Talk:RuneScape/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Source?

This more recent university research paper quotes over 8 million accounts created by '07 and more importantly - "Our own study of the official list of top RuneScape players counted over 3,000,000 unique active players in September 2007. Given that a player needs to be active (and efficient) for about a month to become a top player, we conclude that RuneScape converts into dedicated players between 30% and 60% of the starting players." Can we use this information somewhere? http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/~iosup/mmog08sc.pdf --Primadog (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! I'll take a closer look at this, and add in what I can. A three-second look-over only confused me, but I'll take a better look later.--Unionhawk Talk 13:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for moving this comment to a proper place. This study is not of runescape in particular, but about dynamic server load modelling. They happen to use runescape as a model to sample data from. I think this is a good case that the academia is finally taking RuneScape seriously. The parts would most interest us would probably be page 3 of the PDF under III. MMO WORKLOAD ANALYSIS. Part IV and forth are all CIS stuff that probably won't be interesting to this Wiki page. Primadog (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if we're going to use this as a source, the exact page should be noted or people will wonder why we're using it. I took a cursory glance at it and was completely lost. I wonder where this would go in the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't figure out how to paste properly. Primadog (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
We can probably add to receptions or the intro something along the line of, "as one of the most popular MMORPG, RuneScape has been subjects of academic research. (http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/~iosup/mmog08sc.pdf , http://www.massively.com/2009/05/13/spencer-post-doc-to-study-runescape/ ). Additionally, this section of the research paper would probably be most useful: Primadog (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"The number of RuneScape players has surged over the past two years, starting with the introduction of the minigames. From 180,000 active players 1 at the beginning of 2005, the game is estimated to have now over 5,000,000 active players from the over 8,000,000 open accounts in 2007. Our own study of the official list of top RuneScape players counted over 3,000,000 unique active players in September 2007. Given that a player needs to be active (and efficient) for about a month to become a top player, we conclude that RuneScape converts into dedicated players between 30% and 60% of the starting players.
"Our study shows that the maximum global number of active concurrent players for RuneScape is around 250,000. However, this number is strongly driven by the mood of the player base. Figure 2 depicts the number of active concurrent users for RuneScape over a period of two months. A highly unpopular decision issued on 10 December 2007 results in massive account cancelations; the number of active concurrent players drops by over 30,000 units (a quarter of its value) in less than one day. Under intense pressure, the game operators agree to amend the changes; the number of active concurrent players raises again, but to only 95% of the previous value. On 18 December 2007 and on 15 January 2008, the game operators release new content; a period of about one week after each release sees an over 50% surge of the number of active concurrent players. Primadog (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This is probably more suitable for the Reception section, since it touches on rising and falling numbers of players/accounts. It probably isn't necessary to block-quote all that text; picking a few lines from each paragraph you've noted is probably sufficient. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay Section Lead

The lead should be broader; an introduction to the whole section. Right now, it explains what happens to new players. Any opinions? TechOutsider (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article's lead notes that players can engage in combat, train skills, etc. I'd recommend something along the lines of that, but a bit broader to cover the rest of the section. The balance of detail can be struck later.
Also, on a not-quite-related note, the PvP Worlds section might want to mention this. It is a noteworthy element, especially since we touch on the original role of the Wilderness. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, well, I've decided to do this part myself, having taken some time to consider the relevant points. If anyone wants to weigh in...? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Good for me.--Unionhawk Talk 23:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the rules

Jagex have recently made changes to the rules that govern RuneScape, as well as the system for appealing offences. Parts of the article need to be updated, and some external links need to be adjusted. I'll work on the links, but the content will take longer.

Just a heads-up. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've hopefully got all the links that went dead. As for the content, it's not as major as I thought. The way it's written shouldn't require an update. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked. No dead links.--Unionhawk Talk 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit I didn't expect there to be any. I must have checked 100 times - all the rules-related links had the word "Rules" somewhere in there, making them easy to dig out 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a tool on Toolserver called Checklinks that will notify you of the status of all external links on the page, as well as automatically tag dead ones. That's how I know :)--Unionhawk Talk 20:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It was something like that which put me onto a load of dead links in the page once. There used to be a load of links to the RS Knowledge Base that were dead (their URL's were in an old format). Guess who went through and fixed them all, at the same time converting the entire article to {{cite web}} format, here and here? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception copy-edit

  • Free play abilities? What does that mean?

After the sentence about RS being free, the article quotes JustRPG which mentions the its addicting quality and graphics. I do not see how that fits. I suggest developing the fact RS is free some more. Looking on through the section, I see you mention how the Guinness World Record was given to RS for being the most popular free MMORPG. Maybe that should go together with its "Free play abilities".

Minor: Is "Riots" a proper noun? If not, it should not be capitalized.

Wordiness. "virtual protests in which disgruntled players congregated in RuneScape's main cities and spammed the screen with messages of objection to the changes."

The article can phrase that better; maybe "players congregated in cities, spamming the messaging system". Wikilink "spam" as well; and remember there are several forums of spam, so find the best one.

"Additionally, commentators have criticised RuneScape's in-game community for being unfriendly to newcomers, although they have said that the Fan-Forum community is more approachable." Aviod one sentence paragraphs. Expand, remove, or merge.

"At the 2008 Leipzig Games Convention, Jagex was presented with a certificate to commemorate the achievement." Maybe "Jagex was presented with a certificate to commerorate the achievement at the 2008 Leipzig Games Convention. TechOutsider (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


A good portion of the Reception section was originally written by someone who was only interested in trying to balance positive/negative views. Not bad by itself, but it means that this section doesn't fit the rest of the article prose-wise.
  • "Free play abilities" really doesn't fit the article. Consistency matters here. It should be something like "The free version of RuneScape. Pending something better, I've made that change.
  • The first paragraph, which contains quotes from various reviews of RuneScape, focuses on two main points - the free version of RuneScape, and the game's graphics. This could be seperated into two paragraphs, one for each point. The point about the world record can then be merged in more easily, although it does cause the phrase "Guinness World Records" to be split.
  • "Riots" is not a proper noun, nor a term that needs speech marks. Changed as such.
  • "Spammed" has been linked to a section of "Spam (electronic)", as the most appropriate option. The phrase in question has been rewritten to be less wordy, especially because "main cities" is a vague term.
  • I'm going to avoid that last paragraph for now. Expansion is probably the best option, pending other sources. We have used other sources in the past - this was a discussion on one source, although I always found that source one-sided.
Given that User:Unionhawk's access is likely to be limited, I don't have many people to bounce ideas off of. A number of people who used to edit this article (including User:FlashNerdX and User:Someone another) have since moved on or are no longer active. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent progress. TechOutsider (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Not dead, just hella-busy with exams :-(. Normal service to resume as soon as I have spare time againFlashNerdX (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You haven't edited this particular article in a while though, if memory serves. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

New Server added

2 Indian worlds have been added recently, world 170 and 171. So mention "India" too, in "Servers".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Ishaan (talk • contribs)

No source, no inclusion. This ties in to my point further above about simply listing every single country. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "simply listing every single country"? As you mentioned in your Page that you play RuneScape, you should be aware of the fact that two new servers have been launched. And they are Indian, world 170 and 171, they are located in India. You are an experienced player so I assume that you are aware of the recent updates. For which, you shouldn't need a so-called "source", if you really need a source, then just go and check the worldlist and see if you can find "World 170" and "World 171".

