Talk:RuneScape/Archive 33

Edit request from Timflarp220, 18 April 2011

Timflarp220 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. No request made --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 23:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to the IP editor's comment

It had to be changed because if I had a nonstop week of playing, seeing someone with such flamboyantly colored clothes is of low probability. --Σ _☭^★ 23:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Where can I get help for my RuneScape account?

Generally off-topic discussion, collapsed per Τασουλα's concerns -- NoleloverTalk·Contribs

Where can I get help for my RuneScape account? I want to increase my lvl, but I’m too busy with my job and don’t have much time to play this game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantszombies (talk • contribs) 09:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) We can't really help you here since this is only for Wikipedia-related stuff. Try the RuneScape Knowledge Base or on their forums instead. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC) And if you're trying to get one of us to train for you, that's against the rules. --Σ ☭★ 18:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Yes...I'm thinking that he was inquiring about bots... Nolelover It's almost football season! 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I would agree. Mentioning "increased level" and "don't have much time" in the same sentence is a big red flag. We're definitely not gonna help with that one. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC) He probably misread WP:BOT. On a related note, just saying "there are rules against bots and stuff" doesn't give much information. Should it also be added that there are times when mods go in a group to search for bots? --Σ ☭★ 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure about that...is it just me, or does that seem almost game-guidey, like we're warning them? Nolelover It's almost football season! 22:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC) It's true though. Is mentioning the report abuse feature warning them? --Σ ☭★ 22:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC) No...but saying that J-mods have bot-hunts....well, anyway. That's just my gut feeling. Nothing to go on, really. Nolelover It's almost football season! 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I have to agree. Saying it's true doesn't make it verifiable or even noteworthy. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Yes, I was thinking that too. However, I didn't want to just say "well, find a source", which I know would be almost impossible, at least until 1FtM had seen this. Nolelover It's almost football season! 21:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I never said it couldn't be sourced, only that I think it's too trivial to mention even with one. Keep in mind that I'm not an absolute authority on what goes in the article, though it seems that way since I often take the last word out of habit. In this case, though, I'm fairly confident about my opinion. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Yes, I realize you aren't god-king of this article ;), but there's a reason you're name is up there as "actively involved", and so I sorta-kinda defer to your opinion. I'm not really sure that we could find a RS saying that j-mods make bot-traps, but that's a minor point. Anyway, all that to say that I agree that its too trivial to put in the article. Nolelover It's almost football season! 23:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Dang it. --Σ ☭★ 23:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC) ("Getting the last word" habit rising.) To answer Nolelover: Suffice it to say I didn't put my own name up there. But since there are only two names and one hasn't been really involved for ages, you'd be perfectly welcome to add your own name. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC) (Note: Unionhawk's last edit was on 4 April. Most likely because of studying for school and stuff.) "I will not survive this attack. Stalin has finally accomplished the task he attempted unsuccessfully before." --Σ ☭★ 00:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC) This is true. If Unionhawk doesn't think he can remain active he's free to remove his own name from the list. (And now someone else has to comment.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Heh, will this do? (unless, of course, someone else has something of actual importance to bring up) Nolelover It's almost football season! 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:RuneScape nominated for deletion

I've put this category up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, Partly because it's a small category that isn't likely to grow, but mostly because it's redundant to Category:Jagex which can serve as a single point for all Jagex-related articles and images. You can view and comment on the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ForTheMoney (talk • contribs) 11:19 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RS Mythology

This article seems to be lacking in information on key RS mythological events, such as the God Wars. Just sayin'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkrawkr (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Because such things should stay on the RS Wikia, where they belong. To put it bluntly, this is a factual overview of RS, not a game-guide. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In the event of the fan art being deleted

Collapsing since this thread is now way past its lifespan and should be allowed to archive. Grumbling about an image we cannot un-delete won't change anything, but if anyone has any suggestions they are perfectly welcome. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What will take its place? --The Σ talkcontribs 22:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't say that anything has to take its place, since images need to be useful rather than just pleasant eye candy (which, incidentally, has been my argument against having that fan art.) Trouble is, we can't stick someone else's art on the article without their permission, and if it's not freely licensed we might be accused of overusing non-free media. (I know I've said this stuff before and I'm basically repeating myself, but it's a valid point and one that Wikipedia takes seriously.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC) If I were to make my own piece of art and licensed it under CC 3.0 could that take its place? --The Σ talkcontribs 01:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC) If we assume that you can license artwork of RuneScape under CC 3.0 and you can meet the conditions for that license, then by all means do so. My knowledge of copyright and licensing is limited, so I can't give you a definite answer (mainly because I don't know if a depiction of a copyrighted product would fall under that copyright or not.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC) There is no reason whatsoever to deleting the fanart. It is properly licensed and the Runescape article had a bad history of fair use images violating the policy and being deleted. Since you suggested replacing the art, what makes it so bad in the first place? It seems fairly reasonable to me. 64.134.100.212 (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC) So it may be, but it's not properly licensed as there's no evidence the artist gave permission to license it as CC 3.0; in fact they don't allow uploading of their work without permission - I checked this for myself. At best it's non-free and we have enough of those already, at worst it's a copyright violation and will therefore be deleted. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Why does it need be replaced? What makes yours different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.97.34 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC) There were licensing issues with the Tarikochi image. The difference between mine and Tarikochi's is that mine will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. It's the same license that is invoked whenever someone edits Wikipedia. --The Σ talkcontribs 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC) The article is depressing and dull now without the Wikipedia girl there. Why do you hate her so much? It wasn't hurting anyone. 207.238.97.2 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC) The files have been deleted and the cult of personality abolished, and thus, there is not much we can do to restore the images. --Σ talkcontribs 21:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC) And in my opinion, the fan art is pretty much a vanity tower. Surely something else can replace it. --Σ talkcontribs 21:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I have to disagree. The only ones who would even recognize "vanity" images are the ones who play the game. "Cult of personality" is only your opinion and does not deter from the information. 174.70.27.140 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Is it an opinion when every image details the same character, which is, not to mention, atypically dressed?(Hm, I think there are too many commas there. Oh well.) What I did was adding variety to the article, so that people wouldn't look at the images and think "Do all RuneScape players have a bad sense of fashion?", and also to avoid misrepresenting and/or tarnishing the game. --Σ talkcontribs 00:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The fan art has gone and unless it's re-uploaded under a compatible (and correct) license there's very little we can do about it; moaning endlessly solves nothing. Adding variety to images is desirable; we must remember that while readers of this article are not necessarily RuneScape players, using the same character in every image can give a false impression of the game. If anyone wants to moan about Σ's editing, do it on his talk page, not here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Just putting in my comment, but I read this Runescape article before back when there were a lot more pictures. They all seemed good to me then and I don't see anything wrong with them. It just looks plain now. Being too plain is a lot worse than than "false representation" in your words. If variety was what you wanted, why did you remove all of them instead of all but one? 173.66.57.192 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I also want to add that the other posters are right, it does seem like you have a problem with this person rather than their works. 173.66.57.192 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) IP, having so many images of a copyrighted game could be construed as copyright infringement. The files have been deleted, and grumbling about it will not change that. If you have an issue, contact me on my talk page. --Σ talkcontribs 22:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC) What about those images that are on right now? Why aren't they deleted also? 173.66.57.192 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) It is recommended to have no more than 3 pieces of non-free content. If you have a suspicion that I just don't like Tarikochi you can say so on my talk page. This is not the place for it - it is for RuneScape-related stuff, so long as it's about the article, not the game. --Σ talkcontribs 22:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC) My previous points still stand. 173.66.57.192 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Famous Players

