Talk:RuneScape/Archive 3

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.

Swifswitch?
Um, Swiftswitch is debated over wether it's actually legal or not. --OSborn


 * Jagex have confirmed it's legal. Vimescarrot 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous Talk Page was massive
So i archived it so like anything new we wanna talk about do it here. --Super Quinn 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Dragon Hatchet.
I thinks it really cool that RuneScape finally introduced a Dragon Hatchet to the game, but I was very dissapointed that they didn't create a quest in order to get this hatchet. Having a monster drop it is a pretty lame and lazy way to introduce it. I think RS should pay more attention to what the players are suggesting. There is a lot of fantastic ideas for quests, weapons and what not in the RS forums.

I agree just this page is not for talking about the game,it's for talking about the article an questions/disputes you have. J.J.Sagnella 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

-- 1. the players suggested the hatchet NOT have a quest to get it 2. who wants to do a quest for a stupid drag hatchet, go get a life and do desert treasure instead. they listen to the players so good its not even funny, they get so many thousands of ideas a day though that they cant possibly put them all on the game at once, but they do it peice by peice, and its just a hatchet, pretty soon it wont be that special anymore itll just be a part of the game, do you think its lame that drag sq's chains, legs, meds, and abby whips are ALL dropped by monsters to?---

A hatchet is not armour such as drag sq's chains, legs, meds you lamer. The way to get a drag hatchet should have to do with the players wood cutting skills.

Response from a player: Many people posted threads in the forums that talked about this situation. The problem with rare items is you have to be patient to get one. If Jagex put them in quests or make them part of a shop it would not be rare anymore. (ANYBODY could get one then, sort of obivious)

Are you retarded? there are several quests where players can get dragon equipment, such as dargon hally, scimitar, dagger and dragon battle axe.

P.S.(Post-Script) Anyway my RuneScape username is Doomedrusher and if anyone asks me nicely I can tell them almost anything. For example: where do we get free gems??? How to get rich (and I mean REAL rich, not noob rich) real fast??? Where is Onyx??? And many other hard questions that many old RS p2p players don't even know.

Anyone that has been to a RuneScape fan site can answer those questions you noob.

Er... Dragon Weapons aren't rare which whereas Dragon Chain, legs, skirt and helm are. The differences if you didn't notice is the armour is through monster drops as opposed to the weapons being accessed through quests. That's how Jagex regulates rarity anyway. Secondly the hatchet is widely regarded as the most pointless update ever made when Jagex confirmed that it is on-par with a standard Rune hatchet when it comes to woodcutting speed and quality. This is precisely why the monetary value of the Dragon Hatchet bombed within days and although you could consider it "rare" hardly anyone cares enough about it with the exception of "hardcore" pkers who are seeking the hatchet's rather amusing "special attack". Now that I've cleared things up, could everyone stop reverting to calling each other "lamers"? sheesh. --RBlowes 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits for 14:27, 14 November 2005 Someone42

 * "Java script (uses applet)" to just "Java applet": using "Java script" is ambiguous because it can refer to Javascript, which is not the same as Java.
 * "written" to "implemented": Java isn't fully "interpreted" (as in, source is compiled to bytecode prior to execution), and since programmers don't write in bytecode I think it's wrong to refer to a Java applet as being "written in Java".
 * removal of "without having to download and install any programs to their computer": technically, you still have to download the applet, which is a program.

I also removed the "In game banner advertisements" section, as it advocates the potential interference with one of Jagex' revenue streams. The ethics of it has nothing to do with the removal, however Wikipedia doesn't have articles describing how to build a Macrovision killer, or how to rip DVDs, so it shouldn't have instructions on "how to block banners". Those who want to, can look somewhere else. If whoever is adding it really wants to add instructions, make a site and link to it in external links. Someone42 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Any relation to RuneScape the tabletop role-playing game?
They seem very similar with the use of runes instead of "regular" magic etc. Unfortunately I only own the "bad" edition, set in pseudo-Europe and not any of the good books with its own world. Information about the ttrpg is hard to come by on the net, it's all about the java-version. So, is there a connection or have the mmorpg nicked the trademarks of/been inspired by a tabletop game I used to play in the early nineties? Anyway, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the RuneScape-pages so a little disambig-note somewhere would be fine. --Kaleissin 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't the game called Heroscape? Link9er 14:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

