Talk:RuneScape/Archive 2

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 1, 2005 and October 30, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:RuneScape/Archive03. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Super Quinn 00:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

External Links too Biased
I edited the external links section; I removed some biased descriptions on the clan links (e.g. "An awesome and powerful clan") and moved them apart from the fansite links. I don't find anything wrong about putting clansite links in the section, but descriptions should be strictly objective.

I then removed the notice on the RuneHQ link since last I heard someone else took the site over and it is not closing down.

I also felt that the more popular and trustworthy fansites should be at the top of the list, while less known sites should go at the bottom (especially ones on free hosts). I based my ordering on oldest at the top to newest lower down, but only for the first few links (the very well known fansites).


 * The external links section is getting completely out of control so I've commented all but the two official links out. I think that pretty much all the links should be culled barring a few of the useful RuneScape encylopaedias and specialised portals.  The clan sites should go for sure. --Kevin 18:36, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * The clan sites need to go but not the good fansites. After all Wikipedia External links section is a collection of resources related to the original article. I'd vote for RuneScape COmmunity, RuneHQ, Tip.it to stay.
 * Gaurav Arora 06:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree the external links is getting out of control, it's just people trying to advertise their site, or even scam players. I agree just listing the two official links is safer. Runefire 05:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Except they're not official sites, and I believe the site I've been collab-ing on is simply 'better' than these sites, what with their donation begging and crude site design. FireballX301 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Massive Improvements
Ive gone over the entire RuneScape community of articales on here, and I find that it is lacking a bunch of things. I have the ability to add many all the neccesary information, but as for using wikipedia, im not too good at...

Anyways, what im looking for is someone that will help me perform a major overhaul on this article. There are many redundancies and subarticles that need to be created. I just dont know where to get started. In the meantime, I am going to start researching conventions and things and attempt to do it myself (making sure to know what im doing before touching anything).

For example, since RuneScape and RuneScape 2 is essentially identical, then the RuneScape and RuneScape_2 pages have become quite redundant and are therefor pretty much carbon copies of eachother. There isnt much explanation on RuneScape classic, so perhaps just changing the entire RuneScape 2 page to a RuneScape classic page...

Curran919 03:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC) Curran919 00:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm amidst a massive overhaul of this article. It's slow going, since I don't have much free time, but I'm getting there. If you like, I'll email you a copy of what I have so far, if you want to add to it. I'll edit anything you add and then when it's done we can upload it. User:Premeditated Chaos 19:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * well what kind of overhaul are you doing? Im talking about taking away many of the large articles, such as 'RuneScape runes' and replacing with RuneScape combat, RuneScape interface, etc. If you want, you can drop me a line at komputerz919@hotmail.com or add me on msn, whats your rsn?


 * If you're thinking of creating making the large articles into a number of small articles (for combat, interface, etc), fair warning that you should be prepared to get the whole thing deleted again. Earlier, we had a number of users creating separate articles for each quest, location, etc and a number of those were either deleted or made into redirects.  You can see some of the remnants if you look at the number of redirects in RuneScape quests, RuneScape locations, etc. Also PMC, are you working on just this article or the whole series?  Maybe RuneScape should be more general and the specifics are moved to RuneScape 2, making that a bigger article? --Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ricky, I've been working on just the RuneScape article, with the unlikely goal of getting around to the rest of the series eventually. My personal opinion about the series is that we should have the following: RuneScape (including details of RS Classic and RS2), RuneScape skills, RuneScape locations, RuneScape quests (story descriptions of quests, NOT walkthoughs, and including any quest-related monsters.) RuneScape runes, RuneScape 2, RuneScape cheats and RuneScape economy should be merged + deleted. That makes just enough articles for breadth and depth, without the problem of four thousand tiny little RuneScape articles running around. Curran, I don't have MSN and I'm only online every second day. (Don't ask, long story.) My email is yinyang_oreo@hotmail.com, feel free to drop a line. I'll try to get you my article as soon as I can. It can be difficult, my computer at home (where the article currently resides) is notoriously cranky. User:Premeditated Chaos 17:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * PMC, that is pretty much what i was going for. I think I have too many aspirations for this article. I would like to have the economy left on here and developed (my freind is in the midst of writing a merchanting guide), but that isnt very important. I tihnk the default RuneScape page should be JUST RuneScape 2, and there should be a link to RuneScape classic (since it is a completely different game). Just dont know if it should be in the series or not. The thing i want most out of this is what I was doing with quests. I think that we would be better off just making a list of the quests instead of listing who developed and converged each one. Ricky and I have a discussion going on in the talk page for that article, and you have probably seen some of my additions. Curran919 00:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my belated reply. Like I said, I don't get on often, and I don't really have much time to look through articles when I do get on.
 * Personally, I think the RuneScape page should be all RuneScape 2, but with a section (not a separate article) on Classic, because in reality they are two versions of one game. The merchanting guide would probably be better suited to our sister project, Wikibooks, which includes all manner of textbooks, instruction manuals, and game walkthoughs. Wikipedia is more for the factual, not the instructional side of things. (For example, Wikipedia would say, "This is what rice is," and Wikibooks would say, "This is how you cook rice.") I think we should have who developed and wrote the quests on the Quests page, it's valuable, encyclopedic information. Definitely no quest guides, those would belong on Wikibooks again. User:Premeditated Chaos 17:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