My experience with RS is not relevant to the article, or to Wikipedia in general. And by a source, I mean an announcement or webpage which specifically states that this is the case - world lists and forums do not count as such. Without a reliable source, the information can be removed as original research.
This article is not written for people who play RS, it is for a worldwide audience who are not necessarily familiar with the subject. They may not know about the world list - that is why we must provide references to back up the information we provide. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1ForTheMoney It seems you just wanted to argufy... But here's your magical source: [1] ~paraj

At the risk of further "argument", let me reiterate that it is NOT a reliable source, and any experienced Wikipedian can back that up. Please read the policies on reliable sources and external links. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know... I think I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I mean, it's on the official site. I'm not sure if we can trust/if we need the state detail level, but, India should probably be added, and that link perhaps as a global reference for the whole thing there. I'm going to go ahead and do that.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
With time to think, I take it back. That could very well work, and it would solve the problem of referencing every single country. Now we can get one with referencing some of the unsourced stuff in the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

zezima

does anyone think zezima should be included in this article? I don't know where but it is hard to put him anywhere else... He is the best, most renound player in RS, but at the same time he doesn't deserve a page to himself...I bet you have a fair amount of people searching 'zezima' and coming up with no results?Stakingsin (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned, oddly enough. But you're correct in that Zezima, no matter how "good" he might be (and I use quotes because that's a matter of opinion rather than fact), does not deserve an article on Wikipedia, because he has no real-world notability. For the same reason, specfic players are not mentioned in this article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 1ForTheMoney there. No matter how good he is, he is only famous to people playing Runescape.Steven Jin (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also only a certain amount we could put, if we also did that then no doubt we would have to do it for others. At the most we could do a famous players section? --Jonxy 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonxy (talk • contribs)

Why should we? The article is about RuneScape not about the people who play it. A "famous player section" wouldn't fit WP:NOTABILITY.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The article will have nothing on famous players. Period. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but, I would like to point out that zezima has dropped to rank 284 overall...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes Zezima is no longer one of the games best players Floul1 (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, not even in the top 10. Even if we wanted to it would be pointless as we would constantly have to update it. Jonxy 13:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonxy (talk • contribs)

So there is general agreement that we will not include famous players in the article. Can we put this discussion to an end, please? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do. The issue is undue weight rather than notability, which does not limit article content but rather questions whether a subject requires its own article. I don't check the page regularly but if queries of this nature keep popping up perhaps you could craft a ready-made answer for the FAQ ^ ? Someoneanother 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:RuneScape/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

On reviewing this article against the good article criteria, I have decided that the article in its current form does not meet requirements and that there is sufficient work that could not be done in the span of a week. The major issues:

  • References: Clearly tagged unreliable references are in the article. That's an automatic quickfail right there.
  • Prose: The prose is very choppy, to the point where it can be hard to read. Get an experienced copyeditor to run through it.
  • Images: There are waaaay too many fair use images in the article, and very few actually meet WP:NFCC. They need to be trimmed and the remainder's rationales expanded.
  • Coverage: Mostly good, but there are problems in how content is represented; for example, take a look at WP:FA game articles and see how they do the reception sections, then contrast it to the current reception section which gives undue weight and sometimes uses weasel words. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I just knew we needed more editors at that peer review. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

runescape pures.

I think it is worth mentioning in the article that there is a substantial 'flaw' in the runescape combat system relating to purely training only four cb skills, ranged, mage, str, att, to obtain a low cb lv and retain a high hitting character... This should belong in the comabat section, and should be mentioned briefly in one para, around 5-8 lines in size. It should mention this in a non biased way, and give full detail of how this affects gameplay, and how it is related with the recent updates. Stakingsin (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 09:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I've said this in the past, but you need a reliable source. And we already mention min-max characters in the article, so this might be extraneous. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

my reliable source would be me, as i played the game for 5 years... Anyway, i see the external link to min-maxing and it is sufficient enough i suppose. I did not notice it before.Stakingsin (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC) for the fourth time today i have forgotten to put this... I am losing my mind or something...

Unfortunately, I don't think we can count you as a source. Never mind, though - there's always a limit on how much information to include, since the article is not a guide to RS. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point well made. I mean, if i write a book on RS, could i use that as a source? just wondering, im not actually gonna write a book on it...Stakingsin (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC) and once again forget to put this in... Hard day...

Depends on the circumstances, and the quality of the information in the book. Of course, writing a book just to get a reference (or an article) on Wikipedia isn't a good way to spend your time. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

yeh... just imagine spending a year or something, writing an entire book to make it a reliable source, just to put one edit on wiki. I wonder if anyone has actually done that...Stakingsin (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Social Network Sites

As Jagex are expaning their usage of these sites do you think it would be okay to add links to their FaceBook/Twitter/YouTube etc? Going to add bits into the main article about them but not sure if it would be better to do it as part of those section or to add them into the official sites.FlashNerdX (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this. There are some who would view this as an attempt to use the article to advertise RuneScape, which has caused issues in the past. For now, I'd hold off. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep it on the Jagex page, maybe mention it as part of their current "outreach"/fan site stuff.FlashNerdX (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It does seem a bit more pertinent to Jagex themselves, particularly as it's their sites. Given that there are also some who would view having 3 fansites as spam, this would be pushing it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

French Servers

References don't mention servers locatated in France. French version's world select only refers to language with flag next to it. The same with German servers, though the article doesn't mention servers being located in Germany. 06:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.199.174 (talk)

