Talk:RuneScape

(Redirected from Talk:Runescape)
Latest comment: 1 day ago by Alyo in topic Redirects from Gielinor geography here
Former good article nomineeRuneScape was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 14, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 19, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 20, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 15, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 29, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 16, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
May 30, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
June 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age edit

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darklordjax (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Darklordjax (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023 edit

Under Servers subsection add: The player per world limit was reduced from the maximum of 2000 to 1500 on August 3, 2020. [1] Jspoelstra (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done While I don't doubt this is correct, we need a reliable source to accompany this. The official news post connected to that date doesn't mention a change in the maximum server capacity, and the RuneScape Wiki itself is not a reliable source for our purposes. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

PC Gamer Citation edit

PC Gamer called the bug "One of the best all-time MMO bugs." [Citation Needed]

https://www.pcgamer.com/old-school-runescape-celebrates-the-falador-massacre-glitch/ UnicornDude47 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023 edit

Citation for PC Gamer quote: https://www.pcgamer.com/old-school-runescape-celebrates-the-falador-massacre-glitch/ 146.201.92.80 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done ULPS (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024 edit

Please remove Steam is not a platform 199.119.233.180 (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Liu1126 (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Redirects from Gielinor geography here edit

@Alyo: Current situation is very strange: we have tons of redirects here from all aspects of the RuneScape geography - and not a single mention of their titles in the target. This situation serves a reader (or searcher) very poorly: first, they click, then they are forced to search the text of the page (since there is no section on the geography), when this search yields nothing, they have to leave frustrated by having been had. I do not care much about the RuneScape (practically, not at all - I came here after encountering West Ardougne in the WP:NPP), but we might want to either provide in this article some information for redirects targeted here, or delete the said redirects. In this sense, I do not understand the logic behind your removal of a "Gielinor" section. In particular, the reversal re-introduced {{See also}} for Gielinor (which will add a level of frustration for the abovementioned reader) and removed text based on a thesis of quite reasonable quality (this is not ideal, but then the subject is very much not rocket science or controversial either).

Once again, I can be happy with (1) text as reverted and no redirects, (2) redirects and a list of locations in the article with any acceptable source or even without one. The problem is that some editors try to keep the redirects for locations (Varrock is fully protected), while others don't like any mention of the locations in this article. I can just accept this sad state of affairs and (3) simply remove the pages involved from my watchlist. Since the #3 does not bring me any joy, I have decided to spend an extra 15 minutes of my life trying for some common-sense resolution. Pinging @Thief-River-Faller: from the RfD discussion that I have just foolishly closed. Please try to ping other editors that might be interested. Викидим (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The redirects you describe are a legacy from many, many years ago - before the existence of the RuneScape Wiki - when a group of editors created lots of non-notable articles about different aspects of RuneScape. I agree that some/many of them are a bit pointless and should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, although I've not had much luck with this in the past. (Note that I fully support Alyo's decision to remove the Gielinor section. It didn't merit an article in its own right and the sources being used were not good quality.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Викидим, just to be clear, I don't mind a mention of Gielinor in the article--it just needs to be backed up to a decent source. Unfortunately, this article is a bit of a magnet for people trying to source content to blogs, wikis, in-universe publications, and other Jagex materials. I actually skimmed the thesis that was being used as a source, and I'll be honest, I don't think it's great. The author makes a bunch of assertions without sources and without even really explaining her arguments. E.g., the portion comparing parts of Gielinor to real-world land masses would be a great addition if it said literally anything more than "Wilderness (Russia). Miscellania (Greenland)". Sadly, it doesn't. I don't know that it was properly peer reviewed, and so I wouldn't be comfortable with it as a source. What I think is ideal is a short section called "Setting" that we add to the start of the "Gameplay" section that describes the medieval setting + mentions a couple of the biggest cities. Literally three sentences. We just need better sourcing for that.
As far as your particular hypothetical goes, I think we can find a solution. "Gielinor" generally gets 0-1 hits per day, and if we don't have mention of these locations in the RS article I don't mind removing the wikilink from the small number of pages that link it. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much time we should spend on a hypothetical reader who somehow learns about the existence of "Gielinor" but doesn't know enough to go to the runescape wiki instead of wikipedia. That venn diagram seems very small to me. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Alyo, I've added a short sentence to the Gameplay section that states Originally players were teleported to the town of Lumbridge, however in recent updates, Burthorpe is the main starting area. Other main cities include Varrock, Falador, Ardougne (and West Ardougne), and other s smaller settlements. with two Official Guidebooks used as sources that make mention of the towns, I think personally this at least provides mention of the redirects, and is a simple enough sentence to avoid adding a huge section of course I'm open to your thoughts/changes. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would love if we could get another independent source for the reasons explained above, but sure, that works for me. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply