Talk:RuneScape/Archive 26

Discussion page tidy up
We have a whole heap of dead threads and repeat threads that are clogging up this page and making it a nightmare to read. Anyone mind if a little pruning is done to get it tidier and more usable? Will wait a week and if no objections will try to sort it out. If there is any policy that I've missed or any blinding obviouse method for doing this that I don't know about then please tellTheraggedyman (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe the talk page is getting a bit long, you can always have it archived (you can do this yourself, or ask for help - but don't ask me as I don't know how, or want to try). If nobody has any objections, I will add the appropriate tag. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can archieve the page if u want.AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well; to draw attention to the fact that the page will be archived, I will add the tag. I trust you will sort out the inactive discussions, but please leave 1 thread on updating the article images. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to update
Sorry for my bad editing im new to this: This page needs to be updated especially the last section. Runescape now has a better look so the impressions are now diffirent. I actually think Runescape is better than games like World of Warcraft since it is 100% Java..so accomplishing even the tiniest graphics should be valued... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.138.187 (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you are talking about the various pictures and animated GIFs in the Gameplay section. We have already updated the text to include information about the new graphics update. As the pictures require more effort to update, that will not happen as quickly. The High Detail update only happened three days ago anyway. Just be patient, and don't be surprised if the captions are changed to say "in low and medium detail". Xenon54 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Written by employees?
I've never seen runescape summed up so well. oh wait yes i have. the jagex corporate website. it looks like a good bulk of this was written by employees. it should be edited to remove all the unimportant little details, as all of these are available on the game website! evidence to this point is that it is written using the same british spelling as in game. Armour, Criticising, defence etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.156.50 (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Right... so your argument is that its got to be done by Jagex cause no other person in Britain or from elsewhere who uses the British spellings of the English language would ever edit the page, correct? Would you propose an IP block on all Common Wealth countries or would just denying the British Isles access to Wikipedia do to stop this sneaky corporate manipulation?Theraggedyman (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can be written in either American or British English, usually it is American English, but in topics of British origin that style of English is used - the only evidence you see is Wikipedia's versatility. Though the article could do with some trimming and re-wording etc., this isn't a sign of anything except it being an ongoing work-in-progress. If you don't state exactly what it is you think is wrong then nobody is in a position to validate or fix it. Someoneanother 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Theraggedyman and Someone another. This article was made by a British company, therefore we use British English in the article. Just because we do this doesn't mean the article was written by Jagex. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Since the game to which the article relates is developed and maintained by a British company it is totally in accordance with WP:MoS that it uses British English. Even if it were written by Jagex, we should concern ourselves with the content not the creator. --RS Ren (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Runescape HD beta
The runescape HD is only a beta right now, members only, it says this on the website, to be honest, if you will make a record of the versions of runescape, remember to look on thier website before you do.

Player Pictures
I might as well ask. Who is the female player that is in like every picture related to RuneScape? I've seen her on Wikia and Wikipedia and some of the Gif images seem outrageous- such as being at the Jad without any armor. Is she an actual player or is this a submission from a J-mod? Either way, great pictures, capes, and castle war gear. The amount of time spent must be near incalculable.


 * If it was a Jagex Mod that made and uploaded the images then it would be a violation of COI.
 * But if I'm correct nobody is allowed to out a contributor as a Jagex employee per WP:Outing, so we'd only know if they themselves stated that they were employed by Jagex Ltd. --RS Ren (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:COI doesn't apply here. It exists to prevent NPOV issues, which aren't a concern with simply uploading screenshots (assuming the screenshots don't convey a bias, which these don't). Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its just a Runescape Player. I know who it is, used to be a member at Zybez. It's not a J-Mod, might be a P-mod, dunno. 58.173.205.43 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's chikorita pro. Back (eons ago) when I played rs I've seen screenshots of her and the signature leaf headband. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New Graphics update.
Also known as runescape HD this is a new thing to runescape. Jagex moderater reportes: 1 July 2008 - RuneScape HD - Members-Only Beta Launch Next

RuneScape has been reworked and now looks better than ever! If you are a member, you will be able to access this update by following the directions below. If you are a free player, you can expect to be playing RuneScape HD as soon as the Beta period is over. Free players who select RuneScape HD will receive a preview of the new graphics, meaning they can see how it runs on their machines, but will be unable to play in it.

NOTE - this is a live Beta. This means that if you lose or win an item, die or gain experience, it is for real - the effects will remain on your account even after the Beta period is over. Please do not throw away items thinking that you will get them back after the Beta period.

Playing RuneScape HD:

You will notice that the website has been given a fresh lick of paint, but your path to the game remains as simple as before. Click 'Play RuneScape' on the new RuneScape front page to get to the Detail Select page. Then click the right-hand button, 'RuneScape High Detail', to select the new version. Finally, choose your world, and then start playing.

To play RuneScape HD, your computer will need the following system specifications:


 * 1.5 GHz processor or higher
 * 256MB of RAM or more
 * 64MB 3D Graphics card, such as Nvidia(R) GeForce(TM) 3 or above
 * Sun Java 1.4 or higher

Once the game has loaded, you can use the in-game Graphics Options menu, within your Options tab (the one with the spanner), to further increase or decrease your level of detail. You can also change them on the log in screen. So, if you are experiencing slowdown, try reducing the number of graphical features.