There's a hidden message in the article that the german servers ARE NOT located in Germany. I'm not sure if the article is trying to give their physical locations, or just the places they serve. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe it's physical locations, not places they serve as all servers are accessible around the World. Yet, I don't see a source for French servers being in France nor German servers not being in Germany. German and French world select pages only refer to language and no location. 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.199.174 (talk)
Physical locations would certainly be easier to source. Currently, official news announcements are being used as sources - I'll see if any were missed that could be used.
Oh, and please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~), not 5. It makes it easier to track who said what. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So, the article should not mention servers being located in France either as we don't know it? 195.50.201.199 (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
In an ideal situation, every location would have a source associated with it. This particular country does not, as you have observed. Not to mention that the references given are from several years ago, when this sort of thing was given more prominence. I'm inclined to question whether we need to list every country - it doesn't really advance a reader's understanding of RS, which is the article's objective. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, out of currently listed ones France is the only one that we don't know having it's servers, so I keep wondering why it says there are RuneScape servers in France. Especially as there is now so called "up-to-date" SVG map saying the same. 195.50.204.174 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
They don't appear on the English world list, but they are found on the French world list, here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Despite English world list this list refers to language not location (Langue). As well as German world list does (Sprache). As said 6 comments earlier. 195.50.204.174 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It's possible they're located in France, but then you could argue that the article should only cover a solid fact, not a possiblity, especially as the German servers are not in Germany. Oh, what to do... 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
German servers could also possibly be in Germany as I don't find current source for German servers' location other than someone writing it in caps in article code that they are not in Germany. I suggest not incuding claim that there are RuneScape servers in France till there isn't a source, which tells where French language servers are actually located. 195.50.204.174 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

2 inquiries

  1. Shouldn't some of the pictures be moving? I clearly remember some of those pictures being in motion previously, but it's not like that anymore. What happened?
  2. What is with that ugly red category that somehow doesn't appear at the bottom of the page text in editing mode?

BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 04:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to answer your questions:

  1. The pictures were changed to static images deliberately. Moving images made navigating the article a chore as they slowed down web browsers. Plus they were unnecessary.
  2. That category hasn't been created, when it probably should be. But it's there because the Servers section uses a potentially dated sentence, marked by the {{asof}} template. In general, statements that date quickly should be avoided. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I do appreciate that feedback; it answered my questions satisfyingly. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. If you have more questions, don't be afraid to ask. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Isometric?

This article states that RuneScape's predecessor used isometric graphics, however the projection in the screen shot appears to be oblique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.107.176 (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It only goes with the source, which says it used isometric graphics. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Active users

Mark Gerhard (CEO) gave an interview which claimed 105M active users TechRadar Interview. There was no timescale. Do we raise the active users claim from 8.5M to 105M? BrummyGrant (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Without a more accurate date, it might prove to be tougher to justify using this as a source (our current source is from May 2008). Not to mention I'm wondering how the article (and indeed Mark Gerhard) defines an account as active. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm thinking that techradar won't put an outdated quote on there. If I'm reading correctly, it was published this past Friday (17 July 2009). I think that's sufficient, plus, it works as a source for a lot more stuff (ie, RuneScape Beta launched in 1999)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I knew it had to be fairly recent - some digging revealed it was probably as recent as last Friday. I just wish the actual article had a date on it - I'd settle for just the year of publication. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Just date it to last friday, by the looks of it the article will be given the full date as it becomes older. Someoneanother 21:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Guess I'll add it to the article then. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian Portuguese

Could some edit in the fact that it became available to Portuguese-Brazillian people on the 23/24 July 2009. sorry to be so precise but it could help those people who speak Portuguese-Brazilian to realise that they can play RuneScape in their own language. --Cpt Keyes (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done We list non-English languages in the article so this is worth a mention. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

DeviousMUD was NOT the predecessor to RS

Resolved
 – Information about DeviousMUD has been removed. DeviousMUD now redirects to Andrew Gower. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.zybez.net/community/index.php?showtopic=967194

Read the section titled "How Runescape first opened". There is your evidence with links.

DeviousMUD was a game created by Andrew which never went public. Remove any referrences to DeviousMUD being Runescape's predecessor.--Rmhs15 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to take a fansite's forum as concrete proof. Have you got anything more solid? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If you read the "How Runescape first opened" section.. it has links.. Ever heard of the Internet Archive? ;). That topic has over 55k views and has existed for 2 years, so it's reputable. And if you take the time to read it all, you will be amazed at how much information it contains. Also, it's not a fansite. It's a topic in the fansites forum. By the way, Zybez is the biggest fansite. --Rmhs15 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Zybez is the biggest fansite is completely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I will take some time to look it over. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It Does Seem To Me That the game "Cyber-Wars doesn't load" This Could not tell anyone that it is The predecessor to RS. However it does indeed Say That the brothers did indeed make it Floul1 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Having taken some time to read through the information (which was very useful. I learned some interesting stuff from RS' beginning), I can't find anything which says that DeviousMUD was not the predecessor to RS. It says that DeviousMUD was one of Andrew's many games, but not that specific point. And as I said, even if it did say that, we couldn't use the forum as a source. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Technically speaking, I would venture to argue that we can't use the current tripod-hosted source. There's practically no reliable source to reference DeviousMUD ever even existed.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Union. That Tripod website has existed for several years and the only thing it says, literally, is "DeviousMUD was one of Andrew's game" and then provide the most known DeviousMUD screenshot (but not the only). While DeviousMUD did exist, using a website made by some random person, instead of a fact sheet that has 55k+ views and contains tons of info, is not "good enough" to be used as a source. It's funny how in Wikipedia, people only care if it has a source. Not how valid such source is. 1ForTheMoney, while I do appreciate you taking the time to read through the fact sheet and consider my point, your opinion is one of many and not the final opinion on the matter. Also, why can't a topic created in a forum be used? Especially if such topic has so much valid, proven, information. Simply wondering.--Rmhs15 (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if I don't agree with the fact sheet, I would still remove the idea that DeviousMUD was RS' predecessor, since it isn't given in the source we're currently using. It says that it "was different to RS", but that's different. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(←)Well, if we all agree that DeviousMUD was not the predecessor to RuneScape, then doesn't that make DeviousMUD somewhat irrelevant? Maybe ok for Andrew Gower, but, if it wasn't the predecessor to RuneScape, then, I don't see any relevance. I'm going to go ahead and remove the whole DeviousMUD paragraph, and rewrite the second paragraph a little.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it does. Since it was never publicly released, it's never going to - or highly unlikely to - gather enough sourcing for its own article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Also DeviousMUD when searched in the search bar, redirects to the Runescape article, should this redirect be canceled, considering that the Runescape article is no longer associated with DeviousMUD. --Skinips (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That being the case a better redirect target would be Jagex or the creator of the game. Probably the latter, since Jagex didn't exist at that point, did it? Someoneanother 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just redirected it to Jagex, rather than debating where DeviousMUD stops and Jagex starts (it is just a redirect after all). Someoneanother 16:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. If anyone asks, we can point them to this discussion. As an additional note, I've done the same with Deviousmud, which was also a redirect to here (although I find a few redirects to here a little unlikely). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(←)Wait a minute, Jagex didn't create DeviousMUD! Jagex was founded in 2001, 2 years after RuneScape (ok, my facts may be wrong there, but, the point is, they didn't make DeviousMUD, or even ever operate it). I think it should be redirected to Andrew Gower, and, added there as well? I just looked, and that article is kind of in dire need of expansion...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, that. DeviousMUD and Jagex are not directly related, so one shouldn't go to the other. I'll do that now. As for article expansion - well, Mark Gerhard has exactly the same problem...1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair point, so now it's dealt with and onto the next thing. Someoneanother 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Jagex was legally founded by Andrew Gower and Paul Gower on December 2001 (http://jagex.com/corporate/About/history.ws). Prior to this, Jagex just existed in name. Not legally. Andrew Gower created DeviousMUD. Runescape began alpha stage in February 2000. The alpha testers (Rab, Lighting, Gugge, Merlin, and someone else I can't remember) met Andrew & Paul Gower on GamesDomain (andrew had some of his games hosted on that website). There - mystery resolved.--Rmhs15 (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting source