~Redizot (Red)
 * Ooh, I like the WikiBooks idea, I've got to look more into that at a later time, but anyway, yes, a RuneScape Classic Section should most definately be added. I mean, I'm surprised myself how much time has passed since RSC has.  I see people a higher level and skill total than me, and am surprised that they've only been playing since months past the released of RS2, or when I run into people who have never even heard of RuneScape Classic, level 60-70ish too.  When I first learned about that, I was a little bit shocked.  So yeah, I am all for making a RSC page.

Refactoring of this page
Well I've been checking this page for some time, and there lots of greats edits and info going in, but the disorganisation of it really detracts from all the great info, so I've made a real effort to tidy it up. I think the problem largely comes from the fact that the developer of the game is changing it so rapdily (and has changed it so dramatically from when this article was first started) that much of the info is outdated or contradictory.

To be honest this article was great until the developer complete changed the entire game with the launch of RuneScape 2, and from that point on became incredibly confusing. With intermixed sections half talking about what it was like, and half talking about the new version. And all in the present tense! Never really recovered from that and needed tiding up ever since.

As this is an encyclopedia, I would say the article should be 'current', it shouldn't be talking about things that have changed as if they haven't. The article should aim to contain factual information on the current state of the game. Such that anyone coming to look at it to find out what RuneScape is all about will be able to see so clearly. Anything which is historical should be clearly marked as such and if there is a lot of it put in a seperate 'history' section. Unfortunately I don't think for every single point of discussion it is practical to discuss all the different ways that thing has been historically or the article is going to end up absurdly long.

The other thing to be really careful of is making sure each section sticks to the heading and doesn't deviate off topic too far. Ideally each section should be mutually exclusive, and cover it's topic without develling onto others or overlapping with another section. As such I've rearranged the sections to try and make it so what it under each heading is actually what the heading states.

The guidelines for wikipedia state that users "should be bold", and I think now the sections are more clearly defined it's much easier to edit and improve their content.

I've tried to remove outdated info or text that is an opinion rather than a fact. There is SO much one can write about this game that unless we stick to the core facts the article will become unmanageable.

If there is any particular bit deleted that you think shouldn't have been deleted please just copy and paste it back in (if necessary in a new section), rather than doing a widescale revert of all the other changes and work! But I hope you agree with most these changes. Thanks

RuneScape gods on VfD
Does anyone know anything about this article or topic? It is currently proposed for deletion. A skeleton of it was speedy deleted a while ago, the entire content on that occasion was Saradomin- Good Guthix- Neutral Zamorak- Evil. Informed comments and/or votes at Votes for deletion/RuneScape gods would be very helpful. TIA. Andrewa 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