Zezima.ShySteph.Gertjaars.Hakanss2.Dark Arm3.Maxboison.TehNoobShow.Skiller703.Vodka5 and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.105.234 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's nice to know, but why are you telling us? --Σ ^talk_contribs 20:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to remember that Zezima got interviewed for Betrayal at Falador, or something along the lines of having something to do with that. That may be enough for him to meet the General Notability Guidelines. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 23:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was more of a back-of-the-book blurb, right? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive bots

This is a notice to let the readers of this talk page know that I have proceeded to set up automated archival from ClueBot III, as it has the |archivenow parameter, which I am using to end the thread about the images. I have experimentally shown that using two bots does not cause havoc and destruction. I haven't used numbered archives, (except for once, for 2 days, but that was in my early life) so forgive me if the code I have implemented breaks the current archives. Could someone fix the archives in the occasion that I broke them, and if they like, can undo my changes if there are any objections, and I am sure we can work toward a compromise of some sort. Thanks, --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 22:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If the talk page was particularly busy I'd support this idea, but currently it isn't worth having two bots. If there are issues with stale threads they can be archived manually by cutting them out of the talk page and pasting them into the latest archive - I sometimes do this when threads need to be archived and aren't being done fast enough. In this case, I'll probably do it tomorrow - that thread's already a proverbial zombie, it just needs someone to bury it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversies, legal battles, major expansions

I think this article needs an update on different controversies that the gaming media has covered in their stories. It shapes and defines what the game brings with its gameplay and service quality.

Additionally, legal battles specifically related to Runescape should be mentioned.

Major expansions such as new skills and other content like clan camps etc should be mentioned as they impact the game's reception as a whole.

The player reception is out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.196.248 (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

These problems are already known; the issue is finding sources to address them. As for clans, we'll come to that when the citadels are actually released. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Scarmudgeon add some stuff about legal issues with Jagex? --Σ ^talk_contribs 21:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes; we decided that was better suited to Jagex and, well, he reacted pretty badly to being told that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What about a source like this? I don't know if it would be viable. just trying to help =D ---> goo. gl/tC4eA (Take out the space) Sephiroth878 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with the source, it would be difficult to use as a reference since that website triggers Wikipedia's spam blacklist, and I refuse to use shortened URLs as sources (they could easily be used to hide malicious websites, although that isn't a problem here.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

examiner.com is blacklisted because anybody can create an account and write anything they like, with zero editorial control - it's WP:USERGENERATED, we shouldn't go anywhere near it as a source. --McGeddon (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I see that now in your WP link. Sorry about that. I will try to hunt down some reputable sources then for you guys, then I'll share them here. Sephiroth⁸⁷⁸ | Talk 19:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Clan Citadels

Are they notable enough to be included? --Σ ^talk_contribs 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that clan citadels have received secondary coverage (Eurogamer), I think we're at the point where we can have a section on clans in general. I'd put it below the Quests section and only cover the really general stuff - clan forums, clan camp, clan citadels and all that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to say that that sort of thing needs third-party sources, and look what 1FTM finds. Thanks to that, I agree that a general "clan" section would work. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is only one source, and it's kinda brief. I'll see if I can dig up more. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While poking around various gaming sites (if you want articles on RuneScape, you've got to look beyond the mainstream), I was able to find stuff about citadels on Massively and this Q&A on MMORPG.com. I'd like to include more secondary websites in our sources and this is a good start. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

If anyone's been paying attention to RuneScape lately, they'll see that the wave of criticism has surged and become an epidemic. I think that there ought to be a proper section on the Criticism of RuneScape with some forum threads sourced, because there are quite a lot of issues with RuneScape in the public spectrum that may be worth documenting.

For example, things worth mentioning:

• Bots and Jagex's response to them.
• Heavy marketing ploys such as refer-a-friend and Bonus XP weekend.
• The Free Trade / Wildy controversy (and the unanimous outrage both when they were taken out and put back in.)
• Player suggestions, how they have been dealt with, how players feel they have not been listened to.

Does anyone else agree that this would merit inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.102.158 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Only if they've been covered by the mass media. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 00:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We cannot have a section just on criticism, because those aren't balanced, but I can see your point. Trouble is, as Σ points out, the mass media isn't picking it up, making it difficult to write anything. I shall keep looking through our current sources and see if anything has come up. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

where is the cool pics of the girl?? why is it gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.162.103 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In a word, copyright issues. However, looking through this talk page's archives will yield a veritable bounty of good reading on that subject if you wish to get deeper. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Before the Original Runescape?