Just thought I'd draw your attention to this article by Kieron Gillen. Although it's only lightly related to RuneScape (more about FunOrb and MechScape) interest in the former correlates with interest in the latter. One point relating to RS is "the average age of a Runescape player is 16." Not sure if that's common knowledge but there it is, from Jagex themselves. Someoneanother 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

3rd Party, not 1st Party

I found out many of the sources lead to RuneScape. Aren't those 1st party and do not count as a reliable source? We need more 3rd party for real reliable sources. Jeremjay24 msg 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We can quote self-published sources to some extent, so long as they aren't excessively self-serving, don't comment on third parties, and aren't making up the bulk of the article's sources. --McGeddon (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(Man, people are active here) Okay. But doesn't the sources from the RuneScape news violate WP:BLOG? Except that you cannot comment. Jeremjay24 msg 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(This article is just on my watchlist.) If it's a blog that's written by (or on the official behalf of) the subject of the article, then it's WP:SELFPUB rather than WP:BLOG. --McGeddon (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Man I should tell the folks over there at the Roblox article about this. Jeremjay24 msg 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape Videos

You know, on browsing Wikipedia, it occurs to me that the most famous of RuneScape videos or video makers are not documented, I'm tempted to start an article about TehNoobShow, Maxboison, RuneScape Gods Exposed and How to Pronounce Zezima etcetera. Is anyone else interested in such things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futile Crush (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You could do that - but please read Wikipedia:My first article and all the policies and guidelines it contains. Many articles concerning RS have been deleted in the past because they didn't assert independent notability.
Addendum: "RuneScape Videos" is a redirect to this article. A quick check shows it was an article, but was deleted. Keep that in mind. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is serious interest from journalists in this area, and therefore quality sources, any such article would be quickly deleted. Someoneanother 21:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, what he said. Unless there's some bizarre rush of reliable sources, that'll just get created, go through Newpage Patrol, and be swiftly brought to AfD.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Zybez Breaks Rules of RuneScape

We can't be having Zybez on Wikipedia because it advertises Real World Trading on RuneScape. Shouldn't someone take it down? If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia can get sued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.222.73 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Zybez has basically no control over their ads, and it's strictly based off Alexa ranking. And, for the record, no, Wikipedia can't get sued by Jagex for one link.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's the discussion. We don't control the content of fansites, nor do we work by Jagex's rules. If you have a problem with a site, take it up with them. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape: Betrayal at Falador

This article has been put up for deletion, since it only has 1 secondary source and no reviews, which isn't enough to establish notability for an article...but is enough for a section in this article.

Previously, we had a section on that in this article, but it was removed. I could go ahead and create a new section, but what does everyone think? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care. As you can see, my !vote was Delete with indifference to merge.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest making an "adaptions" section, sort of thing. This way, RuneScape: Betrayal at Falador and it's upcoming sequel(s) can be covered, aswell as Mark Gerhard's mention of an official movie. This section would be based on alot of future speculation, however, which isn't good. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Graphics engine

On August 26th of 2009, Jagex has revealed their graphics engine that was under the name: "RuneTek 5 (RTM)" Wondering if someone can put it under the Engine section. There were other engines that are explained below.

"The primary goal of the rebuild was to allow us to target different graphics platforms (such as DirectX, OpenGL and the various consoles) with just one game engine. Previous iterations of the graphics engine were not designed this way. This meant that when we came to design RuneScape HD's technology, we ended up creating, in effect, two parallel game engines to render the game in two different ways - the current client has both the RuneTek 3 (Standard Detail) AND RuneTek 4 (High Detail) engines built in! This doesn't scale well when we come to target even more platforms, so this change was definitely necessary."

" *Major iterations of the Jagex graphics engine have included: 

   * RT1: Original Jagex 3D engine used on gamesdomain games (1998)
   * RT2: RuneScape Classic (2000/2001)
   * RT3: RuneScape2 SD (2003/2004)
   * RT4: RuneScape2 HD (2007/2008)
   * RT5: Cross-platform version that runs both SD and HD on the same engine (2009) "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodyYoshi (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference: http://devblog.runescape.com/view_post.ws?post_id=27 (Developer's Diary Entry: RuneTek 5)

This probably goes in the "Graphics and Sound" section, but I'm not sure exactly how much to include. Pending another look, I've chosen to simply mention RuneTek - my concern is that the section has too much on graphics, and not enough on sound. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

'104 Million Active Accounts' - NO.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Since the proposer has failed to respond, and nobody has supported this idea, User:Unionhawk has restored the original figure. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

First off a correct refference from a correct source:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_2009/article6131979.ece

4.5 million active accounts.

But if you want a bit more evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft

With more than 11.5 million monthly subscribers,[11] World of Warcraft is currently the world's most-subscribed MMORPG[8][12][13] and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG.[14] In April 2008, World of Warcraft was estimated to hold 62 percent of the massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) market.[15]

Ok.

Got that?

So, World of Warcraft and Runescape share the same MMO market - yes?

World of Warcraft holds 62% of that market with 11.5 million players.

HOW can Runescape POSSIBLY have 140 Million active players within 38% of the market? Dozens of other games will own some of that 38% too.