PS Please don't get too worried about allegations of fancruft. I know they can be annoying, but if the material is of interest to a large number of people, it shouldn't be deleted. Andrewa 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Too bad i didnt get to put my two cents in. I read over the article and from what people have been saying, the article appears to have been revamped since then. I would have voted to keep it. It is very in depth and does cover mroe than just the sara-zammy-guth lineation. However, i would like it to be expanded into an entire RuneScape Mythology article, because although there is enough information on the subject, there is all enough information on clan warfare we could make an article on... and it just seams overly redundant and overly informative in the long run. Curran919 (not able to log in)

Clean up
I think there needs to be a major clean up of this page. The page has lots of frivilous information that nobody really will need to know or find useful. People don't need to know how much a member's subcription costs. (It is not always $5USD) If they want to know this, they can go to the website. I think the player demographics should be omitted they are outdated. about 5500 people voted on those polls, and there were many more people playing the game at the time of this poll. Also, it is not uncommon to see over a hundred thousand people playing at any one time. So I think the demographics section is too old to remain there. And i also dont think that demographics would change in 6 months of play. Although my specific clan's demographics differ extremely, i dont think that means anything. Curran919
 * There is alot of unneeded information, but i think those bits that you mentioned are not included. I strongly think the cost should be included, but a range of actual price (dependant on form of payment and length of payment) should be present ($5-$7.80). As for the demographics. You should know that of the 1,400,000 (Jagex's estimate on january this year) people that play RuneScape, only a fraction of them pay to play, and those are the only ones that are able to vote in polls. Ofcourse, the main reason the numbers in the poll were so low is because most people just dont care to go out of their way to vote for polls. This doesnt change the proportionality however.

Pures
I just naturally assumed a pure section would be in this article. I had to add one myself. I did not do a good job though. Someone else can append it. Elyk 23:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the specific details (as they don't belong and the article's long enough anyways) and reworded it in the skills section. The idea was to talk about how people create accounts that focus on only a few skills.  Perhaps a mention about professional miners, etc. that exist.  OTOH it may be better in the Combat section or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Fansites
I've removed all the fansites since commenting them out wasn't working, people were just removing them and adding their latest RuneScape hacks .tk site.

This is the code I removed, perhaps a few of the better, informative ones can be selected to be put back in.

**RuneScape Fansites --Kevin 00:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Zybez (fan site, guides, forums)
 * Rune HQ (fan site, guides, forums, databases)
 * RuneScape Tips (fan site, guides, forums)
 * RuneScape Community (forum only, Unofficial RuneScape Encylopedia)
 * RuneVillage (fan site, guides, forums)
 * Rune Headquarters (fan site, guides, forums)
 * RuneScape help, tips and guides (Fan site, guides, forums)
 * RuneScape Faces (player photos)
 * RuneScape Tavern (forums)
 * RS Inn forum (fan site)
 * Runescapia
 * Rune Today (forum)
 * ARENAscape (fan site, text-browser based MMORPG)
 * Sal's Realm of RuneScape (fan site, guides, forum)
 * RuneScape Source (fan site, guides, forums)
 * Runeweb (fan site, item database, guides with pictures, replacing RuneNews)
 * Rune Universe (fansite, guides)
 * RuneScape Hall (fan site, guides, forums)
 * RuneScape Clan Websites
 * Phoenix EliteA clan that will probably take anyone level 50 and above
 * The 25th Legion
 * Industrial Goth Clan (Pk, Skill-based, and Community clan for goths and others alike.)
 * The Moriquendi
 * The Tsunami Clan
 * Pkers Clan
 * FEAR Clan (fansite, clan community)
 * OptiRuneScape (helpsite, community)
 * Corruption Clan (clan community)

RuneScape as Target
What is it about this article that seems to attract vandals? --WCFrancis 19:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I play this game a lot, and I've noticed lotsa younger more immature people play it too, so I assume that could be a part of it. Also, it's unliked by many people, and it's fun to vandalize, I suppose.


 * Have you ever noticed how many scammers there are on RuneScape? Those are the people who come in and vandalize.