--- there are tons of games that use "runes" instead of regular magic, diablo has runes, gauntlet has runes, theyre everywhere, its just something based on the beginning of rpg's--

-thanks

Things to change after the Protected status expires
In the introduction, the sentence "Being a free player on RuneScape is one of the worst things possible." should probably be removed, or be changed to a NPOV version. Also, the opening sentence claims RuneScape has over 100,000 players - I assume this should be over 1,000,000 players, since under Overview it claims over 160,000 can be online at peak hours. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There are 2,8 Million players in RuneScape, according to the Jagex Corporate Site. Also, this should be fixed: "Membership for RuneScape is US $5.00". But that's just a minor notice. --Aliensvortex

Im just removing some of the edits made by somebody who obviously does not like the game such as 'fagex' and 'Low IQ, Non-Existant Frontal Lobe Functions, Fused Cerebellam ,' from the information box. Somebody must have had a bad experiance with the game.

- i'll take this chance to say that there wouldn't BE 2.8 million players if there wasn't free world, if i never played free i would have never become a member, its like a big sample to get people into the game, nobody's going to pay for a game if they dont even know what it is if they really like the game they can become members, thats where all the cool stuff is anywayz-

-holocaust (5 year RuneScape veteran)

Copyright Picture?
Is this pictue copyrighted? (image deleted) The tip.it website says that nothing on it can be repoduced without consent.
 * Yah, looks like it is a copyright vio. I'll go ping the uploader. --Syrthiss 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a screenshot i took, its not a copyfight vio, becasue the subject isnt a picture, its something you enter text in! Bourbons3 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fansites are allowed to copyright (or watermark) images they take from RuneScape, so they are not reproduced on other websites.

"High traffic" sites
if the site even fails to provide the latest quest guide within a certain period, it just seems that the traffic isn't really high Gspbeetle 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

King Black Dragon
The above article was nominated for deletion (the result was to merge it here). I did so, creating a new section called "Monsters", which contains text from the KBD article, as well as from other monsters who have articles. Feel free to edit it at will, or fix any mistakes I may have made (I don't play RuneScape, so...) Ral315 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL you wrote an article about a game you dont even play, i would refrain from doing that.... -gravity -5year RS veteran

NPOV Status Related to Tip.IT
I am going to modify the www.tip.it comment as itsn't NPOV in nature.

Philip

Is it me, or are the fansites blowing up again?
I think we are starting to push the bounds of the external links guidelines. I know User:Someone42 and I had discussed privately before the establishment of an OpenDirectory portal...and I see there is a link to one in that section. Not knowing whats involved to be able to edit there, can I get a consensus reading on whether the list should stay or be pared down significantly. It just seems that we are on a slippery slope, and allowing even one dynamic signature or RuneScape quest info site leads to a huge list in just a week or two. Thoughts? --Syrthiss 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of them have to go. Maybe some of the not so good signature makers, world switchers,clans and very low-active websites should go. J.J.Sagnella 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And who are you to decide which sites are worthly of inclusion and which are not? As long as they are relevent to RuneScape and aren't cheating/scam websites, who cares?Mike 22:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I care. Wikipedia is not an online portal. Wikipedia is not a place to shove anything and everything relevant to a topic in an article. But instead of falling back onto rules and policy, let's look at some examples of other MMORPG pages:
 * World of Warcraft - 10 non-official sites
 * Everquest - 25 non-official sites (a lot of them are actually humour sites)
 * Final Fantasy XI - 4 non-official sites
 * Anarchy Online - 6 non-official sites
 * At time of writing, RuneScape has 41 non-official links. In my opinion, that's a little excessive. What makes a fansite "recommended" or "other" or "high traffic"? If there are seperate sub-headings for fansites, suddenly the burden of being a "portal editor" falls on the editors of Wikipedia (which is everyone). The number of links has steadily been increasing, so when will it be too many for you? By the examples above, in my opinion 25 is enough.
 * A while ago, I scrapped the entire list of fansites. This was the only way to shorten the list in a non-biased way. That didn't go down very well. So, how about we discuss a method of determining which sites are worthy of inclusion or not. How about we start with: No sub-domain links. No "http://www.example.org/~username" links. The justification here, is that priority should be given to those who have enough commitment to rent a domain name. What do others think?
 * (Note: I am not a RuneScape player, and I certainly do not maintain a RuneScape fansite.)
 * Someone42 08:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Useful: high traffic sites eg.runehq Useless: World Changer programs Useless: Websites which are clans Useless: Websites which have copied guides What do you think of that suggestion?J.J.Sagnella 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with someone42.Way too many,but to choose on website name is sooooo bias. What basically we need to do is consider which websites are useful to a standard player.Useful: very fast on publishing high-quality guides eg.Tip.it