Is it worth mentioning at all DeviousMUD?? Jagex's game that ultimately became Runescape in 2001? Just a thought.Sephiroth878 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It used to be mentioned, then it was decided the two products were unrelated and so didn't need a mention here. (The statements were also being propped up with unreliable sources, but that was a secondary point.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the reason I had asked is because I had found about 4 or 5 sources, one from the creator of RUnescape/DeviousMUDSephiroth878 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I should like to see them before making a judgement call. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth here are the sources I found so far. (Early apology if not posted right :O)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.mud/browse_thread/thread/27d9c89f92085f64/7e612836a3400f39?pli=1

maybe this one: http://deviousmud.tripod.com/

WayBAck Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/19990125092020/http://sleepy.fitz.cam.ac.uk/

Has Pictures with it: http://www.stellardawncentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16183

a video of RuneFest where Andrew speaks about DeviousMUD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vse_zPwPz-s#t=9m30s

http://www.tip.it/runescape/index.php?times=437

=]Sephiroth878 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to shoot down most of your sources for various reasons - mostly because they aren't reliable.

• 1 is just a Usenet post where Andrew talks about a new MUD he's created.
• 2 is the website we used before and ultimately decided wasn't a reliable source.
• 3 is just an archived site with 3 links. There's simply nothing there.
• 4 is off a forum and could disappear at any time. In any case, it wouldn't be classed as reliable.
• 5 is a YouTube video. For various reasons, they are generally not used as sources.

Out of all of them, only the last link is useful, but it doesn't explicitly say that DeviousMUD was related to or was the predecessor of RuneScape. As a result, there's nothing to positively connect the two items, which is why we ultimately removed any mention of it from the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Completely understandable. Yeah number 2 was about the "best" Ive found as of yet. The Video was decent but you have a very valid point. For the rest of them, yeah I imagined you would lol. There's just NO evidence of the subject matter, which is kind of sad to be honest.Sephiroth⁸⁷⁸ | Talk 19:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

- Oh yeah what about the last link, the one from tip.it?Sephiroth⁸⁷⁸ | Talk 19:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The tipit link does not say anything that plainly states that RuneScape was related to DeviousMUD (other than the mentions of RuneTek in the captions of the images). --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 19:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger that. I will still try to hunt something up on it though.Sephiroth⁸⁷⁸ | Talk 20:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew has stated that DeviousMUD was a precursor to RuneScape. →Στc. 23:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As it is currently an online browser game,

should it also use template Massively multiplayer online strategy video games ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C933103 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful. RuneScape is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game, which is a different genre. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of Date Information

In Player Reaction is States

On 10 December 2007, updates by Jagex removed free player-versus-player combat and unbalanced trading in order to rid the game of activities involving real currency being traded for virtual goods.[31][109] The updates also affected legitimate players, resulting in many of them actively complaining on the forums.[110] Jagex issued a Customer Support News article admitting the updates may not have been an ideal replacement for what was removed, requesting patience and promising to remedy potential problems with updates in the future.[111] During the changes, subscription numbers fell by 60,000.[112] No figures were given as to how many of those subscriptions belonged to legitimate players and how many to gold farmers. In an interview in February 2008, Jagex's head of content stated that, "we were really afraid we were going to lose our members over this change, because other games had in the past. But we are very, very pleased to say that we have lost practically none of our members."[113]

But they added it back in. This Information is out of date.

I would Edit it myself...But I'm bad at editing and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaroncampf (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Working--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Already done '"PvP Worlds" were introduced on 15 October 2008 where players could fight almost anywhere in Gielinor,[33] but these and "Bounty Worlds" were removed when PvP combat in the Wilderness was restored on 1 February 2011.[34]'--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, the information doesn't fit under player reception, so trying to shoe-horn it in there wouldn't have worked anyway. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

only most popular *free* mmorpg?

is it not the most popular mmorpg in the world, from both free and not free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the source says it is the most popular free MMORPG so that's what we go with. (If it was the most popular MMORPG it would say so, but I'm fairly certain I know which MMO holds that title.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

RPP

Should we think about RPP, seeing how many extremely happy people are quite possibly gonna have a lot of extra time on their hands tomorrow? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, we already are. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe full-protection is necessary, if that is what you intended to ask. →Στc. 01:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I was just thinking semi until I remembered that this article is almost always semi'd. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 05:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, aside from the Pending Changes trial and one other brief period of full-protection, this article has been under semi-protection for several years now, which keeps vandalism minimal. Going to full-protection would do a lot more harm than good. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge Base conversion

As many of you might have noticed, Jagex has converted its knowledge base into a community-editable wiki. Not only does this mean that many of our references no longer function, but we can't use the wiki as a reliable source since there's no guarantee of accuracy in their information. News posts have not been affected so they are still useful.