 * Everyone just seems to hate the game, But I don't see any need to vandalize the page if you hate the game.--Brobbo 02:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

overview of my asshole
What's THIS supposed to mean^? Appearently, some of us may not like this game, and if you want to say so, labeling the overview section "overview of my asshole" isn't exaclty the best way to do it. This is a warning to whoever did this - people here can and will block you from this site if you do it again. I'm not saying I can or will, I'm just warning you. --Wack'd About Wiki 02:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Various new additions by me
I've been going through the pages, making some changes, minor and large, most notably the Story section. I had trouble calling it Game History or something of that sort, since there really isn't a continuous story, I figured that would be fine. Those knowledgable on the subject, feel free to add your own additions, but I want to keep quest plotlines out of there. Also, if it gets large enough, it could be split into subsections, like with Mythology, History, Lore, Gods, etc. etc. but that's a while off, anyway. ~Redizhot

How about we add the RuneScape gods article...
I say we add the RuneScape gods article onto the RuneScape Series, makes enough sense to me. Redizhot 21:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Growth rate
the growth rate isnt exponetial. It is much harder to gain lvl 98-99 than 45-55

creepy, huh?
 * I think this is right: exp for going from lvl 1-94 is the same exp as going from 94-99


 * Yeah, I think they meant the growth rate of exp needed to level, but yeah, I bet what seemed like a training for along time is barely anything to me now...of course, as you get higher level, exp is easier to get, but that's still a HUGE difference.


 * The growth rate of the amount of experience points needed for the next level IS exponential. You're probably interpreting the meaning of the word "exponential" incorrectly; exponential growth gets faster (or in this case, larger) very quickly and is not what you might have interpreted as simply "multiples". All the facts you mentioned are true; level 98-99 is much harder than 45-55. The amount of experience points needed to get from 1-94 is the same as 94-99, and this is exactly what is meant by exponential growth. -- Daverocks 4 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

A RuneScape Classic article
I say we add a RuneScape classic article to the series, since it is a much different game from the RuneScape we know today, if anyone would like to aid me, let me know, my username is Redizhot, but am not logged in as it I am using a public computer. I made comments on the "Massive Improvements" comment on here, so I have a few other things I've said there too.

Weapons section -- Clean-up
The weapons section (RuneScape) needs a thorough clean-up. Originally it was just a link to a separate article, RuneScape weapons. However, 219.79.204.39 replaced this link with a proper section of information, which he may or may not have written himself. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but in general it is not wikified. For example, in the source, the "weapons chart" is set out with whitespace. But in the published version of the page, of course, the extra whitespace is ignored and chart does not resemble a chart at all. I didn't want to revert the change back to the original link because it is good, decent information, but this is just a request for it to be cleaned up. Don't worry about it, Robertvan1 reverted it back to normal. Thanks! -- Daverocks 4 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)

JaGex Mod Tree
Can anyone verify this? This was added by Und0 whose only contributions other than some vandalism to this article consist of a little vanity page in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * That user is correct in stating the three types of moderators, but I've never heard the mods referred to as a "Mod Tree". I think renaming the section to "Moderators" would be a better choice. Peter1219 | Talk 04:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Community has more than 1 face...
I wanted to present another side of the community aspect of RuneScape. I edited the article to include this reference but it was removed later: http://www.RuneScapehaven.com/bhe/viewtopic.php?t=2591 I think people should be aware of the childishness this game seems to propagate. If Wikipedia finds this entry offensive then please forgive me.


 * I'll assure you that you are not alone in your opinion. Myself, along with many of my former clan mates agree that the game's community has declined along with the average age of the players. However, as far as wikipedia goes, that is not the sort of information you put in here. Feel free to add a "As RuneScape costs nothing to play, it often attracts many younger players, which detracts from the experience for older players" or whatever, but i doubt any of the rest of us are going to slander Jagex on here. Its a love-hate relationship.... were just all addicted to this 'crap-tastic' game... Curran919 21:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Article quality
I'll have to agree with some users that the RuneScape articles need a lot of work. Unfortunately, not every experienced Wikipedian plays RuneScape, and those who do play it might not be professional writers. So I think that these articles will take quite to improve. --Ixfd64 18:04, 2005 August 16 (UTC)


 * The RuneScape demographic consists of younger players (I believe an average age of 14) and therefor the contributors (beneficial or not) to the RuneScape article as compared to one on Zeferino Vaz (yes, i Random Paged that one) will be less mature and... frankly poor writers. Im probably one of the only people who has very in depth knowledge of RS and who can write, but unfortunately, I do not have enough time on my hands. Curran919 07:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

re: member vs free player
OK I've never played RuneScape because it did not appeal to me at the time. However RuneScape has made its mark in the mmorpg world.

