up in October. See the Systems Administration/Systems Administration Team Leader section. Pay's not bad for those, actually... CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! An answer! - • The Giant Puffin • 13:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Let's add it in before the page disappears!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2 minute server update warning--

I've noticed before the game is updated a message pops up opposite to the split private chat 2 minutes prior to the event. Is this notable by any means? After all, I personally use it to get to a mage store to get low prices on the newly restocked runes. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 12:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It has always done this for has long as I can remember. Maybe a sentence or two on it may be appropriate - • The Giant Puffin • 13:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll never make GA.

I officially throw in the towel. RuneScape will never reach GA status. Every few months, an admin will unprotect the article. Soon after, it'll be filled with fancruft and ruined by anonymous vandals. Even when it's semi-protected, it'll never be stable. Making, and sticking to, a decision regarding the Criticism section and inclusion of fansites seems impossible.

As the one who first suggested we get RuneScape to GA status, please contact me when, if ever, these issues get resolved.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We will eventually reach GA status. All fancruft can be seen and reverted through popups and the history. And let's get some admin to semi-protect it again. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Say, is there any way this same get a permanent semi-protection? That way we wouldn't have to worry about getting it renewed to stop the onslaught of vandals. DiscordantNote 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. But anyway, I'm fairly new, so I'm not the one to ask. But this is getting out of hand with the unprotection. In fact, I'm going to request that the admin sprotect it again. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

=) Inspirational Poster goes HEre → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've got protection now. About how long do these last? DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends. Hopefully for a long time. Thanks to Nishkid64 for protecting it again. Anyone have any theories? And I don't mean $E=MC^{2}$; I mean why does this article get so much vandalism? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins are usually discouraged to have a longer semi-protection because it discourages new editors who want to edit.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article probably gets the excessive amount of vandalism due to the massive amount of people that know about Runescape. It is a fun game, but, since it sometimes is given a childish status (a la Neopets), people like to abuse it. So, the fans of the game come here and edit the article with more info than needed, thinking it will help. While those who don't like the game insist on destroying the page. It doesn't help that the larger number of people who play the game seem to be juvenile...all the people i know on there are at least 4 years younger than me.

That's just what I think. Probably isn't completely right, but it seems to be on the right track. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 02:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that RuneScape is vandalised so much because of the players of the game themselves. My guess is that many of the IP vandals are players who are upset with the game, possibly because of being scammed, hacked, or banned. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's vandalized a lot because there are a lot of RuneScape haters out there. Personally, I think it's all the CS, WoW, and MS players hehe. Nishkid64 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides making decisions, you have to stick to them. When we first replaced the player criticisms with press reviews, many protested, claiming that the Criticism section was biased. I expect such complaints to surface again. How will you respond to them? Will you bring the player criticisms back, or stick to your guns? (Same goes for the fansites.) How are we going to ensure no admin unprotects the article (at least, not until it passes GA)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...well I don't know if every admin will be able to know that this is one of the long-term protected pages, but if someone does unprotect it, and it's heavily hit again, talk to me and I'll protect it asap. Nishkid64 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we put a note in article so admins know to avoid unprotection? Exarion 03:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncited statements removed

I've removed two statements tagged with {{fact}} since the age of the dinosaurs.

• diff 1 - we can let the reader work this one out, but there apparently isn't a controversy about it anyway, as a lengthy Google search brings up only Wikipedia mirrors to support it.
• diff 2 - the only web sources supporting this are web forum rants - which are against WP:RS anyway - about slow customer support response, by people who admit they are breaking the rules: "all I was doing was using an autominer!" "all I did was hurl abuse at a wall!", etc. Why should Jagex offer priority support to rulebreakers?