The new fullscreen mode can also be toggled on or off in the in-game Options tab or the log in screen.

When you have set your preferred graphics options, your settings will be remembered as the default every time you log in on that machine. You may change these graphics options at any point.

If you have further questions, or are having trouble playing RuneScape HD, please visit the FAQS, found here.

Playing in the old detail modes:

To access the old High or Low Detail modes, click the left-hand 'RuneScape' button on the Detail Select page. This option manages to be both the old detail modes, rolled into one! You will be able to use the in-game Graphics Options menu to choose the exact level of detail you wish to play in. If you turn everything to minimum you get the old Low Detail mode, and if you turn everything to maximum you get the old High Detail mode.

This is the best.

==Lmath3

Neutrality and Advertisement tags
Parts of this article seem to be written like advertisements for Runescape. Parts also seem to be one-sided, speaking from a pro-Jagex perspective, for example, on the graphics section. Because of this, I have marked the articles as lacking neutrality and advertising. Please do not remove them if you believe otherwise but discuss here why they do not apply. Ecopetition (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, Wikipedia isn't a strategy guide or an advertisement. Orangemango (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I add that a criticism section would be a good idea. The World of Warcraft and Maplestory (etc) articles have them. Ecopetition (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticism is in the reception section. If you find other, cited criticism, you're welcome to add it, and then it's possible it will overweight the possible reception so much that it will need a section on its own. Litis (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the only bit of criticism that I can see is "the graphics may not be perfect", which is directly followed by justification as to why they're not as bad as made out. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the issue in the graphics section, nor elsewhere. It discusses how the graphics are improved versus the *older* RS graphics - it's *not* comparing it to any other game or presenting any kind of "rah-rah" that I can see. Could you clarify and/or give some specifics? I am disappointed to see this entire article suddenly marked as "advertising" and am hoping we can work this out. -pokemama- Tkech (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in order for a neutral article it must compare it to other games in the market. If it simply says "Runescape is better than it used to be as the graphics are better", it lacks integrity in the eyes of Wikipedia. It must be compared to the likes of competitors so as to not read like an advert. If it were to say "Runescape is better than it used to be as the graphics are better, but it still lacks merit when compared to World of Warcraft", it would be much more neutral. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please quote something from the Graphics section that reads like an advertisement, because I just read it and haven't seen anything like that. Litis (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read my original comment. I wrote, "Parts of this article seem to be written like advertisements for Runescape". I did not say, "the graphics section seems to be written like an advertisement". The whole article lacks criticism, and where things lack criticism they tend to follow a more advert-based objective. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

'''Simply quoting people saying things about the game does not constitute neutrality. If quotes are to be used, they must be sourced and a widespread range of views should be published.''' Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Take the "Effects on youth" section of the article. It states that Brunel University's study concluded that Runescape is beneficial to players in that it educates them. There is then a sentence discussing the findings. At the end, it states that another study did not find Runescape beneficial. There is no sentence for its findings, and people must click a link to find the story. Sections like these require a rewrite in order to be neutral. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My two cents on these confounded Neutrality tags.

The Effects on Youth section - first off, this isnt much of a section since it is basically two sentences however, it has one positive reference and one negative reference, so I fail to see how it is not Neutral.

The Reception section - the things that are there are cited, so should remain; if you can find other articles (legitimate articles - not someone's blog or rant) that support your opinion, post them, because this whole section is opinion. The difference here is that it CANNOT be MY opinion or YOUR opinion (which basically would come down to my pet peeves about the game versus your pet peeves about the game) (and let me state EMPHATICALLY) that the your in the sentence is not directed at any one person but at everyone else besides me). There are things I love about the game and things that I hate. But the things that I love may be your pet peeve and the things that I hate might be the things that you love. I have said this before on this page. We can't just go posting everything that that someone hates about the game. Talk about losing our neutrality. Therefore, we have to post what the EXPERTS say about the game - citable quotations that have been published in a location that we can count on being there six months or a year or ten years from now. And, I repeat, not in someone's blog or rant or even personal praise for the game. It's hard to find sources.

I don't like the tags because they detract from the article and make it appear to be less than it can be. This article, while still far from perfect, has come a long way. Having those tags on there for any period of time is a detriment to the article, and I think they should come off IMMEDIATELY.

I hope that I am able to monitor this article more often again. I have been to busy levelling my character, I guess, lol.

Can we now get on with the business of getting those tags off the article???

Thanks! Xela Yrag (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The fundamentals of Wikipedia, in particular a neutral point of view, cannot be ignored for the sake of making users of the game happy. Also, Wikipedia is not a fansite, so its content need not be totally positive towards Runescape.


 * In answer to the first point you make, it lacks neutrality as one of the points is more developed than the other. Wikipedia is not an advertising service for Runescape, so the article should be completely balanced.