 * Why not get rid of all un-official links alltogether? to simply say that un-official links have the potential to be dangerous to RuneScape players as they are run by a thrid-party that can pretty much do anything with their site's pages that they please.--203.55.231.107 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

note that some fansite (ie:high traffic) provide reference information with greater details, which some are limited by the wiki formating... Gspbeetle 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * if you say potential, even the offical sites are potentially dangerous.


 * You can tell which fansites are high traffic by looking at a traffic monitoring site like alexa - here: http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=789099 - if you ignore the forum in australia which isn't rs specific that fairly accurately seems to give the top 6 fansites in terms of traffic. It gives all 5 I already had bookmarked and 1 I didn't, so pretty good way of determining the bigs one fairly. I personally would be in favour of not listing them at all, but if they were to be listed that's a possible criteria to use. 84.12.135.209


 * Wouldn't it just be more sensible to only allow large fansites or large community forums there? It wouldn't make sense having an incomplete, inactive, incoherent website in the list.

Members quests
Created a members quests page, so its no longer red on the links box at the start of the article. check it out - Bourbons3 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

where has it gone?? - Bourbons3 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Apparently too large to put in an encyclopedia, not needed. I personally disagree. J.J.Sagnella 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
I think we'd better place the infobox 1 step higher, and the first image more below. I feel kind a like annoyed when i see the top of this article.

SidewinderXP2 Talk to Me! 14 dec 2005 4:41 PM (CEST)

Member Quests
I think they should be added to the free quests page. I was looking up info on them and they werent there anymore =( Note: i added this page useing the code i saw above it, so if its a little messed up sry i hope to fix it soon

Stoutn 16 Dec 2005 2:55 PM (Central Time Zone)


 * Agree, a page called RuneScape Quests should be created, with a list of both free and members quests.

Disagree: Any idea how large that would be? J.J.Sagnella 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Take a look, i created it here - Bourbons3 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday i edited a part of the text, it currently says there are 105 servers, but i changed it to 106. I play RuneScape everyday, i know there are 106 worlds, but someone changed it back to 105.

Just thought i would point it out.

maddog 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a missing world, and what has this got to do with Members Quests? - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» T 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Quests
I have created a RuneScape Quests article which purely lists the quests for both free and p2p players, describes what a quest is and how difficulty is decided. It is not a game guide. The Free RuneScape quests page is also up for deletion, becasue it acts as a game guide (which Wikipedia is not) and is being replaced with the RuneScape Quests page. Becasue of this, the These articles are part of the RuneScape series box needs to have the Free RuneScape quests page changed to RuneScape Quests - Bourbons3 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Be Bold and change the template Template:RuneScapeVertical yourself (just make sure you move RuneScape quests to the right alphabetical order). :) --Syrthiss 17:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * i tried to edit it but i couldn't figure out where it is ΨΨΨ --cattrain 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories?
Where did the categories all go?... Mike 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

jagex
should jagex be under the RuneScape series box?