I'm bringing this topic up because, while fansites are possibly the most suitable replacement for these pages, I'm not entirely sure how we should proceed and I'm uncomfortable with introducing lots of fansite links; those have caused enough problems in the past with "Fansite X gives viruses" or "Fansite Y is more popular" or "Fansite Z is inaccurate". Do we stick to one fansite, or use several? And if so, which ones? Or do we try and find another solution? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire (former) knowledge base/new RS wiki is now useless as far as we're concerned, and with it goes many of our primary sources? If so, then I don't see how fansites will solve the problem. Some, like the old RS wiki, are community edited and proud of it; others are basically the same but from a select number of editors (note how articles on many other fansites will have small text at the bottom of a page saying "Thanks to users A, B and C for writing/developing this article). What other options do we have? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You see the problem, as both fansites and open wikis are usually links to avoid (see numbers 10 and 11), and it's difficult to justify having those in place of the ~35 current KB links. If the new wiki had a high "entry barrier" for editing it would be easier to use, but it doesn't (membership plus some other fairly low requirements). Fansites are less likely to change and demand a degree of accuracy (any fansite worth its salt doesn't want a reputation for inaccuracy), but I still prefer the "official" pages whenever possible. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Has Jagex ever recognized certain fansites as being more accurate/official/your-word-of-choice then others? I know they've done different cross-site collaborations and promotions with certain ones, but does that count as their "seal of approval" so to speak? If so, then I would feel a bit better about arbitrarily deciding to only use those. Not the best situation, but we don't seem to have many choices. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jagex has done plenty with fansites in the last couple of years; it even assigns ratings to different fansites based on content/user-base/safety and offers different levels of support. Currently, RuneHQ, Sal's Realm and Tip.It are English fansites that have received platinum status, so they are probably the ones we would go for (although the final decision is ours and not anyone else's.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those were the three I was thinking of, and the ratings that Jagex has assigned them makes for a much easier cutoff/minimal site creep. Still not ideal, but that's about all we can do for now. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I guess we can go ahead with converting the "dead" links, unless we choose to give others the chance to register an opinion. (My purely personal preference is to use the latter two sites, but if the content verifies the text it doesn't really matter. Plus having multiple sites avoids accusations of favouritism.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm going to mark all the KB links as "deadurl=yes" until they are converted. Of course, once that's done we might want to archive the new links just in case of emergencies. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As the "Jagex Approved" are only edited by Jagex Mods could they be counted as reliable?FlashNerdX (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. There's no guarantee that pages will always be Jagex Approved or remain the same, of course, but vital pages such as the rules are unlikely ever to be "unlocked" or changed that often. Basically: I don't know. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WebCites for the Knowledge base

For what it's worth, the knowledge base has been mostly archived at Talk:RuneScape/Knowledge base. →Στc. 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of our references were also archived a couple of months ago, so for the moment I've just switched the dead links over to their archived counterparts until suitable replacements are found. (I haven't verified whether all the links are dead, but the KB links certainly are and others might have gone as well.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdated information and can't edit.

The last section, "player reception" regards an outdated update. The "old" PvP system was put back on February 1, 2011 after a referendum was made by Jagex, the majority voting for its return. Would be great if somebody could edit this. Source: http://services.runescape.com/m=news/k=3/newsitem.ws?id=3927 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9001-gon (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Already done. Check the end of paragraph 3, under "Rules and cheating". 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

G&S

In Graphics and sound section information about voice acting is outdated. I'm unable to edit it. _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that you've noticed is outdated? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected to keep away vandals. To edit it your account needs to be autoconfirmed - it needs to have existed for 4 days and make 10 edits, which you haven't got yet. Now on your request, I agree with you that the line is outdated but we're limited by the source currently in use. I could change it to a general statement that "voice acting is incorporated in various areas of the game", but I don't know if that works for everyone else. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be good enough for me. I've searched for sources about voice acting in RuneScape but found only interviews with Jagex employees on YouTube. _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 15:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Which, needless to say, aren't much good as sources (videos aren't banned as links, but they should not be used as sources.) Very well, I'll go ahead and use the blanket statement. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And  Done. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2012

I would like yo add in a valid point about a recent update Bigdaddydlatin (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done You need to be more specific. What exactly do you want us to add? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2012

Today Jagex has reversed a long-standing company policy and began offering in-game items for purchase. Specifically, they are selling spins on the "Squeal of Fortune", a random-reward generator. Effectively, Jagex has created a lottery system that allows players to spend real-world money for a chance to win significant in-game advantages. I believe this change is worth a mention in this article because, as mentioned, this is a reversal of long-standing company policy and because it eliminates one of the key differentiators between Runescape and other MMORPGs.

The news item announcing this game update is located at http://services.runescape.com/m=news/squeal-of-fortune--extra-spins [citation 1]

The old company policy, as stated in the game rules section of the Runescape Wiki, is located at http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Real-world_trading [citation 2]. The policy is stated on that page as follows: "We don’t want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn’t affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape."

YouTube videos (my apologies, I don't know if these count as a citable source or not) have already appeared showing players gaining significant advantage from Squeal spin purchases, for example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga1Te1jEB_M [citation 3]

I propose the following text be added to the end of the History and Development section of the article: On 2 April 2012, Jagex released an update to Runescape's "Squeal of Fortune" [cite 1], allowing players to purchase spins on the Squeal with real-world currency. This update reversed a long-standing company policy, which had stated that "[Jagex doesn't] want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If [Jagex lets] players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. [Jagex feels the player's] status in real-life shouldn’t affect [the player's] ability to be successful in RuneScape" [cite 2]. The day the update was released, many players posted videos to YouTube showing their Runescape characters gaining high-level equipment and millions of experience points through the purchase of Squeal spins [cite 3].

--Ponteaus (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Certainly worth a mention; I'll put it in as soon as I've thought about how to word it. Note that the wiki is not a reliable source but news posts are fine, so at some point I want to couple this with a secondary source. (My personal opinion is that Jagex can do what they wish with their own items; the rule has always been against other people selling them.)

I've added a suggested wording. Also, I'd like to note that the link to the RS Wiki is to a "Jagex-approved" page, which should be stable, as opposed to the "Community-powered" pages that can be changed by RS players.--Ponteaus (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done, for the moment. Although "Jagex-approved" pages might well be useful as sources, there's no agreement here on which pages we can use, so to avoid any doubts we don't use it at all. And no, while YouTube isn't banned it needs to be used with care. I'm going to keep looking around other websites and see if anyone has posted a reaction to this update - we try not to rely exclusively on news posts. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs in the Rules and Cheating section of the article, as this is not a change to the Runescape rules but rather a change to Jagex's policy regarding Runescape gameplay. I only used the link to the Runescape Rules page because that is where I could find them speaking to the old policy.--Ponteaus (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't make it fit anywhere else (H&D is closest but this is more about the game in general rather than specific updates), and making a new section would be foolish unless there's a lot to write on the subject, in which case it would be a sub-section of Gameplay. I have observed a lot of negative player reception - if that gets covered anywhere I will include that as well. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good external article: http://www.develop-online.net/news/40387/Runescape-begins-first-microtransaction-experiment. I still favor including it under History and Development. This is a big change the Runescape business plan and gameplay philosophy, as it sounds like your searches are showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponteaus (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My searches didn't come to much as nobody had actually written anything yet, so you were ahead of me. I've chosen to quote from the article as it would be unfair to draw conclusions from a single article, but I think I got the spirit of it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

why is this locked?