In alot of beta's I play, when it goes p2p people complain about having to pay. And they demand a free to play server. And they give all sorts of arguements like oh look at RuneScape, f2p servers = money.

So I came to wikipedia to find more info but this site is somewhat lacking on the whole "how RuneScape is so succesful even tho its f2p"

Just thought it was a section some of you might want to throw in. Either adding on or as a stub


 * The free version has less features than the 'Member's version', e.g. a smaller game world, fewer skills, fewer servers (it has more servers then the members section becuase there is more f2p's then p2p's)(put in by thomas). RuneScape makes money because some features are only availible to paying members - so people pay to get them. Having a free taster also encourages people to start playing - and the free version is fully playable and has no time limit. SeventyThree(Talk) 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Random events
Jagex have added about 10 new random events.

I'm kinda new here, and I'm also an admin and head of content at a popular RS Help site. I added a picture of DeviousMUD, the first version of the game. I also updated some pictures that were already there.

If I had the time I'd go ahead and add them. The new randoms are: Gift-Givers: Pirate's Combination Lock Freaky Forester Frog Highwayman Quiz Master Certers (Miles, Niles and Giles are BACK!!! They note stuff in your inventory if you don't talk to them) Jekyll and Hyde Lost Pirate Evil Bob

Dangerous randoms: Evil Chicken

Inconveniences: Lost & Found office Dr Ford Farming rake/spade heads flying off

More information can be found at the RuneScape.com > manual > random events page.


 * I'll add these in when i get some free time this weekend.Curran919 07:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey hey, its Ben Goten! You sure get around... I'm an avid reader of your guides, tell me if you need any help. Curran919
 * Hi there =). I'm good for guides atm. Got a few more to write though.

Duplication cheat
Does anyone know the duplication cheat? I know it propbably won't work, but I just want to see what it was.


 * There is no such thing. There was a way to duplicate items, but the offendors were banned, and Jagex patched that hole.


 * People attempt to Hex edit the client, for some reason I'm not too sure of (but I think it's related to item duplication), but jagex log the IPs of people who hex edit, so you'll be banned either way :p


 * There was one instance where players where able to duplicate items by changing an item tag number on a useless item to a more valuable item. However, this was more than two years ago in RS Classic, and such a feat would be near impossible now. Regardless, this isnt really the place to be asking people how to cheat...Curran919 07:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I heard people saying try to duplicate items by dropping them then standing on them and pressing Ctrl+Alt+Delete or Ctrl+Alt+Enter. Is this true? (Not that I want people to try it)

Aleksei 08:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This thread needs cleaning up
One of the most notable comments is:

An enigmatic Wise Old Man lives in Draynor Village. He has recently broken into the neighbouring bank and, apparently, stolen a lot of money and a valuable party hat. Members may watch a 'security recording' of the attack, which provoked a torrent of laughter on the official discussion forums when it was first released. Certainly it isn't every day that you can watch an elderly gentleman amble into a bank, politely request that everyone stay still, murder two bankers and four players, then perform a kung-fu kick on a watchman (unless you live in North Korea).