For my next trick, I'm going to Google some professional reviews of the game, bringing up a balance of positive and negative points, and throw out all these ghastly GameFAQs user reviews. Apologies if this is overly bold or a little harsh, but we seem to have gotten bogged down in bureaucracy with the GA effort. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful! I totally agree with your edits. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Runescape Versions

Has anyone ever heard that every patch put RS up a level so that now it is RS 5 and they are soon to come out with six? I think I read this on this page and im too lazy to check the history. PatPeter 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not heard that, but I'm pretty sure it's not correct. You see, last I heard the current version is version 2, with version 1 being Runescape Classic. People have been saying that they might upgrade it to version three sometime in the future, but there's evidence saying otherwise (for example, there's no need to because the current version looks and feels as good as it's going to be). That's what they said at tip.it at any rate...if you sift through the archievs a bit you might find the little essay they wrote on the subject. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it's usually called RuneScape 2.1. Version 1 was RSC, 2 is the current RuneScape, and 2.1 is because there was that major update where they redid the chat system and made all those huge behind the scenes game engine updates. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

They may give it Micro$oft :-P style version numbers. Like, for example, 11.0.5721.5145 - a recent version of Windows Media Player 11. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 03:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Micro$oft"? Interesting... Anyway, if Jagex does, I've never heard of it. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fight the power! :-D

Ok, sorry, i'll stop now. This would make something interesting to ask Jagex, maybe in the Postbag from the Hedge. We've already worked out the servers use Debian Linux, but it might be interesting to see the specs, what type of server they are. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 03:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol... I read the article on alternative polical spelling you linked to. Interesting. Anyway, back on topic. I'm not sure that PfH would be the right place to ask. That's more for asking NPCs questions, not for technical game questions like what code the servers use. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 04:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In Letters 16, someone asked what programming language the game is made with (Java). Maybe we could direct our questions at the servers... CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Will the servers answer? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section rewritten

I have reinstated an old version of the criticism section that used only professional, reliable reviews of the game. The GameFAQs user reviews are no more. I have also rewritten the old section to contain good points offset by bad points. A large amount of criticism, such as bits about web forum safety and skill grinding were removed altogether, as these are badly cited (unfortunately, having to log into the ProQuest database to read one isn't acceptable) and are generic criticisms of online communities and RPG games anyway. And that, apart from some copyediting and an NPOV check, is that: I believe nearly every point in the recent Peer Review and the Good Article criteria has been addressed;

• It is well written (apart from that copyedit).
• It is fully verified.
• It has reasonably broad coverage.
• It is of a neutral point of view (apart from that check).
• It is stable (vandalism doesn't count as instability).
• It has properly licensed and rationaled images.

It was that easy. Why is everyone so down, like we have a mountain to climb, eh? Just copyediting, an NPOV check, and a bit about server technical aspects to go now. The automated peer reviewer points may help with the copyediting, and Wikipedia:POV check with the NPOV. The next step is nominating for GA, maybe a final Peer Review, although some problems can be identified and addressed in the nomination. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been editing here as much as I should. I've been focusing on other articles and collaborations. I gotta get to the server info quickly!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The criticism section was one of this article's weak points. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work, I havent been on this particular article as much as before - • The Giant Puffin • 13:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish that this just solved all our problems, but we'll still get complaints. Mostly stupid ones, like "OMG j00 f00s don't gotz da reviews wer pplz swear at Runscape!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Web article mentioning RuneScape

I found this while browsing through Special:Mostrevisions' talk page. It is from early September, but still a good side of the argument for keeping RuneScape protected.

[1]

At the end of the second paragraph, "So how did a humble, Java-powered MMORPG rack up nearly 11K edits? Vandalism!" - good reasoning if we ever need to support semi-protection. Agentscott00^(talk) 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...this is very interesting! I'm pretty shocked with these statistics! I agree with you about using this article as a reasoning for semi-protection. Don't forget, though, that semi-protection shouldn't be permanently applied.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I never realized it was that much. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 02:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. Thats a lot of edits - • The Giant Puffin • 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also from June, and we've racked up quite a few more edits since then. We're still around the same spot though. Special:Mostrevisions isn't working right now, so we can't really tell where we're currently at. It's always been obvious that we've got a huge edit count due to the vandalism, but this article actually gives proof. Agentscott00^(talk) 23:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When is that page expected to be back up and running? We might have overtaken more articles since then - • The Giant Puffin • 11:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever the cache updates, as it uses one copy of the page for several days before updating. Normally no more than a few weeks however. I'm fairly sure the Wii has overtaken us since then though, from the last time I looked at the page when it was working. The point I'm really trying to make though is that we've got an external source supporting the need for protection. We've always had a high edit count (we overtook WWII at one point before we got semi-protection). The numbers are generated from the offline Wikipedia dumps of the whole database, and two dumps (the two with complete edit history) from the Nov. 30 dump, which is the current mostrevisions cache, failed, so there's no edit history data. Agentscott00^(talk) 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The wii has overtaken us a while ago, see last archive, but I'm not sure its a bad thing, on the contrary, just one more vandalsim^SP target... → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKS^C_RS 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's spelled "vandalism". Perhaps we should include a comment at the top of the article, warning admins not to lift semi-protection. Hopefully the comment, and web article, will convince admins, some of which prioritise welcoming anonymous vandals over ensuring quality. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