 * In answer to your second point, the reception section is not neutral! There are plenty of places I could go to find a bad reception of Runescape, not least the Runescape forums. There is not a single point against Runescape. A second part should be added to the section regarding the bad points, like addiction, lag, repetitiveness of training skills, and also the irony in that a game for teenagers and above contains content aimed at what seems to be young children.


 * You third point is too unjustified. The tags may scream "this article is bad", but that's what they're supposed to do. If you feel that they're not good then edit the article to make it neutral and non-advertising. Then you can be bold and remove the tags.


 * Your fourth point says it all for me. You play Runescape, so are probably more likely to take a positive view towards the game that you play. However, this article is not for the players of Runescape to read and edit, it's for everyone. That's what Wikipedia is, and if you don't like that fact then it's too bad.


 * I hope I haven't been too blunt with you here, but thanks for your understanding. Regards, Ecopetition (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there just aren't any reliable sources with criticism. We can only balance an article as far as the sources let us. I can find non-reliable criticism (this also mirrored here ), and that one is already referenced in the Effects on Youth section through a mirror regardless of it not meeting WP:RS. Forums are not reliable sources. Using them violates policy and they have no business being used in any article, for purposes of balance or not. Exactly how should the demand be met? If you have sources that could be used to justify your claims, please bring them to this page and they will be incorporated into the article. If you have no objective information showing that there is actual criticism that has been published by reliable sources, then the tags should be removed. Jim Miller (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For articles (not particularly reviews) on RuneScape, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive_25#RuneScape.2FJagex_in_the_media - not sure if any are relevant, but its worth a look --RS Ren (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If reliable cons cannot be found, how can so many pros be found (bearing in mind that a large proportion of the editors of the Runescape article play Runescape)? It just seems that many editors of the article are very selective in their use of quotes and facts.Ecopetition (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ReplyAFAIK, this article was promoted to Good Article status in pretty much the same condition it is now. If you have an issue with individual editors that can be shown to be an actual COI problem, then bring it forth and back it up. If you can point out a specific claim that is in violation of NPOV then present your argument, or just remove the part you feel is a problem. The same again for OR. That's what you are supposed to do instead of just placing tags. You have not edited the article according to policy by removing those uncited statements with which you have a problem, nor have you brought new cited sources to the discussion for inclusion. Please feel free to do so. If not, I am going to remove the tags again in 24 hours. Concensus exists among the editors of this page, with you as the only dissentor. If you put them back again, I will remove them again and put this up for a third opinion or even RfC because the back and forth is accomplishing nothing and is getting beyond the point of being considered as a reasonable content dispute, especially for a GA. It is approaching the point of simply being disruptive. Jim Miller (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, JimMillerJr. If you can't find a source, the proper way is to remove those contents, not giving way by letting OR urls go into the article. That is not the correct approach to address NPOV.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we disagree? My point was about the 'Reception' section which includes one reliable source about an academic study, and a WP:RS violation for one very shady opinion piece included just to provide perspective. How far should the article go?? There has been no suggestion of NPOV material to remove. I have asked Ecopetition to edit the parts that are not in accordance with policy. Not a single sentence of the article has been removed, or even brought forth for discussion. In fact, Ecopetition has not made a single constructive edit to the article. I believe we absolutely agree. This article has passed GA and all of its requirements, which include WP:NPOV. No specific problems have been mentioned, and the only thing actually brought forward to help the article is that "There are plenty of places I could go to find a bad reception of Runescape, not least the Runescape forums." Not one source has actually been provided. This also comes from an editor who asks us to discount the work of User:Xela Yrag due to playing the game as a violation of WP:COI. Adding more COI opinions is not the solution to the alleged problem. Two non-reliable sources do not provide balance. Having read all of the links in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive_25#RuneScape.2FJagex_in_the_media, done extensive google searching, and checking other news archives, I cannot find ANY reliable sources that have published criticism (and I truly believe every article needs to include criticism). I have offered to do the writing myself and include ALL criticism in the article if sources are provided. The burden is on the editor who wishes to add information to the article. We cannot sacfrifice verifiabilty just to meet NPOV. If the sources don't exist, they simply don't exist. I only wish to address Ecopetition's constructive criticism, but I cannot find a way to do that without a little help in finding what should be included. Simply placing, and replacing, tags without providing specific ways to improve the problem is disruptive. Jim Miller (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason why I have not made a single constructive edit to the article is because I have no obligation to do so. What I feel I do have an obligation to do however, is to ensure that Wikipedia remains a neutral and accurate source for information. The Runescape article as it stands is, in my opinion, not an accurate source as it is not neutral. If we were to allow content that is not neutral to remain unfixed on Wikipedia, the whole project would fall apart.


 * On the "Reception" section of the article, the pro study is more developed than the con study. This is, as I have said many times before, not neutral. Also, you say that no specific problems have been mentioned by me. There are many problems that I have mentioned above, which you should take the time to read.