Just use your brains guys.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdr (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, enough with the personal attacks. How many of those people also play RuneScape? Did you consider that market share could only include paying members? Obviously one of the two sources is wrong (or maybe not. Maybe they're only counting paying members). Pretty much, in order to play WoW, you have to be a subscriber (thus the highest subscribed MMORPG), but that's not the case with RuneScape. I'm going to do a little investigation, but, I have a feeling that 104m active-ish players is about right (± a couple million)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

More Evidence.

{{3O}}
Runescape has 171 Servers as of August 25th 09. Each with a capacity of 2000 players a server.

171 x 2000 = 342000 players maxium playing the game at one time.

Now to be active on the game, you must play regularly (Weekly?).

How are you proposing 140 Million people (Or half of the United States) manage to ration the 342000 places available to play? What? Do the other 139.7 million wait eagerly at their computers?

You didn't care about the reference, you ignored the first Mathmatical evidence so now i'm interested to see how you cope with your third "Accept you are wrong" statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdr (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

so your definition of "active" users means "plays 24 hours a day?" In that case, the count is zero--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
and the source says 104 Million, not 140 Million--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It says weekly btw ;)

LOL !! You were the one going on about that bloody source and how it was right and constantly changing my 4.5m back to 140m. Not me. You are hilarious lol, i'd keep off the MMO articles for a while ;P.

But I'll change my first statement for you buddy:

How are you proposing 104 Million people (Or double the United Kingdom) manage to ration the 342000 places available to play? What? Do the other 103.7 million people wait eagerly at their computers?

Is that better for you?--Dpdr (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

See my reply at my talk.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is a Wikipedia article, if you think their is an error or problem with a source, take it up with the authors and/or publishers of that source, or find a more reliable source to replace it. I personally believe the source is incorrect. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Before I make my opinion known, I'd like to strongly advise that the personal attacks stop, right here and now. All it does is cloud people's judgement and make discussion impossible.

  • The definition of "active account" varies from person to person, hence why different references can come up with very different figures. It is not Wikipedia's place to decide what is considered an "active account".
  • By extension, just because you find a new reference doesn't instantly make it right, and the existing source wrong. Because of the uncertain definition of "active account", both may be right, and both may be wrong.
  • Even if it is 4.5M players, that figure is still a lot higher than the maximum number of players that can play at the same time (about 340,000).

In conclusion, I'm inclined to stick with the original figure. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How many servers are there for the other languages? Just curious. I can't find it atm (at school)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
My initial look shows 5 for German, 5 for Brazilian Portuguese, and 2 for French. Not sure if those are included in the overall figure of 170, although I wonder if it's appropriate to use them in the "Other Languages" section. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not included in the 170 count. I know for a fact (as of the last time I checked) that there are 170 english worlds (±1 now). Not that this makes much difference... It depends on what you define as "active."--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Which is one of the reasons this dispute is occuring and doesn't need to be. I'll reiterate it: different definitions of "active" lead to different numbers, which are not necessarily wrong. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. so not everyone gets on at the same time cause otherwise the site would have a breakdown cause of tp many people on at the same time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.24.24 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, so I guess the main discussion here is which source is more reliable. On one hand, the Techradar source is a blog. On the other hand, it's an interview with the current CEO of Jagex.
And the Times Online source currently on the article is a reputable news source (I think), but is the wealth statistics of Andrew Gower, with no clear source as to where the 4.5 million figure comes from.
Personally, I'm biased towards the former, but if another source can be presented to support the latter, I'm completely open to discussion. Regardless of how you define 'active,' the number must match the source used.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the former as well, mostly because it's about RuneScape, and not how rich Andrew Gower happens to be. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grammatical error

I saw a grammatical error somewhere. Press CTRL+F and search for "An reward" and fix that to "A reward"! :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepupfrost (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done It was in the "Community" section. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

About: Player reception

The last sentence of player reception states [quote]During the changes subscription numbers fell by 60,000, although no figures were given as to how many of those subscriptions belonged to legitimate players and gold farmers.[unquote]

I'm an experience runescape player and I can tell you that gold farmers don't have member accounts. Please someone correct this mistake as it affects the impact of the protests and thus their credibility for future (RS) generations. 80.200.52.23 (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, before the December '07 updates, there were numerous flax-picking and shark fishing bots. They bought their membership through selling gold on RWT sites and hijacked accounts. cflm (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm an experienced player too, and I can tell you for a fact that Flax bots were another big one, and we all know that flax is member's only.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 11:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm another experienced player who can safely say that there are member accounts which use macros. That's how it was then, and is today. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I take it you never stopped by the flax fields in Seers, Eh? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammar Note

Runescape has players from several countries playing the game and using the website. I noticed about the sign to help edit grammar, style, etc. and was just wondering, do we use British English or American English for this?

For those of you who don't know, British English is a certain version of English with slight variations on spelling that American English. British English is spoken in Great Britian, and American English is spoken in America. For example, the British English spelling of the word defence is spelled d-e-f-e-n-c-e in British English and d-e-f-e-n-s-e in American English.

This concept could be applied to several articles througout Wikipedia, but I feel this article deserves special consideration since the company who owns Runescape (Jagex Ltd.) is British.

Tell your thoughts, issues etc.

The Beatles Fan (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You guess correctly. This article uses British English, since RuneScape is the creation of a British company. For future reference, it's written in the FAQ. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

World's most popular free

I'm having trouble with this "world's most popular free" thing, Runescape isn't completely free, it has a subscription system too. The other part is, does it differentiate between free and pay accounts with the 104 million number as part of the Guinness award? Does anyone have this information? Revrant (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it means that it's the most popular MMORPG with a free option, other than a limited trial. WoW holds the title for the most popular MMORPG, but it doesn't have enough free content to be considered free. It's the Guiness World Records committee (or whoever decides this) who decides these things, not us.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I wish they'd release their deciding factors and considerations then, because if they are using the totality of the accounts, including the accounts which pay, that is incorrect. Revrant (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't make the rules, I just follow them...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Quoting:
RuneScape, released in 2001, is an MMORPG that runs in a JAVA applet. It supports free subscription play as well as a paid membership option. More than ten million free accounts ahve beene created and more than one million who pay for added content, such as extra quests.
So they distinguish free accounts from members' accounts. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