There hasn't been any vandalism in years, so whats the problem?140.198.46.138 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably because everybody here knows what will probably happen if it's unlocked, and nobody feels a need to change the status quo. Unlock the page and you're potentially inviting a flood of vandals/trolls/players with axes to grind (hence the years-long protection log.) There was a trial for pending protection a couple of years back, which allowed anonymous edits so long as they were reviewed and accepted, and there was a heavy mix of vandalism and edits that were not in the article's best interests so the article just went back to usual protection again. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Evolution Of Combat

Considering that runescape is about to have it's largest update to date, how is wikipedia going to cope with the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.49.61 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(Section title changed to correct a typo) Wikipedia will "cope" as time permits, although I've been looking closely at the Combat section to see what needs doing. By and large the information will still be accurate, although the Action Bar and combat abilities deserve a mention. The paragraph about the beta will also tweaking to summarise its most important aspects - it was written when the beta was first announced and hasn't been changed since. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2012

Please change the number of members on runescape from 200 million to 198.5 million because as a runescape player myself, it's a big moment when Runescape hits that 200million user milestone. It's such a big deal that runescape is holding celebrations of it, and I, as well as thousands of others, would not like to provide false information the public.

Shinyemu (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure While I know that RS hasn't hit the 200M mark yet, the source currently being used says "nearly 200M". We also can't use the main website as a source because the counter changes too frequently. Until I can find a better source, I'm inclined to leave the numbers as they are. (I've left this request open for someone else to look at. Also note that this article was not written for RS players, but for a more general audience that probably won't care about player celebrations, harsh as that sounds.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I have modified it to say that runescape has nearly 200 million members rather than approximately. Nearly makes it clear that it hasn't met that number yet. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content Restoration Request on September 10th 2012

Content has been removed from this page. the content removed had to do with insight venture partners purchase of stock in runescape, the date some of the creaters left the board of directors, etc. it would be greatly appreciated if you would restore this content as it was particularly useful when explaining the business side of runescape. Note: Runescape hit 200m players as of July 19th 2012. Here is the link. http://services.runescape.com/m=forum/forums.ws?294,295,40,63891131

(Moved to bottom of page to keep things in order.) There are a couple of problems with your statement First, IVP purchased stock in the company Jagex, not in RuneScape, and that article already contains information to this end. Second, RuneScape has 200M accounts, not players - they are not the same thing. But again, we already note the number of accounts created and I'm not sure whether the date is relevant (that sort of information gets old really quickly.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 1/10/2012

The system specs are out of date the ones listed are for the 2008 HD release since then the graphics have been updated in most of the game. Minimum specs: - 512 MB RAM - 1Ghz CPU - For DirectX or OpenGL graphics: 128MB 3D Graphics Card (i.e. Nvidia® GeForce™ 4 or above, or ATI 9800 or above)

There's also a detailed recommended settings/specification table posted.

Source: http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Minimum_Specs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.157.40 (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done There is a small problem - we can't use wikis as sources (see #12), which has been something of a headache ever since the KB converted to that format. Now if those figures appeared on a fansite that would be fine, otherwise... 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply: It is a Jagex approved article though which means it came from them originally & features no user content notice the red symbol on the page it means only Jagex staff can edit it. For an explanation see http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/ it's not like some random person wrote it like with most wiki entries if it came form them it should be ok... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.248.98 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that and personally I agree with you, but we've discussed this before with no results. Let me quote from the guideline on self-published sources: "For that reason, self-published media...such as open wikis...are largely not acceptable as sources". Another problem is that if this article applies for Good Article or Featured Article status, the reliability of such sources will be questioned. The page may be protected but there's no guarantee it will always be so, so on balance I'm still going to say no. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll just toss my uninvited two cents in here and agree with 1ForTheMoney. Whether the article is "Jagex approve" or not, it doesn't appear to pass WP:V. It is unfortunate that much of the KB is out, but so be it... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Approved The jagex approved articles are not open wiki pages, they are also not self published (only jagex can publish them). WP:V mentions "open wikis, personal or group blogs and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." the minimum requirements wiki page is not open for edits; it is only allowed to be edited by jagex staff.

Are we not allowed to decide to quote information from an official source correct information for this article? I have decided to do what is right and edited the minimum requirements / referenced the official jagex page so that factual information is presented. If you honestly have an issue with it you can undo the edit. Lucid Luna (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the discussion above - my reasoning has not changed. The page may be protected from public editing but it may not always be so, which makes it difficult to justify using a wiki as a source. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey 1ForTheMoney, I understand what you are trying to say and I agree, but isn't there some way we could present it as a reliable reference?
How is having an archived vesion of the forums 2 years ago more reliable than the current jagex page? Doesn't usage of the word "largely" in "largely not acceptable as sources" imply that under certain circumstances it can fall under "Wikipedia:Use_common_sense"? It is obvious several wiki editors are having trouble improving this article because the official jagex word is on an uneditable wiki page- Is it possible to add an exception (under wp:common) if we can provide evidence of reliability?
What if we archived these pages
- http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Minimum_Specs#RuneScape: (the actual requirements with the approved stamp)
- http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Welcome_to_the_RuneScape_Wiki (the approved page can only be edited by jagex)
If we archived these pages on the same date, couldnt it agree with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Use_common_sense ?
I hope we could work something out :D Lucid Luna (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you want to invoke the "ignore all rules" principle. Numerous discussions on the idea of using "Jagex Approved" pages as references never reached consensus, mainly because there's no guarantee they'd always stay that way. As most of the supposedly active editors here are either semi-retired or not showing an interest, I can open this up for wider discussion if you wish. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

i tried using it wiv a raspberry pi micro computer (256 mb ram, 700mhz cpu) and i can confirm da current requirments are wrong 86.144.51.211 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

image request

Can someone update the gameplay image? It looks out-of date. A random person 22:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOPbottle (talk • contribs)