 * I still find it extremely hard to believe that so many points of praise can be found for Runescape when very little criticism can be. Take a look even on fan forums and gaming blogs, and you will find plenty of criticism. Ecopetition (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fan forums and gaming blogs aren't reliable sources. I've taken a look at various websites, scouring for criticism, and came up with this review at TenTonHammer. There are some points of criticism in there, feel free to use them if you'd like, Eco. If you're persistent enough to keep the tags on there, you can be bold and edit it so it is in sync with what you think it should be. I think the article is fine the way it is, but go ahead and edit it so we all can be happy. (&gt;O_o)&gt;  Something  X  &lt;(^_^&lt;) 15:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've been bold and fixed the neutrality issues. Some neutrality issues still exist in the article which should ideally be fixed soon, but I feel that the neutrality tag can now come off. However, I'm leaving the advertising tag on as some parts of the article still read like blatant advertising and I don't feel like fixing sifting through the article fixing the ads. Thanks, PeterA (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't true, but the line "humour seems to be aimed at young children (for example, uses of cartoons in some pages)" seems to me to contravene Wikipedia policies relating to stating opinion as fact (it is an opinion that it seems to be aimed at young children, and the claim that cartoons indicate something is aimed at children is unsourced). --RS Ren (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's looking like an advertisement to me, the words make me want to play it and enjoy it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.64.7 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * if you realy want to play this game go ahead. it is fine with me as long as you have the program Java (no this is not the coffe kind) for your computer.--Hawkey131 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I too believe that the article is currently advertising just now. If you find bits that do blatently advertise please be bold and remove them. Hawkey131, please be constructive. PeterA (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please give specific examples and ideas on how you think the problem could be rectified. --RS Ren (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please give specific examples of the "advertising" so that we can go though and edit it to show the same points (if said points are valid to be kept) and correct to not be advertizing.

This is requested since players of the game are biased and may not see the specifics that work. Mementh (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Some semi-authoritative recent criticism of RuneScape. http://www.gamespot.com/features/6192673/p-2.html states "Approaching this browser-based Java MMO is a daunting proposition. That's mostly because of its huge, vocal, and young player community, which may welcome you into its fold or alienate you with cries of "noob!" depending on which server you choose out of the dozens available.... As you can imagine, the rudimentary visuals and sound aren't apt to pull you into the experience.... What may surprise you is just how big the world is and how much there is to do.... The downside is that to get that far, you need to raise your various skill levels, which means putting a lot of time into chopping down trees, shearing sheep, starting fires, and more. These tasks may get repetitive, but it's nice to have more to do than simply beat up on monsters. Of course, you can do that too, though combat involves simply clicking on your target and waiting--maybe even casting a few spells in the process. It's not very involving or demanding, which means the more interesting bits are what you do outside of combat... If you're an MMOG veteran, this isn't the game for you". However, the associated trailer gives the very distinct impression that the reviewer hadn't played the game for very long. --RS Ren (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

nice find, will try and work it in :-) FlashNerdX (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone who thinks its advertising please post up which bits they have problems with so that they can get changed. Not vague 'oh its all a bit...' but the first and last three words of the bit that offends you ('RuneScape is a' to 'arguing among players' wont help) so that the exact bits can be looked at and fixed. There is a lot of "some part" and "you can't remove the tag as its still needs fixing" but no actual identification of the issues by those who object to the article. I wish to help improve the article so that the tags can be removed but I'd rather not have to do it against someones invisible / obfuscated concept of what needs to happen. Thanks in advanceFlashNerdX (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article could do with some fresh eyes, the problem is that maintaining such a constantly shifting article is a full-time job for some editors and it's easy to disassociate with other game articles, leaving the RS article as 'the article' rather than 'one of thousands of articles'. A peer review from the videogame project would highlight problems and offer solutions, then the focus can resettle on stabilizing the article within GA standards and hopefully progressing onto A-class. Things like images, layout, scope, sources etc. should be sorted once and for all. Could the list of sources RS Ren dug up be put at the top of the talk page and left there? Seems a waste to let good research get turned over to archiving. Someoneanother 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For those who didn't notice the banner at the top of this page, the article has been submitted for reassessment. As it stands, I do not believe the article can maintain GA status, and certainly not whilst tagged as needing updating/having an advertising tone.
 * In order to keep the article's GA status, we need to be a lot bolder about removing the overly-detailed stuff. I'll do my bit, of course, but we all need to make an effort on this. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Combat Changes
The image of PvP is of Runescape Classic, I think it should be an image of combat from Bounty Hunter since that represents a method of PvP combat in Runescape with the PvP wilderness removed. Also the image of combat is an image of PvP combat since we already have an image of PvP combat it should be a player against an NPC and it should be more than a player kicking an NPC since most combat is done with a weilded weapon, mage, or range. TehKittyCat (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there are two consectutive images of PVP combat under both the PVP combat and Combst section - couldn't you have an image of a player fighting a monster under the combat section?