I recently deleted the copyedit tag from the top of this article, since I didn't see any specific areas that required it. If someone can point out specific examples of areas that need copyediting, I'd be more than happy to help. If not, then we probably don't need to have the tag at the top of the page. Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When the article was last nominated for Good Article status, the prose was described as "choppy". Aside from a lack of references in some areas, that was probably the biggest issue. If an experienced copyeditor feels there are no major issues (not that I doubt your experience), then the tag will come off. If you spotted any issues after a thorough read, don't be afraid to raise them, or correct them yourself. The two sections that might want focus for now are:
The Combat sub-section. Currently, this is tagged as being too long, which is probably true compared against other sections. I keep thinking about breaking it into two halves - one on general combat, the other on player-versus player combat. Of course, that would leave the new section in need of editing, but it should go some way to addressing the problem. What does everyone think?
The Interaction sub-section. I don't know why, but I have issues with the second paragraph. While minigames are a valid form of interaction, how much should be written on the games themselves? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Name changing

We need to add that members can now change their display names.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Need to add it? I wouldn't go that far. But the fact that members can change their displayed name is probably of interest. Now we just need to find an appropriate section for it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well how would we cite it?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This link is enough. Having thought it over, it probably belongs in the "History and development" section.
I haven't got round to this sooner because I've been more focused on improving the article, to bring it up to good standards, rather than adding to it. It would go faster if someone from the Guild of Copyeditors would look at the article's prose. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, it's now  Done, but please bear in mind that name changing is not unique to RS, and ultimately it may not be worth a mention. Not to mention it's only one sentence and would need to be merged/expanded at some point. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Head of RuneScape?

Currently it's in the article as "Vince Farquharson was announced as the new "Head of RuneScape" on 21 October 2008", however he is no longer in the credits (http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/jagex#credits) and I'm quite sure there was a post about changes in who's running it some point in 2009. Can't find a 'who it now is' reference, only evidence of 'who it now isn't' and wondered if anyone could help me with putting in a decent fix, especially as there is no longer a 'head of runescape' position holder.FlashNerdX (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The company website doesn't say anything about him going, either. That probably means we'll have to change the History and development section from "His first major action", to "His only major action", since, to the best of my knowledge, he never did anything else worth writing about, and won't do so if he's really gone
Of course, that means the paragraph about Farquharson is never likely to expand. I sometimes ask myself whether he's really that noteworthy, especially as the "Year of Upgrades" concept seems to have been dumped some time ago. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Update: Since nobody seems to have made a comment about this in a while, I've decided to act and remove the relevant paragraph. Since he only ever did one thing (that was eventually dumped), he's probably not that noteworthy. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the Runescape Clans Wiki be included in the External links?

http://runescapeclans.wikia.com/wiki/RuneScape_Clans_Wiki

It's a wiki page a dedicated to runescape clans, which is different than the other listed runescape wiki page.

Among the articles in the runescape clans wiki page, there are clan-made wiki pages put into categories such as "F2P clans" and "P2P clans." The administrators who run the RS clan wiki page promote a friendly environment and the site has decent internet traffic everyday because the "event coordinators" for each clan update the galleries and descriptions for their clan events.

Clans play a large role in runescape because people who play wants to be a part of something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensyao (talk • contribs) 07:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, partly because links to open wikis are normally avoided, and partly because we don't need a load of links to wikis about every little detail of RS. Better to have a single, all-encompassing link than a positive farm of wikis, each on their own feature. You might be better off getting a link on the RS Wiki if you don't already, which we link to because it has all the information this article wouldn't cover. (And if they don't have an article on clans, get them to write one.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference number 25

That reference has an error.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 20:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

The beginning says it has 104 million active accounts, which is a complete and utter lie. It never passes 300,000 online in any given day.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BranX (talk • contribs)

Quick edit.

That figure is referenced, so regardless of whether it's true or not, if there's no reference to back it up it won't be changed (see WP:Verifiability, not truth for a good explanation of this). If you find a reliable third-party reference that states the figure is at 300000, feel free to come back here and myself or someone else will be only to happy to make the correction. SMC (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I checked the source again, and it quotes "10M active accounts per month" a little further down, which is more accurate and should put the moaning about "too high a figure" to bed. I'll make that change, in addition to something else. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Player reception

I think you should mention that some of the recent updates are unpopular with players, not just free-trading and wilderness. Things like merch clans being considered not against the rules. For those who are unaware, merch clans are clans who price manipulate on teh Grand Exchange. Please add this into the article.--G33k243 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, due to the auto-typer nature of merch clans, most of them are against the rules.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The people who advertise merch clans are against the rules, that's why they make seperate accounts which they use to avoid their mains getting banned. But somewhere, JaGeX announced that merch clans are allowed. --G33k243 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to Wikipedia...Without reliable sources, which rules out forum posts, we can't put that information into the article. Come up with a few and we'll talk. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly that this is no forum, but is not the voicing of such a view, of the "unpopular" updates, biased and POV in themselves? Soccerrox62 | Talk 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but without reliable sourcing, it's original research at best, pure opinion at worst. The key standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[2] Merchanting clans are receiving mixed reception from the playerbase. I'm not sure if this could be used in the article though. --Exarion1 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

K, reference. You have verifiability covered. Now to work on reliable sources (i.e., not a forum)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(Kerrby (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC))Another thing that needs to be added here is that since the removal of the two main parts of RuneScape, the activeness has since dropped severely and RuneScape active player numbers are at an all time low. Also community websites have suffered because of this and have also decreased in activity severely.

Again, no, not without a reliable source. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/runescape.com Shows that Runescape has fallen about 50 percent in activity in terms of website usage. Yialanliu (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also fansites like RuneHQ's numbers dropped since the updates and activity suffered. - Kerrby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrby (talk • contribs) 07:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We could mention that people think the people in high detail look like Tellitubbies people. Jeremjay24 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a disturbing, and unsourced, thought. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Edit request: In the gameplay section, the page discusses "tutorial island". However, long ago the location of the tutorial was changed to an underground area around Lumbridge, as can be easily seen simply by creating a new account and logging in. Please edit this outdated information. Source: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Tutorial—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moplord359 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source in order to confirm your claims.  fetchcomms☛ 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Now, is there consensus to use this as a source?  fetchcomms☛ 04:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikia is unsuitable as a source since anyone can edit it. Not to mention that the article already mentions the tutorial being changed in September 2009 - that should be enough. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Maybe I am wrong, but they removed the new tutorial and reverted it to the old one because of technical problems. For sure, it has been reverted to the old tutorial island.---Mastermattt, the Debatist 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastermattt (talk • contribs)

You might well be. It was changed in July 2008, then reverted for reasons not-entirely-known. It was replaced again in September 2009, and I can't find any evidence that it's changed back since then.[3] 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an edit.