User:Σ uploaded the current one; why not ask him on his talk page? Of course, as it's designed to show the interface rather than the gameplay he might decide it's not that urgent. And in future, use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Runescape Private Servers Redirect

Runescape Private Servers used to redirect to Server emulator. I have requested for that redirect page to be deleted. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this redirect's entry. XapApp (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Servers locations

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't ARGENTINA has one of the servers of the game? If it has, you would have to update the server location map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.244.81.71 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it on the English world list. Is it in another language? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Media/Distribution

Would it be an idea to expand on this, because the game is available via an official downloadable desktop client - as well as the stated browser. Craig 21:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiecraig (talk • contribs)

Um, I'm not sure what you mean by "stated browser". As for the downloadable client, that doesn't seem especially noteworthy. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

On the right hand side table, under "media/distribution" - It says the game is available via browser, but not the client.Craig 09:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I consulted the documentation for {{infobox video game}} (which is what we're using), and it seems we've been using the "media" parameter wrong for years. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (subsequent comment makes this completely wrong.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You've worded it wrong. "Download via Browser" doesn't sound right. Maybe "Playable via Browser or Downloadable Client" It's up to you weather you want to include the word Playable though.Craig 22:57, 10 January 2013 (GMT)

I'm going to point out now that, per infobox guidelines, it should be just "Download" and nothing else. This parameter focuses on the medium used for distribution, not the programs used. To avoid any possible confusion (and fully comply with the guidelines), I've removed all mention of browsers or clients. So this has to be marked as a  Not done. Sorry about that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Policy Regarding Bots/Goldfarming

RuneScape has shifted its focus to allow botting and goldfarming, so I would like to propose that we edit the bit regarding cheating and revise it so that it reflects Jagex's policies embracing bot use and goldfarming.174.0.148.150 (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a valid source to demonstrate this new policy. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't they just ban a load of cheaters?Craig 23:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiecraig (talk • contribs)

(Off-topic comment about players removed - keep your comments relevant to the article, please.) Can someone change the redirect "ZeZima" to "Zezima" as it should be? (OK - I was curious as to what would happen if I searched that, eek)--82.8.226.105 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I would like to see such redirects deleted on the spot, I have had little success getting them removed in the past (plus keeping them around discourages people from creating silly articles.) Also, I have boldly removed the off-topic stuff about players, since it's not relevant to the talk page and you're responding to a troll request anyway. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Let us never speak of my off-topic rant again, should of known better! I am in strong agreement that such redirects are pointless as any mention of "Zezima" is inherently non-notable here. As there is nothing about "Zezima" in the article it really serves no real purpose. (plus, Zezima has lost most of his fame in the RS community and only "vets" such as myself remember him, so maybe another reason to delete - maybe an end to people creating silly articles :) (Scuse any typos, editing from a phone is difficult)...82.8.226.105 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

True, neither they nor any other player are noteworthy outside RS - perhaps you should ask the person who created the redirect why they did that? For redirects that are obviously unsuitable, there is also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but my previous efforts to have certain silly redirects deleted were thwarted. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Forums

The Runescape forums have been updated to include text formatting so that needs to be updated. Ron fett (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done The inaccurate statement has been removed. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Servers

A Spanish language server has been released today so you can add that to the list. Also the New System Interface alpha was released today. Not sure if you had anything about that or not. Ron fett (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I already had the date of the interface alpha, but the Spanish language servers are going to be more of a problem - all the links regarding foreign servers are dead and severely out of date. If I can dig up the news posts regarding the releases for each language, I could make that a paragraph under H&D. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Okay, that is now  Done, though not in a way I'd really like. Lots of dead links and no idea what to do equals stagnating article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Runescape 3?

This article says nothing about RS3, nothing about how the players and press have reacted about it, nothing about the changes that are going to happen. The combat sections should also be updated to say how armour works.2.219.167.45 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

First, RS3 is already dealt with in the History & Development and the Graphics & Sounds sections. Second, "how armour works" is not really a major detail. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the new skill Karatydolphi (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, too trivial. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Random text change

The article states "For players, it is determined by applying a mathematical formula to their combat skills." Should you just change it to "For players, it is determined by adding the defense skill plus their highest combat skill plus 2"? Or maybe ""For players, it is determined by applying a mathematical formula (defense level+highest combat level+2)" Just saying this because the phrase "applying a mathematical formula to their combat skills" sounds like a load of jargon. It used to be a very weird math formula but the changes with dual-wielding and such had done away with that method of level calculating. --some random guy who has played rs2.5 for the last 7 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.61.146 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? The current text is still accurate and doesn't require an explanation of exactly what we mean by "combat skills." 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

2012 Most successful year to date

Perhaps this should be mentioned in the reception section?

In 2012 RuneScape attracted tens of millions of new players that had entered the game for the first time while cracking the £50 million profit margin for the first time making 2012 the games most successful year todate.Source 58.178.251.62 (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Although RS is extremely successful, this article is about the success of the company. I also find the figure of "tens of millions of new players" rather open to interpretation. (Unfortunately, as a privately-owned company Jagex are not compelled to publicly disclose their exact financial/subscription figures.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Latin American Spanish servers

Could someone add about RuneScape Latin American Spanish servers in the "Servers" section? Thanks. --Ajente02 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done We need a source first. And to be honest, that entire section is relying on dead and outdated links. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Vecna Skull

For the article Vecna, we are looking for confirmation (or disconfirmation) of the statement "In RuneScape, an item called the "Vecna Skull", boosts the player's Magic level when activated." Does anyone know if, and in what version this is the case? Thank you very much. Daranios (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Its release was never officially announced, but it's existed in the game for a couple of years. (Pay no attention to the version numbers - the game is actually updated a few times a month.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! In this case I will reference the quote above with the game as source, if you think it is correct. Daranios (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I can provide a source that the item exists, but not for its release date or purpose. It would have no bearing on the current deletion discussion. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will use it as a source anyway. Daranios (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Logo dimensions

I think the dimensions of the logo in the right bar are not correct. I can not edit the page myself, but maybe removing the Image_Size attribute will help. Regards, Remi1115 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The original image has the same problem so simply changing the size won't work. It used to be the correct size, but had to be scaled down to meet the non-free content criteria and the scaling wasn't done properly. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now uploaded a new version which removes the horizontal squashing. Is this better for you? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Player Reception lacking information

Within the Player Reception category it says: "run a separate version of the game dating from 2007,[127] closing on 1 March 2013 with almost 450,000 votes."