Roborrye (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone replace the PvP image from Runescape Classic with one from PvP in Runescape, like one from Bounty Hunter. TehKittyCat (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Server Cap Incorrect
This seems rather petty, but the maximum server cap is 1999, rather than 2000. I know that 2000 is a 'rounder number', but 1999 is the true amount, and wikipedia is about accuracy rather than 'nice numbers'

Roborrye (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please link to a source that states that the server cap is 1999? We can't put it in the article without a reliable source to confirm it. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't link to anything that states the server cap be it 1999 or 2000. Roborrye (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No the server cap IS 2000. It states it somewhere in RuneScape, and all fansites/infosites go with 2000. Androo123 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that it didn't say 'around 2000'? Roborrye (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games they use 2000 as the limit per world.(Look under the Statistics Table Section). I could not find anything on runescape's website or the fan site Runehq though. TehKittyCat (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

TehKittyCat, that is another Wikipedia article who's source is probably this arcicle. So far we're inconclusive, I can't find any data stating the exact number of users per server, it remains un varifiable.

Roborrye (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Before the servers used to say "FULL" they used to stop allowing users in at 2000. I.E. 2000 is the cap, or at least WAS the cap before that update that made the world listing say "FULL"58.173.205.43 (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the last number to be displayed is 1999, and then, FULL, which is 2000.--Unionhawk (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just adding my bit - at one point during the recent updates all but one server was offline. If you looked at the main page furing this moment it said "There are currently 2000 people playing". Terlob (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

RuneScape Moves to Come Out of the Shadows states there are "250 RuneScape shards for up to 2,000 players each". --RS Ren (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Help, not "Zybez" is the correct name
While cleaning out some spam, I noticed that my site's name was written as "Zybez" in external links. This is incorrect. The correct name is "RUNESCAPE HELP" and has been since 2001 (since Andrew Gower had asked me to write the official HELP for Runescape, and later changed his mind). It is the most important (just search 'runescape' in Google) and popular (most traffic) fansite, and the proper name should be used for it. 'Zybez.net' is simply the URL and the company (Zybez Corporation) that runs the site.

If you have any questions, direct them to me ( admin@zybez.net ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zybez (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:COI PeterA (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The website states it is "also known as Zybez Runescape Help". I feel that this title would be more appropriate as many know the website simply as 'Zybez' and it avoids confusion with people who think the link would be going to the official RuneScape website. --RS Ren (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've renamed it "Zybez Runescape Help" as a more descriptive title. There are other sites out there with "RuneScape help" And there was no reason it should have been bumped up to the top. -- Squids ' and ' Chips  21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, "Zybez Runescape Help" is fine too. --Zybez (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter, an extensive list of links, particuarlly fansite links, do not belong in an encycolpedia.--Unionhawk (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The 3 most popular sites by Alexa rank doesn't seem "extensive" to me. --RS Ren (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is semi-off-topic, but, I don't think Funorb belongs in a Runescape article. That's just like saying Miniclip belongs here, or Mario Kart Wii's Website belongs on an article about Nintendogs. They are related, slightly, but not the same.--Unionhawk (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

War against macros
i have to say that the war against macros is still going on. what i consider a macro is a person who makes use of an auto typer to type messages rapidly. also macros are just computer generated charecters and there have been cases of several in use by one computer. i need to say that a common place to find advertisers is in lumberige. especialy since that is where the most people are. i repetedly report macros and violaters of the ruels. even though i am not a mod. i find the system quit efective sinbce i report until the charecter is either gone or stops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.170.162 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a manual (WP:NOT). Acknowledgment that macros exist is all that is accepted on Wikipedia. Further information is only useful to Runescape players. PeterA (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the point of this comment?  ♥ Fr  ed  il  01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

this information is useful because it states that the "war against 'macros'" is still going on. even now i tend to find people who are macros and/or breaking other rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.12.123 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC) no it isn't, you need to have a reliable and referable source for the comment to be of any value. Your opinion is irrelivent. Please go and find out how to actually use wikipediaTheraggedyman (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * macros can't be removed, trade only stopes trade macro's who don't use the G.E.--Jakezing (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead citations
Some of the Runescape citations no longer work (some from news.runescape and what is currently #54. don't know if there are more.) There was a list of every skill and the skill descriptions right in the middle of the article, which I'm sure is unnecessary. I've already removed that. -- Squids ' and ' Chips  21:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability and OR
Can truthscape even be used as a reliable source? I question its reliability (used in the "Reception" section) because it appears to be a self-published source and does not appear to follow WP:SELFPUB.

Additionally this sentence from the same section: "Furthermore, Runescape is aimed at people aged 13 and above (presumably in compliance with COPPA), though much of its content and humour seems to be aimed at young children (for example, uses of cartoons in some pages)." is speculation, POV, and OR and removed. -- Squids ' and ' Chips  03:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it fails heavily on the "Reliable sources" for being a self published websiteFlashNerdX (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagex or JaGEx?
for those who don't know, Jagex stands for Java Gaming Experts. So should it be Jagex or JaGEx?