I've noticed that the article says that skyboxes and bloom effects were introduced when RuneTek 5 was put into the game. This is incorrect. In the developers' blog it says that they "hope to introduce the following features in the coming months." They never did, but it might be coming soon. Source: RuneTek 5 Developers' Blog: 19 Sep 2009 Hiphippie100 (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Noted as a future improvement. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape Classic

RuneScape Classic is it's own game. It is completely different from RuneScape as we know it. It should definitely have it's one page and not be redirected to here. Please somebody create the new page and we can all work on it. Pikupurphat 19:11 , 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to show that it has independent notability from RS - and that means secondary sources. Do you have any? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Various RuneScape Skills

On the Wiki page, it notes 24 different RuneScape skills. However, it never lists each one. This should be added. They are as follows: Attack, Strength, Defence, Ranged, Prayer, Magic, Runcrafting, Construction, Hitpoints, Agility, Herblore, Thieving, Crafting, Fletching, Slayer, Hunter, Mining, Smithing, Fishing, Cooking, Firemaking, Woodcutting, Farming, and Summoning. Plans for another skill is in the making, according to Mod Mmg, who told players while on his clan chat. However, I have no citation for this, therefore there is no proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaack (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That has been in the article, but in the end it's too game-guidey. Ultimately, it has no real value to the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Guinness Record for Time Spent Playing MMORPG

From [4]: "Longest Time Spent Playing an MMORPG: Sara Lhadi logged 16,799 hours grinding away in Runescape (Runescape!?) between November 2004 and October 2009 (I guess she hasn't stopped). That's nearly 700 days, which is nearly two solid years of game time! Also, that averages out to 9 hours 20 minutes a day."

Someone might want to incorporate this into the article. Dave (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to, since it relates more to the person than to the game. Still, I'll wait on some more comments. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
With (talk), it's about the player rather than the game. Maybe one of the other MMO articles, or Video_game_addiction ;-)Wolhound (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Last time I checked, my username was 1ForTheMoney , but okay. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
My bad, was trying to be cleaver and screwed up the codingWolhound (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many redirects?

In April 2009, a discussion was held to clean up some of the many redirects to this article. Although User:Unionhawk has done a great job directing them to specific sections of the article, there are probably some we can just delete without too much trouble. I've made a list of some candidates.

There may be others - I've just listed ones that seem fairly obvious. Does anyone have any thoughts? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete them. Looking at the list quite a few (like RuneScape armour) dont really seem necessary.  rdunnPLIB  10:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I went ahead and tagged a lot of those for R3 speedy.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course R3 has to be recently created... RfD is our only route then for most of these...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with Rdunn. We also seem to have multiple redirects which say basically the same thing, for example "Construction (RuneScape)" and "Construction (Runescape)". Two different links, but do you really need both? (OK, you probably do because "Runescape" is a fair mis-spelling, but there's a lot of them.)
Also, what about redirects with no links to them, for example "Dwarven Mine"? This example is probably a candidate for RfD, but what about others? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I sent a lot of them to RfD, and, based on the results, the rest will probably end in keep, so, I think we can put this one to bed.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Why the heck does 'Karen Horney' redirect here...? 86.141.43.41 (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Good catch. I've changed it back. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This is what the Runescape Job Classes page used to look like. Just so everyone knows, there are no job classes in RuneScape. The author seems to have made a list of character classes instead, but almost all of them are completely made up. It was redirected here quickly, and I doubt any player would go on Wikipedia for a guide. Delete them all. C Teng [talk] 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
True, there are no job classes. I know people say redirects are cheap, which is why WP:RFD doesn't get rid of many of them, but this is pushing it, especially when the redirect isn't even mentioned in the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Worth adding?

RuneScape has a Facebook and a YouTube, both run by Jagex. Might it be worth adding them into the links section as they've been proven official/legit? If it supports at all they've already been listed on the Jagex page Sorry if it's already been discussed but I couldn't find it in the archive--Wolhound (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they refer to Jagex as a whole, rather than just RuneScape, it's best to leave them there. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Both the links I gave are exclusively related to RuneScape, not their Jagex ones.Wolhound (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Now I see it. But sites like Facebook and YouTube should generally not be linked to, and this article has been accused of link-spam in the past. I really think it should be left out, unless there's a pressing reason to do so. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Gone over WP:ELNO and it all makes sense now. Might use them as examples of community/development in the main article but agreed that the runescape.com one is all thats needed.Wolhound (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Economy Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} I just wanted to point out that the economy section does little to mention the fluctuation in prices, most recently due to the cash drops in PvP and GE price manipulations. Although this might seem too specific given the scope of the article it actually effects almost the entire game in the end because of the resulting price increases on high level items and rares. Speaking of rares they should also be mentioned in the section as they hold up a large portion of the economy's wealth and are partially responsible for the constant reduction in price for raw materials due to people producing massive amounts of high price raw materials in order to afford high priced rares. --Start021 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how I would add that without making it in-universe... Could you possibly outline how you would word it?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Unionhawk. On top of being in-universe , there's also a source issue - any sources provided are likely to go out of date quickly, as the economy changes constantly. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be worth putting in something explaining that the prices are variable and then linking to the grandexchange database?Wolhound (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, we already note that prices are adjusted based on trades. As for linking to the database...hmm, not sure. I'll wait on another opinion. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I don't know. I think the knowledge base entry for the Grand Exchange is enough of a source for us to say that the prices vary.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed - Link

In the Gameplay section, it says that a tutorial was discontinued due to technical difficulties[citation needed], but this isn't true - the real reason, given by Jagex, can be found here. However, we probably aren't allowed to use that as a citation, because 1. It's from a forum, and 2. The thread wasn't archived; all we have is the image. —C Teng(talk) 02:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Failing that, it could be removed until a suitable source is found (they never made a news announcement about it). And you're right, that image won't fly as a source, especially as we move towards Good Article status, however slowly. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Have hunted around and can't find anything that's usable under the rules. Sorry but as it wasn't documented it's a non-starter. Wolhound (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of Runescape

didn't runescape come out in 1999? after playing runescape it said at the bottom of one of the screens that it was made in 1999-2010. Am i right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.126.189 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What you're seeing is Jagex's copyright date, which starts from when Andrew and Paul Gower began trading under that name. In any case, sources say that RS began in 2001, so you'd have to find other sources to prove otherwise. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fansites