This is not true as they had stated that the separate version would only close to f2p (Free to Play) players and would stay open for paying members. 74.214.156.22 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This request doesn't make sense. How does that fit into a sentence about the results of a poll? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Citing the wiki

I understand we can't cite the Wiki hosted on runescape.com because wikis can't be considered a reliable source of information; however, there is a handful of articles which are marked "Jagex Approved" (denoted by a red ribbon on the left side of the article; example of the ribbon). Articles labeled as "Jagex Approved" are only editable by Jagex staff; this is in contrast to "Community Approved" articles, which may be edited by just about every paying member. Does this level of protection on articles make them suitable to use as a source? moluɐɯ 18:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This has come up before, and my answer is still no. The main problem is that although a page might be locked now, there's no guarantee it will stay that way. Even if we make a few exceptions for pages that are unlikely to be opened for editing (like the rules), it creates a slippery slope and people will want to keep adding more pages. Eventually, experienced editors who aren't familiar with this page will come along and say, "You're using a wiki as a source! You can't link to that!" (See #12. It's not an open wiki as such, but its entry requirements are quite low.)

I hate this situation, personally. Converting the Knowledge Base to a wiki left us with a huge sourcing headache (and it doesn't seem to have been worth the effort anyway.) Unfortunately, Wikipedia's guidelines make it difficult to justify using it as a source, and doing so opens up a can of worms which I don't want. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Treasure Hunter

I also have a source (here) that further explains how Treasure Hunter is pretty much a redesigned SoF. It also has a quotable tidbit for why they redesigned it. This probably isn't information worth documenting though. moluɐɯ 22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Demographics

http://services.runescape.com/m=news/mod-mmg-on-myths-and-misconceptions contains a good chunk of statistics we can source. Someone else may want to weed out that trivial stuff and put what's WP material on the article. moluɐɯ 13:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This source can probably also add to our section on Bonds (and the Rules and Cheating section as a whole), though I'm not exactly sure what to say. moluɐɯ 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

They're interesting (and sometimes weird) statistics, but just plonking them in the Community section like that doesn't work - they don't tie in to the rest of the paragraph. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please spell check this

The author(s) have a problem with the letter z apparently. The present tense of the words are recognize and utilize. So they don't become Recognises and utilises. Even the spellcheck here on this page is telling me I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.37.40 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This article uses British English, so "recognise" is correct. Your spellchecker apparently doesn't know that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

The example user interface is out of date; this is a more suitable one. http://puu.sh/9lQuo.png

Source: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Interface Subhaven (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done We should really stick to the default interface, like this one. The one you've linked to isn't the default, it needs to be reduced in size to qualify as fair-use, and the player chat needs to be removed for privacy. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Old School RuneScape

Currently Old School RuneScape redirects to RuneScape, however there is no single mention of what it is in the article. Can some information about it be added? (and have that old school runescape link redirect to that appropriate section). Thank you! --208.58.121.42 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I added a small tidbit about Old School for now. moluɐɯ 01:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Forums

I already asked this in my edit summary, but I'll ask it here as well: Are JMod posts on their official forums acceptable sources? The only real problem with the forums is that threads come and go rather quickly, but that just means we need to remain diligent in archiving. moluɐɯ 14:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No, forums of any kind are not considered reliable for the reason you describe - threads can disappear without notice and many users pay no attention to archiving, so they're considered links to avoid. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, understandable. While I'm here, I assume this means we also can't cite their official Twitter, or Facebook accounts? These are explicitly mentioned by name by point 10 of your link, but I'm not sure if that would be overridden by the next point that mentions "recognized authorit[ies]", in this case, Jagex. moluɐɯ 14:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

They can't be cited but if they're official accounts, they could be added here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that posts made by JMod accounts on forums/social media don't necessarily represent official Jagex policy. Inconceivably (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Jagex Certified Official Wiki Posts

While it's completely understandable that ordinary pages on the official wiki can't be used as sources, there are various pages which are Jagex certified (e.g. http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Local_Moderators - see the crown icon on the top right) - why shouldn't we use these pages as sources?

The pages in question are are wiki in name only - only Jagex can edit them, and they all contain official Jagex policy (much more so than other sources we've previously used, e.g. interviews with Jagex staff). Inconceivably (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I don't wish to repeat myself, I'll link to my previous response on this subject. I might be willing to go for pages we know will never be open for editing (the rules, for example), but anything beyond that will probably be a case-by-case thing. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that any webpage will stay in its current editable format - has there been any case of any of the Jagex certified pages becoming mass-editable in the past that has led to you holding this fear? Otherwise it seems largely irrational.

If such a thing were to ever happen, there's no reason we couldn't just refrain from accepting sources from the open version of the page - the Jagex certified version would be archived, and that would be what we linked to.