sms safe?
that make it sound like it is %100 safe... nothing online is that safe... inface nothing is that safe at all... i dont see any reason that the word safe shouldn't be changed to "safer than" under the pricing section... --cattrain 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Frequently Vandalised
I would like to nominate this article be on the Counter Vandalism Unit's "watch" page - this article suffers from several vandalism attacks per day it seems. Opinions? Mike 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Seconded The page's been vandalised twice since I've checked last night... --RBlowes 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The CVU thing is a joke, and tagging it as "watched by the CVU" will just encourage more vandalism. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can a Wikipedia admin weigh in on this? Preferably one who doesn't think the CVU is a joke... Mike 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to create a more generic one for non WikipediA:/User: pages that just says "watched moreso then others" or words to that effect. 68.39.174.238 05:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean a "more generic one"? Mike 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This page should be marked. So we can keep a watch on it and limit the vandals and change it back so nothing is disturbed. --Actown e 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, a proper summary (other than "CVU is a joke"). Vandalism to this article is reverted reasonably quickly (when it's noticed), and unleashing the combined &mdash; and no doubt well-meaning &mdash; forces of the CVU is unlikely to cause any improvement over current RC patrolling.  So, the only real difference would be a dirty great "WATCHED BY THE CVU" tag on the article ... and that would do nothing to scare off vandals, but could quite plausibly attract more ("hello!  We're getting a reaction!").  There is no way in Hell that tag gets put on any real articles on Wikipedia.


 * The best solution here would be semi-protection, where new users and people without an account cannot edit the article. It's doing wonders for George W. Bush.  Unfortunately, this also means that people who just happen to want to read/write about RuneScape are unable to edit at all, and (unlike George W. Bush) new users and people without accounts add a great deal of the non-vandalistic edits to this article.  We're faced with a simple choice: semi-protection, and the benefits (and drawbacks) it brings, or open slather, and the benefits (and drawbacks) there. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tagging this will be a violation of WP:BEANS and will attract more vandals. In short, it hurts more than it helps. Also, recognise that the WP:CVU has no official status within Wikipedia and does not have permission to slap tags all over the place. Any such will likely be removed in mere moments. Rob Church Talk 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that semi-protection would be best for this article but I already requested this and was pretty much flat-out denied since the vandalism isn't severe enough. I think we'll just have to keep reverting the vandalism ourselves to be honest.  Kevin 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Discuss links here
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)

Just because The Black Hole Experience is not huge doesn't mean it's worthless, and for that matter I don't think any of the other fansite should be "cleaned out" just because they're not mammoth either. Mike 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Call me biased, but I'd like my own fansite to remain in the "Other Fansites" section.


 * But I think non-mammoth web sites should be cleaned out. Otherwise many "rubbish" websites could appear. Only have the top 5 websites on the high-traffic list. Otherwise too many links will appear. J.J.Sagnella 12:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. If you put too many websites in the list will become meaningless - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» T 21:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All fansites that actually have good content, or no fansites. No further questions asked.  Just because they aren't in the top 5 doesn't mean anything.  Keep RuneScape Writer there.Dtm142 20:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No! No! No! Do you really want to read around 1000 links everywhere? Only the mammoth 5 as they will supply all info needed. Sure, The other websites might have minor titbits the mammoth 5 don't have but they really don't deserve a mention on the article. J.J.Sagnella 08:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problems I see with including "RuneScape Writer" are:
 * At the time of writing this, it was only 13 days old. I don't think that is enough time to determine or even estimate the long-term popularity or content of the site.
 * It is hosted by freewebs, a free hosting provider. Those who have paid for domain names and hosting will tend to (but not necessarily) have more resourceful sites, since they have to devotion to pay for and rent a domain name and hosting services.
 * Dtm142 added it, and according to the site, it was created by Dtm142. This could be seen as self-promotion, which is discouraged on Wikipedia.
 * However, I did notice one very good thing about the site. It didn't (appear to) copy guides from other sites. Maybe we should wait a few months and see how RuneScape Writer goes before adding it. Someone42 11:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But even did it turn out alright it would be like I said above an almost useless non-high-traffic site and It would still have to go. I doubt it would be benifical to the reader to have anything more than 5 sites. J.J.Sagnella 12:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