bring back history and development

It might be a good idea to bring back RuneScape history and development(currently only a redirect), as this article is now 42kb long, and it does not appear that it will be shrinking without more subpages.Exarion 02:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you bring it back, I bet that it will quickly be nominated for deletion as Runecruft. Most featured articles are 30-50 kB long (some much longer), so I don't see why 42 kB is too long. Some sections are too long. For starters, nix the unreferenced paragraphs in the Graphics subsection, trim fancruft in the Gameplay section, and...should the "Criticism and response" subsection even be there? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it will just be put up for MfD like loads of other sub-articles - • The Giant Puffin • 22:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Too Many footnotes

No Wonder the page is so big. There are like 50 footnotes. Can we put them in like a hide/show box? → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKS^C_RS 13:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at what featured articles have. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A previous version of Microsoft (a FA) had 137 references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But Still, is one of those cool boxes you can click in the top left corner of to make it show up or go away out-of-the-question? It would make it look nice. → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKS^C_RS 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could post on the Village pump suggesting someone create a show/hide box for references. If implemented, it would be used not just for RuneScape, but for other articles with many references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so.

Okay. So at first we had an unlimited number of fansite links. This was by far against the style guides for external links. Then we had only the top 5 major site links, which was seen as arbitrary, still against the style guides, and caused lots of conflict as to which the top 5 actually were. Then we had no fansite links, which some editors (you know who you are) thought made the article incomplete, as did the style guide. So a link to RuneHQ was added, since RuneHQ had the most hits according to Alexaholic. This finally satisfied the style guides.

Now, we have RuneHQ and TipIt. I see this as completely unacceptable. Sure, there's IAR, but that's going to greatly hurt our chances of getting that good article status that we so desparately desire.

So that's the problem.

Possible solutions:

- Link to only RuneHQ

- Link to only TipIt (TipIt was first, maybe that deserves some attention?)

- Link to a web directory (Dmoz, Google, a toplist... These are worth considering according to the style guide)

- Get rid of all fansite links (not reccomended if we want good article status, which we do). Dtm142 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read why we have both? Namely that they are both so close in Alexa ranking that to make a distinction would be impossible? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's where the directory comes into play. Dtm142 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Read this, at the top of the style guide:

However, different Wikipedia articles are written with different audiences in mind, and editors are free to adapt their style accordingly. This manual, along with the supplemental manuals linked from it, provides guidance for those seeking it, but does not prescribe rigid rules that must always be followed.

We should use whatever best fits the situation, and as of right now, having Tipit AND RuneHQ seems to be the best solution. The Manuals of Style aren't written in stone, it's not completely necessary for us to follow them. Agentscott00^(talk) 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But it would be in our best interest to follow them if we this was to become a good article. Dtm142 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be. Blindly following the Manual of Style doesn't help make something good. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is where WP:IAR comes into play. This policy states that you can "bend" policy witing reason.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Within reason, we can change the rules.Having 2 currently seems to be the best idea, and is general consensus. I really doubt this will stand against us when RuneScape gets deemed of worthiness of "Good aricle" status. J.J.Sagnella 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of general interest, what does it take to have a fansite that is "worthy" of inclusion here? 72.38.233.236 12:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

for some days To have higher Alexa ranking than all other runescape fansites. J.J.Sagnella 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To keep with tradition, it is my duty to throw some crazy idea out there for all of you to scoff at. This time it is linking to a user subpage ie user:poorleno/fansite that has like 10 fansites or whatever number in the Alexa ranking of that very instant. That might put my page on mostrevisions but at least the turmoil here will go down. I'm not a newb anymore. Feel free to "Bite" the heck out of this idea, or at least chew on it. → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKS^C_RS 01:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope won't work. By the time you have 10 fansites, you have to maintain the 10 best ones traffic wise and as we're not dealing with main ones anymore, it will be very diifficult. J.J.Sagnella 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we'll do the or whatever part and use less. → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKS^C_RS 12:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Use Thy Feed