Referring to the other concerns expressed in your previous replies, Wikipedia's guidelines don't make it hard for us to justify using Jagex certified pages at all, Wikipedia specifically has a clause for dealing with exactly this situation (WP:IAR); If experienced editors who aren't familiar with the page come along and complain about our usage of the wiki, we can explain why we're doing it (it's a wiki in name only, pages can only be edited by Jagex staff, links to pages are archived and if the page is opened at a future date newer versions of it will no longer be accepted as a source, etc.) - if they actually are experienced editors, they should see exactly why we're doing what we're doing, and that it's completely justified under the circumstances (WP:UCS).Inconceivably (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Fears are often irrational. I've simply never felt the need to change my opinion, as nobody has ever felt the need to challenge it. I have no serious objection to using locked pages as long as it can be explained when the time comes. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - can I take that as us having reached a consensus that locked pages are acceptable as long as justified? Inconceivably (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless User:The Mol Man has a differing opinion (everyone else being either retired or occupied elsewhere), I believe so. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, my opinion is pretty much the same. moluɐɯ 11:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with Inconceivably. There's no evidence to suggest that such page is open to edit by anyone other than the staff. Any webpage (including news stories) could have updates or changes made without any notice. Shying away from using a reference just because the name contains "wiki" sounds a bit paranoid. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, seems we're all in agreement - thanks everyone. :) Inconceivably (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

Ugh. I'm really apathetic about this update. I'm usually the first to jump to adding changes like this to the article, but I can't see myself doing this anytime soon. If someone else would like, the "Legacy Mode" is now live, and this link is our citeable source. moluɐɯ 13:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, not you too - I didn't want to touch this one either. I might do this in a day or so if nobody else takes it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Okay,  Done now as part of a larger edit. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Livestreaming

Twitch is integrated into the game itself now. Is this worth a mention? I'm feeling kind of ambivalent. moluɐɯ 14:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, not a clue, but since Twitch has its own article it probably is worth a mention. I might do this shortly. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Expansion pack

(Please add.) In August 2014, Jagex Games Studio announced the first official expansion pack for RuneScape, the three-part add-on "Lost City of the Elves", that introduces new environments, minigames, and weapons. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Not done: No official sources call it an expansion pack. I find the use of the phrase "expansion pack" to be dubious. RuneScape receives regular updates, and this is just another one of those updates. This is the newspost from the website itself. I don't think Elf City is a major ground breaking change that is of interest to anyone outside the game's community. moluɐɯ 23:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

GameSpot a reliable, secondary source. Not only are you now pointing to a primary source, but you're doing original research. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing how this is about the company's actual releases, a primary source is acceptable. In this case, the primary source contradicts the secondary source. I'm also not doing original research, I'm using an authoritative primary source over a (incorrect) secondary source. This not a subjective matter, it is objective, and Gamespot has no authority on what an update is officially called. This material is not anything out of the norm, and Jagex is not treating it as anything out of the norm. moluɐɯ 01:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it's not an expansion pack, that's not how Runescape works. Also the Elf City has been announced for some considerable time. Given the current length of the article, even relatively major updates such as this (which has not happened yet, as I understand it) probably shouldn't be covered. There is a full update history of the game at the Runescape Wikia, if at some point a split is considered. Thanks for the well formatted suggestion though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

I'm afraid I have to go with Mol Man's reasoning. While it's "big" in terms of the many updates RS receives (a fact this article has never mentioned, by the way), it is not of particular interest to people outside RS, and Jagex have never used the phrase "expansion pack" on the game's official website. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014

yy Ilikebovril (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

Under the section about Rules and Cheating regarding permanent banned accounts -

"Permanently banned accounts can make a request to be unbanned, after a payment of real-world money and a deduction of in-game wealth and experience points."

This line is incorrect. Permanent bans cannot be removed through any form of payment. There was a small trial a few years ago to give players with permanent bans a second chance, however this was abused and the process was stopped after a few weeks.

213.104.122.9 (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, for the moment. Our current source states that players can make a payment to get un-banned. It may be out of date, but that's all we have to go on. Of course, if there's evidence this is no longer the case, I can remove the line. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've just gone ahead and removed the line in question. Given more time to think it over, I did some digging and it seems you were right. Quoting from the relevant page:

Banned Account Reinstatement/Roll Backs
Banned Account Reinstatement & Roll Backs were used for a short period of time as an alternative to permanent macro bans. These were offered with the best of intentions, so that players could learn from their mistakes, but the truth is that they just didn't work.
As such the decision was made to no longer offer these options and instead revert to bans, as this was the only punishment which proved effective. There are currently no other alternative methods of punishment for accounts banned due to macro use.

1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ironman

Could probably write a brief section, or is it too unimportant? moluɐɯ 17:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. On the one hand, Wikipedia has an article on permadeath which Hardcore Ironman includes. On the other hand, it's completely optional and doesn't actually appear unless you know how to make that option appear on account creation. I suppose you could write a paragraph, at most. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment on RuneScape HUD picture

With the release of Evolution of Combat in RuneScape, the interface has been modified (although a "Legacy Mode" interface that looks somewhat similar to the one in the picture is currently available), so I thought I might suggest that the screenshot be changed or an additional one be added (if possible) to mirror the change in the game. CabbagePotato (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I might look into this a bit later. The only thing stopping it being replaced is a lack of willpower. 1ForTheMoney (talk)  Done. I finally took the time to produce a new image. As it's possible for players to customise their HUDs, I chose to stick with the default presented to new players as a compromise. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2015

For the designers, it really should say developers.... Also, there were 3 creators, not 2. Andrew, Paul, and Ian Gower were all brothers and worked on it together. Salmonmaster64 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Genres

Not sure how much weight this carries, but if you go through treasure hunter and choose the earn keys option, the title bar will use

<title>Offer Wall - RuneScape MMO Medieval Adventure Game</title>

. I've included just the first few lines in this paste. Would seem Jagex considers the genres of their game to be "Medieval" and "Adventure". moluɐɯ 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To-do point: Release schedule

Somewhere amongst the Developer Blogs, we might find useful information regarding the release of updates, either in general or a specific type. All the dev blogs are readable here (the Wiki's archive is friendly and easier to rea) with cite-able versions here.

A few that spring to mind from skimming that might be useful:

• http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/DevBlog:Implementing_Graphical_Updates
• http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/DevBlog:Game_Engine_Improvements
• http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/DevBlog:Concept
• http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/DevBlog:Coding_and_Writing
• http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/DevBlog:Within_the_Launch
• http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/DevBlog:A_Day_in_the_Life

Or there may be nothing of value at all. Hopefully that isn't the case. moluɐɯ 15:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)