 * In a simple world it would be JaGEx, but just as Microsoft chooses for it to be written Microsoft and not MicroSoft and apple like to defy the English language with their 'iPod', it is up to the company to decide on its own capitalisations. Jagex used to sometimes write it JAGeX (as in their logo) back in the old days (just as they sometimes capitalised RuneScape 'Runescape'). But both RuneScape.com and Jagex.com most frequently refer to the company as Jagex (for example in the title of the website on Jagex.com, the copyright notice on Jagex.com and the title of RuneScape.com). Just search for the term Jagex on the RuneScape.com knowledge base and you'll see it is their preferred capitalisation. --RS Ren (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Manual of Style, standard capitalization rules should be used for trademarks, even if the owner has asked for special treatment. it should be Jagex, not JaGEx--Unionhawk (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it RuneScape then and not Runescape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman en m (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the early days Jagex inconsistently called it both Runescape and RuneScape (e.g. Issue 8 of God Letters uses both capitalisations), and some fansites go for the "Runescape" capitalisation in their title (e.g. Zybez and Tip.it). However, in recent year Jagex seem to have stuck to the RuneScape spelling - for example RuneScape.com home page capitalises it as RuneScape several times but not Runescape once (and importantly they use RuneScape in their website title). --RS Ren (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Last I knew it was Java Game Experts. According to their corporate site it's jAGeX. - Alec —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecoalec1 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both a BBC article and RuneScape KB describe Jagex as meaning "Java Gaming Experts". If you check out their corporate site they capitalise it 'Jagex' everywhere when it is regular plaintext (but sometimes differ for logos, e-mail addresses, banners, etc). --RS Ren (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Good Article" Status
This article should not be listed as a good article. It contains many spelling and grammar errors, does not explain jargon, and, I will agree, this does look like an ad in itself, violating NPOV. Furthermore, RuneScape should not be listed as a good article--Unionhawk (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Before I say anything else, please provide some specific examples of problems with the article. It would help the discussion. But anyway...


 * I've really been wondering when someone would raise this point, and as reluctant as I am to say it, I must agree. Criterion 4 of the GA criteria states that a Good Article is neutral, and the issues being raised here convince me that this criterion is not being followed. Unless we start really scrutinising the article for problems, this article could be heading straight for reassessment. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, instead of using PvP, assuming everyone knows that that means Player versus Player, use Player versus Player, and then maybe say "Sometimes called PvP" I think I shouldn't just look at the problems, and instead be bold--Unionhawk (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Runescape User
Hi im a former runescape user, It really ticks me off this page is protected. "Anyone can edit" that bull crap. Anyway im pretty sure runescape has 10 million active f2p users, not 5 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.226.109 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed. i have made the changes to make the appropriate numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be under semi-protection if we didn't keep getting people vandalising the page (at least the talk page isn't protected, so you can still ask for someone to edit for you). As for the numbers, maybe we need an up-to-date source on this. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Having looked at it, the source given for that sentence is at least 2 years old, and says 9 million, not 10 million. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

http://jagex.com/corporate/Advertisers/general.ws states 5.4m active players. The problem with the calculation of "active free accounts" is the definition of active and the fact that one person may have multiple accounts and one household may have multiple people. --RS Ren (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * i have a main and 2 free's,. so ya. also, if you wanna edit, make a account, perssonaly ,anybody should be those willing to spend 5 minutes at the most making a account.--Jakezing (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the time it took to make that comment on this talk page you could have registered an account and made whatever edits you wanted yourself (as long as they were constructive and sourced). PeterA (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Semi-Protected for a very, very good reason. Deal with it.--Unionhawk (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

i am sorry to say this but i just looked at the runescape web page and no one is right.... it says that their are currently over 130 million accounts total.Hawkey131 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, that's a misleading number - it refers to every account that has ever been created, active or not. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Riots and Complaints
The page used to support the statement "These changes were criticized by many players, some of whom started virtual (in game) "riots", angrily protesting the changes" does not contain any mention of 'riots' and it does not suggest that the changes were "criticized by many players". FlashNerdX (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I'm guessing these edits were made by pro-Jagex wikiers for some reason or another. If the criticisms are necessary to maintain a neutral article then please add them again. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If a reliable and verifiable source can be used then go for it.FlashNerdX (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Runescapeclassic_combat_ranged.gif&lrm;
This is clearly broken, take a look and i think you will agree :D (Butters x (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC))


 * Broken in what way? --RS Ren (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you told us why you think it's broken that would really help. I don't think it's broken. It's a little jerky, certainly, but it's probably supposed to look like that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! Just look at it! Is it so hard to see the picture is clearly not working? And if it is, it hardly does the article any good. You guys need to learn to take simple criticism. RuneScape players really are a little dull aren’t they? Or just blind? (88.111.10.132 (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC))


 * If you won't explain why, then we can't (and in my personal case, won't) help you. If you believe there is a problem, explain why; we can't be expected to see everything you see. Otherwise, be bold and fix it yourself. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let’s take a look shall we, the archer seems to be firing a green ball (?) at another player and yet he is not even facing it? Plus it’s all very laggy, and hardly does the article credit at all. I played RSC ages ago and I don’t remember anything like this. And know, I can’t fix it. And yes i am butter x (88.109.0.65 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