For all IE7 users... a feed on the recent edits of any wikipedia page is now available and will be a powerful antivandal tool. To subscribe goto RuneScape's history, then click the feed icon nedt to the home page icon in your browser and select rss 2.0. When it loads click suscribe. You can then see the diffs on the last 10 edits to the page from your Favorites Center. (I have them for my user pages too) Feed On Wikipedians, Feed On! → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKS^C_RS 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It works in Firefox 2.0 as well. Just so you guys know. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 05:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

O good - • The Giant Puffin • 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Opera users like me? Are we left out in the cold? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It works in Opera, I just tried it --JCGracik ^{talk c} 04:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I'll check it out. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From the Articles for Creation page, 12/20/06

RSHelp

#RSHelp is the official RuneScape help channel of the swiftIRC, seersIRC, and runeboardsIRC networks. RSHelp is almost two years old now and was founded by andy simman, also the founder of runeboardsIRC. The official forum site for this organization can be found here. We, at RSHelp, offer free RuneScape help and tips to help you and your friends with their RuneScape careers. Also in the RSHelp family is RSE, RSPC, RSCW, and RS-market. Please feel free to download mIRC xChat AthenaIRC IRCle or any other IRC client and connect to the swiftIRC, seersIRC, or runeboardsIRC server and type "/join #rshelp" to join our home channel!

http://runeboards.com/

Connor Coley, #RSHelp staff and Administrator of the Forums

24.106.227.36 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have migrated this request here, as it would probably be more appropriately addressed by those who are familiar with this article/gamesphere. SkierRMH 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you could have rejected it just as well. For that matter, as a semi-regular there, I should have already rejected it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It really is not approppriate, as this falls under the category of Used by Few and/or Unrecognized by Jagex. Whether that's right or wrong, I think any such article would be shot down on charges of non-notibility and cruft. Sorry Connor. → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKS^C_RS 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Even Runehq has gotten their article deleted, so an "official" IRC channel isn't going to be better. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose It's not even notable within RuneScape. Even if it was, it would not be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. An article on RSHelp would be quickly deleted as spam. Sorry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits of dates

I've seen a couple edits of dates being "wikified" lately, and I'd like to point this out. Try not to pipe the links to appear as a certain way. The Wikimedia software automatically changes dates to appear as a user has set them in their preferences panel if they're left normally. Piping the links (eg. [[21 December|December 21]] causes them to display inconsistently unless they're all formatted that way. Here's what one paragraph from the article looks like. The first date is normal, the last two are piped:

..site started on September 26, 2005 and has since become one of the most accessed pages of the site. From 24 September 2002 through 9 December 2004, players could..

See what I mean? Either we pipe all the links, or we leave them all for the software to display. For now though I suggest we leave them unpiped, unless someone has a reason to do so (Does the "This is a British game" reason apply here?) I don't mean to point fingers here, but see this edit as an example on the first line modified - [[4 January]] is the same as [[January 4]] - there's no need to change them in that type of case, as the order in the code doesn't affect the end output to the user. I know this is a bit nitty-gritty, but we need to have consistency for FA/GA. Unless anyone objects, I'll unpipe most of the dates sometime tomorrow. Agentscott00^(talk) 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops... That would have been me. Go ahead and change them back, I didn't know it appeared differently with user preferences. --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 04:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unpipe them - • The Giant Puffin • 10:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has turned to garbage Has Not!!

It has, this article used to be good, about a year or so ago, but it's just been getting badder and badder.. Now it's garbage. It's a horrible article now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.190.37 (talk • contribs).

And what do you suggest we do to improve it, o wise and all-knowing critic? J.J.Sagnella 08:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a lot better than before. Mainly because vandals like you havent been able to get your hands on it as much - • The Giant Puffin • 10:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Anons make me laugh... → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKS^C_RS 12:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, looking at revision 32371249 (diff), which is from 16:17 22 December 2005, I see cruft, gameguidance, bad writing and an external links section the size of the Ark Royal. I'd say the latest, GA's doorstep version is much better. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how far this article has developed in one year. What was an ugly duckling page has finally become a truly briliant page. J.J.Sagnella 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)