How can we let such biased trash like this article exist on wikipedia? Anouymous 01:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Its hard to keep out the younger players that genuinely think they are contributing something... True, that substance is not tolerable and I'll delete it immediately (I vouched to delete the entire RuneScape humour section), but this article will constantly attract sush "biased trash". Curran919 07:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the wording was a bit too hard. I shouldnt have went as to call it trash, but you get my drift. But I still feel it could use some clean up :/ Anouymous 04:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Heres an example. What you posted is the least of our worries as there was no malintent, and they just added something that can easily be deleted, but when somebody comes in and deleted entire sections, replacing it with "A new player called chiped wood", and it has been 30 edits since you last checked up, i have to revert to an edit a week ago, losing a bunch of good information. I can't believe how unregistered users are allowed to edit... its so stupid. Curran919 20:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Slimming Down
Today i deleted two unneccesary sections, the RuneScape Humour, one of the less enyclopedic areas of the article, and the chat effects, something that is such a small form of the game and that can be summed up in a sentence when i do some expansions on the community area later tonight or later this week. Also, i understand that my large Random Events update today mnay contradict what im trying to do, but i am addressing priorites as Jagex lays them forth, and i think that it should have its own article in the series. And ill say this here since nobody else visits the discussion pages of the subarticles, all the information in the runes article is either unneccesary, or covered in the RuneScape Weapons and RuneScape Skills articles. Curran919 03:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

noobs these days....lol jk btw i have the new maul!

Removed external link
Removed the following from external links:


 * RuneScape Rulers Your guide to RuneScape millions and more.

My reason: I visited the page, and found it not quite up to the standard expected of a Wikipedia external link, in my opinion. In addition, the page's own counter claimed "426 hits", which I'd say makes it decidedly non-notable. --Ashenai 16:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, i am the owner of that site. the reason it has so few visits was that it was only started up a few weeks ago. the reason i put it on wikpedia was that solely it is a free encyclopedia, so i can put on what i want, and secondly, i wanted to advertise it so it gets more popular and it will have more than "426 hits"


 * Thank you for your response!
 * While Wikipedia is indeed a free encyclopedia, there are a number of things Wikipedia is not. Here's a relevant quote from our policy:


 * 1) Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs.


 * And I think this is the main problem with your link. By your own admission, it is advertising, and while there is nothing wrong with advertising, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Please feel free to put the link back if your site becomes popular! Until and unless it does, though, you really shouldn't put a link to it on an article page. Thank you, and please do keep contributing to Wikipedia! :) --Ashenai 17:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Rating fixed
In the infobox, Rating was "5/5". I'm pretty sure it's meant to be an ESRB or similar rating, like T or M. Some cursory research didn't turn up a deifnitive rating, but one source said RP, so I went with that for now. If you know better, please fix! --Ashenai 21:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Links categorised
I categorised the links into 3 section so that it is displayed properly and stops link huggers Nitr021- http://icefuzion.net

Fight Caves should not be in Player Vs. Player section.
It is a minigame so it should be in the minigame section. You DO NOT fight other players in the fight caves. So dont try to keep adding it in.

"Cheats" section to be deleted
It bothers me how the RuneScape articles include a "cheats" section. There are no cheats for RuneScape - never have been and never will be.

That said, I'm removing it completely.

The History and development section is incomplete and makes no sense
I would suggest somebody fixes it, if not done by friday i might just decide to delete it. And before you flame me, read the section, you will agree with me --Super Quinn 14:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It had simply been vandalized (over a month ago), with random bits deleted turning into nonsense, and it seems nobody actually noticed! I have now restored it back to it's pre-vandalised state, since it was actually one of the more factual and 'enclopediac' section before it was destroyed.


 * lol. Another editor and I were looking at that and shaking our heads last week, but neither of us knew enough about the game to try and unravel it either directly or from going back down the edit list.  Glad to see it is fixed up. --Syrthiss 21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Combat
Added in the combat system during RuneScape's first year. Editers please feel free to improve on this.

Odd wiki formatting
Why is * now a box, instead of a list? - has the CSS template been vandalized?

*Ah, I see, a single space indent is a box, not seen that one before, or at least, never remembered it. And the * was displayed


 * Quick guide (ignore the quotes): ':' will indent; ' ' will render that line monospaced with a box 'round it (it won't wrap, either); '*' is a dot point in an unordered list; '#' is a number in an ordered list. Any questions, don't hesitate to ask here or on my talk page.


 * By the way, do you think you could "sign" all your comments with four tildes, like: ~ ? It automatically datestamps and signs your comment, so that people replying know who you are and when you wrote it. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, used the others, but never had occasion to use that one before Ace of Risk 12:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

needs to be split up
this needs to be split up into smaller pages. use a disambiguation page? or what should i use?