The ranger image does look odd. Considering there's a perfectly good melee combat animation, ranging wasn't anywhere near as important in Classic as it is currently, and that fair-use images should have clear purposes, why not get rid of it? Someoneanother 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am wondering whether we need 2 images of RSC combat; maybe we can get away with just 1? To that end, I propose moving the melee image up to take the place of the ranged image. (I say this because, as Someoneanother as pointed out, the melee picture is better and illustrates a small part of RuneScape's history).
 * If this happens, I would also like to suggest that we upload a still picture of PvP combat as it is now, and put that in where the RSC melee picture was originally (just to add, I'm looking at the section, "Runescape Combat Changes", as I write this). These may, of course, be good ideas or complete rubbish. Does anyone have any thoughts of their own? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wii
Can the game be played on the wii if it can or cannot be played on the wii via internet channel should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oathkeeper1006035453907 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no Java support for the Wii as it does not have enough processing power to support a Java VM. 204.112.211.41 (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

New graphics
So someone needs to get new pictures of the new graphics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman en m (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

the runescape logo has changed. Please update this article soon so it is up-to-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.151.212 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Before an overhaul of the images is started, could editors please discuss what exactly is needed and how best to cover the subject? In particular, the monster 1.67MB image's sole purpose is to show different clothing options - this can just as easily be achieved by dressing the player character differntly in each image and making use of the make-over mage. Someoneanother 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My knowledge of Wikipedia images is limited, so this may be wrong. But why does the image cycle through so many different items of clothing (at least 3 full-body changes)? Why not reduce the image to maybe a couple of clothing changes? It might reduce the file size from 1.67MB, it might not. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Every image of copyrighted material needs to be justified, and in this case the image's purpose is redundant - it contains what can be visually communicated in each and every image. Changing the character's appearance between collecting screenshots or recording sequences involves a couple of clicks, skin tone and even gender can be switched within minutes using the makeover mage. If showing a player-character in different garb was so important, why wasn't this done in the first place, removing the need for a seperate sequence? Or was it not discussed beforehand and then the clothing image had to be made due to a request? That's why I posted the above - if new sequences or images are needed please discuss exactly what needs to be conveyed and how this can be done efficiently before time is spent acquiring them. Someoneanother 21:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Article needs to discuss the future raise in subsciption.
news from runescape http://news.runescape.com/newsitem.ws?id=1289

On August 4,2008 the membership to play runescape will go up from $5.00 to $5.95. Although this will only apply to people who subscribe after this date.AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

doneFlashNerdX (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I updated the system requirements
Low detail 128Mb RAM, 500Mhz CPU

High Detail 256 RAM, 1.5Ghz CPU, Nvidia GeForce 3 or equivalent video card

AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember...
This is not a talk page to discuss what you think of the new Graphics updates.(Butters x (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC))


 * In fact, this is not a general discussion forum at all. Please keep comments relevant to the article, people. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wise man, he say 'stay on target'Theraggedyman (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Logo is out-of-date
The current logo on in the article is no longer used by Jagex for the game Runescape from what I can tell looking at the Jagex and RuneScape website(s). They now use an entirely new and dirastically different logo. Should the old logo be replaced with the current one in the article? 12.186.114.112 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

YES!!!!!!!!!! i have the image, just tell me how to post it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.188.58 (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did it before I noticed this post. Anonymous users can't upload images anyway. Xenon54 11:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Minigames?
Shouldn't there be a section giving a short description about every minigame?--Megaman en m (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe a couple as examples but if we list them all it'll get silly. Minigames are not that innovative in an MMO so a full roster of them makes it more like a guide. include a link to the minigame page at runescape.com so that if people want more information they can get it there.FlashNerdX (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You probably shouldn't. Wikipedia is not a game guide and listing all the minigames can be construed as advertising. What would be better is to put, say, "RuneScape includes several minigames that players can take part in." with a citation to the minigame page of the knowledge base. Xenon54 13:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Xenon's right. If we start trying to include details of every mini-game, somebody will remove it as being game-guidey and fancrufty, and I'd be in no hurry to revert them. On a related note, you may notice that we no longer have a list of all the skills in the game - for those reasons. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph of community section removed, clean-up
I removed this:

"Most RuneScape players speak English. Players who speak languages other than English tend to gravitate to servers populated by other players who speak the same language. Some worlds have larger numbers of players who speak Spanish, Dutch, French, German, or other languages. It is not uncommon, however, to see many languages on the chat screen throughout RuneScape. A German translation of RuneScape has also been released, while a French version of the game is in production. "