The fansites currently listed are: RuneHQ, RuneTips and Zybez Runescape Help. But the top three fansites by traffic (estimated by quantcast) are RuneTips, Zybez Runescape Help and Sal's Realm of RuneScape (http://runescape.salmoneus.net/index.html). I suggest we reorder the fansites by size and add a few more, overall the best order would be: RuneTips (http://tip.it/), Zybez Runescape Help (http://zybez.net/), Sal's Realm of RuneScape (http://runescape.salmoneus.net/), Rune HQ (http://runehq.net/), RuneCrypt (http://runecrypt.com/), RuneVillage (http://runevillage.com/) and RuneSlayer (http://runeslayer.com/). That is more inclusive but perhaps that's too many, I think that because "Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual" we should list as many as possible. A link to the Jagex site (http://www.jagex.com/) is also needed, as it is already linked from the FunOrb and War of Legends pages. - ♚ ⚜ TopherBrink ⚖ ♎ (Talk) ☯ ✯ 00:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a collection of links. Linking lots of fansites is major link-spam, as well as an invitation for further spamming. The ideal scenario would be to have just the most popular fansite and no more, but circumstances don't permit that, so 3 has been taken as a compromise. Note also that we have always used Alexa for gauging traffic and I see no reason to change that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
How about the runescape wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.151.37 (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It's already included, and classed as a seperate site by the same consensus. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs Vandalism Fixed

{{editsemiprotected}}

When you search 'Runescape' in google, the short descriptive text reads:

'RuneScape is a Porno massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) released in 2001 by Jagex Ltd ...'

instead of:

'RuneScape is a fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) released in 2001 by Jagex Ltd ...' as the top of the actual article reads.

76.92.151.37 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Aubrey

Not done: Welcome and thanks for pointing that out. The cache at Google gets refreshed periodically and this will get corrected then. Celestra (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I think that popular players on the game should be added to this artical. Due to them being very well know in the game and their vast knowledge. People who start to play this game could ask these people any questions they may have. I think these popular in game people should be noticed. Players such as "Zezima" "Gertjarrs" "Kingduffy" "KingMunstrus" "Chessy018" and "Nightmarerh"

208.180.48.94 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please state the exact changes you want made to the article. Algebraist 00:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't need more details to see this isn't a good idea. We're not here to promote the perceived fame of people, nor are we a consise and complete knowledge base. Also, since they have no real-world notability, they'd never survive on Wikipedia anyway. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Cutting trees. cutting trees is basically like instant cash, for the most amazing profits you need yews or if member, magic logs. Yew logs are very good, ` inventory of them could get you around 11-12k depending on the Grand Exchange. If you get 1k of them you will get more around the 110k mark, seems like alot? no worries, there are some spot where you could get easy logs. Magic logs sell around the lines of 1k, 1k of them is 1m which makes these the most expensive logs. i hope i helped, thank you and enjoy :D. Harpie lad1 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a game guide. As such, there is no reason to add this content into the article. Thanks for the tips, though.
 Not done Avicennasis @ 06:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps the RuneScape Wiki can better serve your request? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Edit213, 30 March 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Im here to edit the stuff here that was caused by Nororb, Im just going to get rid of a minor Vandalism. Edit213 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done ClueBot has already taken care of it. 3 hours ago, in fact. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

hitpoints is now health points

there was a rect change to the game, wherehitpoints are now called health points, and theres 10x as many health points as hitpoints. and the skill itself is now called constitution. i would have changed this, but i dont have a wiki account, so i cant edit the page. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they're called "life points". However, "hitpoints" or "health points" will be sufficient. Also, the article is semi-protected so you can't edit it anonymously. Sorry about that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
yes, i know that. thats why i posted this here rather then fixing it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, we're already using "health points", which should be sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Any more is probably unnecessary. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jurassicpark787, 11 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} who ever can make a change, i have noticed something. after it says 10 million people active someone should really put specificly(though 165 million has registered.) cause i know for sure they have that many people registered.

Jurassicpark787 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)jurassipark787

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.
 Not done Avicennasis @ 05:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. No need to change it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I found something on the Coporate site which nearly implies RuneScape has had ~150 million unique players (it says for all Jagex games but Its a safe bet if you've played one, you've played RuneScape) http://www.jagex.com/corporate/Parents_Guide/parents_guide.ws 70.245.232.132 (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That estimate would also include those who've played FunOrb, and possibly War of Legends, but not necessarily RuneScape. We're not going to assume they all play or have played RuneScape, so no, that's not a good estimate. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Maplemauler, 27 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} {Training Guide}

Guide Level 1-25 Kill chickens to level 8 Kill cows, collect hides, to level 25 (Have 30 wcing, 30 fishing)

Guide level 25-85 Members:Rock Crabs (Change whenever) Kill Guards to level 35 Kill Hill Giants to 50 Kill Hobgoblins to 65 Kill Lessardemons to 75 Kill Greater deamons to 85 (60 wcing, 55 fishing, 65 cooking, 30 Firemaking, 1000 Total level)-Note: this is by level 85... (Skills by now, 50-70 magic, 40-60 range, 60-70 strength, attack, defence, 70-80 hp.) (Members need a lot better skills if they want money, these are requirements, but only suggestions, do earn the skills for money, and fun.)


Maplemauler (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please see what wikipedia is not. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
We're getting a number of requests like this at present. Perhaps some sort of notice is in order? In any case, this won't happen. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Volderanger, 28 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I want to hyperlink the words "bug abuse" and "macroing". Thank you for your consideration. Volderanger (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I can't see any reason to link those terms. The first is covered by "software bug", and the second is a term explained in the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Various questions

Is this official name now for Runescape since the release of Dungeoneering? And is this also the official release date of a new game such as Rs2 or Rs HD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.3.209 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, no. Dungeoneering is a skill introduced to RS over 2 weeks ago. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Runescape is now abbreviated to RsDod meaning Runescape Dungeons of Daemonheim like they did on their front page.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.3.209 (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Look 1 section up and you'll see why. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There are famous runescape player that i think should be added to the Runescape wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.3.209 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought Jagex didn't support real life meeting, then why did the come up with the whole trip thing that lets you go to Jagex studios in England and meet all the people behind runescape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.3.209 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put all your comments in one section to save space. Please realise that this is not a forum; any more comments that are not about the article will be removed.

  • Players will not be added to the article since they are not notable in the real world. See this for more.
  • Jagex support that event because they're organising it.

Again, make sure your future questions are about this article. Other questions should go to the RS official forums. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I agree, make sure that you read the artical before you give any ideas because they may be on the page already. GotMoney999 (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request from GotMoney999

Put something about the Seasonal Events as they are very important in the game of Runescape and are just like Quests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GotMoney999 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We already cover holiday events in general, so at this point, I'm going to say no. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape/Archive_31&oldid=1092053520"