..because the first few sentences seem irrelevant and the bulk of the text is duplicating what is in the 'other languages' section of history. Unless a reliable source out there is making a big song and dance about the percentage of English-speaking players, why is this even an issue? Saying what non-English players do and don't do is original research without a reliable source, again why is it something that needs to be said? Ditto: "Some worlds.." - the internet is not an English-language thing, the same goes for every website/forum/MMOG. Someoneanother 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the external link to Funorb, please do not reinstate it. Details regarding external links on WP are fuzzy and an excellent way to kill potentially productive time arguing over nothing. FunOrb is a separate product to what readers are here to find info about, we have a separate article which covers it, this article is linked in the template directly below the external links. There are accusations of this article being biased towards Jagex, the article meanders instead of sticking to the point, the article is currently under GA review and may be delisted. It's a little difficult to defend it when things like this are around to trip us up. So please, keep it simple and keep FunOrb separate. Someoneanother 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, plus RuneScape links to Jagex links to FunOrb so the trail is there.Theraggedyman (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The outdated template thing
so what's need to be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman en m (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to have been dealt with in the article. I'll remove it, if someone feels the article needs something else then can re-add the tag and hopefully explain what it is that needs updating here. Someoneanother 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That tag might have been referring to the images as well as the text, but it's not vital that we update those, so I'm going to endorse removing the tag. Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress and is not working to some deadline. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Added hardware acceleration note
I don't know if anybody noticed this, but their trailer notes that they're using hardware acceleration. While this isn't saying much for most games, this is a huge leap for Runescape, as they have been limited to software graphics for a long time. This is what has made it possible to do fullscreen support and increase the detail of the game. I have, therefore, noted it on the page. They stayed with software acceleration for a long time because older versions of Java didn't support 3D accelerated graphics. I guess now that has changed, and most people now have some version of Java that supports it. —CobraA1 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually hardware acceleration was available since j2se 1.5 which is not new at all(I believe the current version is 1.7). Runescape always had the ability to switch to hardware acceleration, the only problem was the fact that there were compatibility issues(There still are, but since jagex support staff no longer have to deal with realworldtrading, they have more time to answer these tickets(not enough for everyone though which is why runescape HD is only available for members). If you ever tried running the client manually(http://world1.runescape.com/runescape.jar) via command line you will see the option to run it in hardware or software mode, This has been present ever since Client version 377 and today's version is 503 i believe so it's not something "New". Thefifthlord (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent referencing style
The article seems to have different reference styles used for citing webpages, could we agree on a uniform standard? Most of the videogame project's GA/FA articles use something like this: Would that be acceptable? Or is there another style preferred? Though I'd prefer that style, I'd be quite happy to update the references to another one. Someoneanother 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cite web is fine. Super Mario Bros., a GA that I worked on, uses Cite web extensively. Xenon54 15:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't want to go through changing existing refs without discussion, if nobody has any objections within a few days I'll start. Someoneanother 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The gifs
Jad needs to be updated since he has a new look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman en m (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We're well aware of this. GIF's (and all pictures) take more effort to update than the text. Just be patient. Xenon54 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, TzTok-Jad has needed to be updated for a while - that NPC had a makeover before RuneScape HD was released. But please remember that we're not working to a deadline, and it's not absolutely vital that we update all the images. Give it some time. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know there isn't a deadline but Jad was updated months ago...--Megaman en m (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is Jad needed at all? He's not representitive of a typical opponent, a shot showing a warrior attacking a demon would be more demonstrative. The current image shows a massive monster standing next to the player character firing off ranged attacks, and the player character stood around whilst a thought bubble above them changes - an odd image for the non-players the article is aimed at. Again, let's talk about what images are needed first before more are slapped in. Someoneanother 14:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's annoying that, as I see it, discussion seems to have stalled on what images we need. My suggestion at the bottom of the section, "Runescapeclassic_combat_ranged.gif",&lrm; seems to have attracted nothing but tumbleweeds. I wonder how we can encourage some debate on this...? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Either update him or get rid of him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman en m (talk • contribs) 09:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

RuneScape Classic
I can't find it on the homepage. If it's gone shouldn't it be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman en m (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not gone entirely, if that's what you mean. A link to it has been buried in RuneScape's Knowledge Base. I just thought I'd point that out. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Added past logos
I've added a section on logo history. I'm not quite sure about the wording of it. Perhaps someone could have a look? Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is an entire logo history section really necessary for an entity that has only had two logos? How about putting the old logo in the main history section, with a caption like "RuneScape's former logo, used from 2004 until 2008." Xenon54 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Save-Me-Oprah (talk)  19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Betrayal at Falador Novel
Should there be anything in the article about the upcomming book based on the world of Runescape? Its name is Runescape: Betrayal at Falador, and is written by T.S. Church. It is set to be released on July 21st 2008. Here is a link to the page I found it on: and it is aparently the first ever official Runescape Fiction Novel. 12.152.160.239 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably, but I'd hang fire until someone outside of Jagex writes about it - it might even receive enough press to have a separate article. Someoneanother 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it should have its own article, similar to World of Warcraft books, Cycle of Hatred, Rise of the Horde and Tides of Darkness. I would wait until it is released or recieves further press, Official Website and Amazon. I may be willing to help edit this article. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have created a portion of the article at User:Hpfan9374/RuneScape: Betrayal at Falador and am awaiting further press and information in order to expand the article and move it to mainspace. Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertising
Is it just me, or does the article seem to advertise Runescape (the introduction by itself seems to constitute an advert)? It used to have advertisement tags but these were removed by someone. PeterA (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing I can see in the entire lead section that could be stretched to be called a peacock term is "challenge" in the last sentence. Otherwise, the entire section seems factual and referenced. Is there specific wording you believe would make this section more appropriate? When checking comparable articles about online games that seem to meet the guidelines of the appropriate WikiProject, I see no major difference in the tone used for the lead section description. Jim Miller (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jim's right. Vaguely waving a hand at the article and saying, "Well, that might be advertising..." will not solve any problems that might be there. Pick specific sections that you believe have problems and we'll discuss them. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)