So my idea is to add various categories to organize the external links into various categories, and add a description for each site. So we'd have the 5 most popular sites at the top (Tipit, Runevillage, Runehq, Zybez, etc) with a description for each. Then we'd have standard helpsites (Nomad Gaming, RSwriter, Runeweb, Runemasters, etc) with a description of each. Then there would be communities/clansites (BHE, Pigpen, etc) with a description for each. At the bottom, there would be other sites that have things like signature calculator sites, such as RuneScape Bits and Bytes.Dtm142 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are already more than 5 links there, and most of them are not high traffic. I did not copy guides from other sites.  All of them were written by me.  Maybe my site is a little new to go on there.  However, all of the sites are of the same status reguardless of popularity according to Jagex.


 * Have a check of the page's history. It was originally like that. It was messy had way too many links and the decision was then to delete them all. I would have just the 5 most popular sites. J.J.Sagnella 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it would be okay to try it again. If not, leave it how it is or delete all of the fansites.  None of them are official, so none of them are better than the others.Dtm142 17:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I really doubt a second attempt at it would do anything better. In the external links' current state, it may be better to delete them all. J.J.Sagnella


 * AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN NONE OF THEM ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS? Of course some websites are better than others. Things like tip.it or runehq have a lot more useful information to a reader than things like RuneScape Writer. Because they have more information they are better than others. J.J.Sagnella


 * I mean that they are all the same according to Jagex. They are all unofficial fansites.  Jagex hasn't approved any of them to be official or better than the others, and considering the way we're going, they never will.Dtm142 17:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jagex reguarly work in conjunction with Tip.it. Plus you can clearly see that websites like Rune HQ and Tip.it are leagues ahead of some of the others. There's just so much more information there, as well as guides, calculators and very useful forums. Why would you want to go to one of the smaller sites when you can go to a much more useful Tip.it, where you can find all the information you need on one website? - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • Dussst •  T 13:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But the article is not for Jagex. It is for a website which a person who doesn't know a lot about could go to and get info on the game RuneScape. J.J.Sagnella


 * I think I already know that. My site doesn't have all of the skill guides because it's new.  It doesn't have a huge community either.  But it still has lots of info.  No, it doesn't have as much as Runehq.  But neither site is official, so neither deserves a spot on the external links page more or less than the other.Dtm142 17:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Runehq does. It has a lot of good info. Whether they are official or not means absoloutely nothing. J.J.Sagnella


 * Neither fansite is official. Yes, RuneHq has been around for longer and has a higher population.  This goes back to my idea about categorizing the sites.  A description should at least be added to all of them.  All of the sites are equal in terms of how official they are.  If they are to go under external links, they should have either only the official ones, or all of the sites that have good content. Dtm142 17:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Yes, RuneHq has been around for longer and has a higher population". There, you answered it yourself. Why would you go to a smaller site when you can go a biiger and more useful one? Just let it go. Your site has even less chance of being visited if theres 100 sites listed - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • Dussst •  T 13:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And doing that would give a clutter of sites, with viewers having no idea which site to go to. If we were have to all the sites that had good content we could literally be passing over 100 links. J.J.Sagnella


 * That's why we have this talk page. If you don't put your message on this talk page, it will quickly be cleaned out.  If it gets to over 100 links, we start over again and create a cycle.Dtm142 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So am I going to be annoying a great deal of people by putting a link to the BHE back in here periodically? There seems to be little consensus here.Mike 01:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Shadowdancer, until a general decision is made about links, nobody really knows what to do. And dtm142, your idea for links just plainly won't work. It will be an eternal shambles. I still say just keep the major 5. J.J.Sagnella 10:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it how it is now. This system works good.  Again, until official sites are chosen, which they probably never will be, all fansites that have good content and don't break the rules are at equal status according to Jagex.  I don't have a problem with putting the major 5 above the others, but those sites do not deserve to be on the external links more than any other sites.

And yes, the major 5 do deserve to be there more than others as they have put more work in than other sites. And they are more useful to people. By the way, have a look at the proposed revision at the bottom of this page, and leave your comment, if you think it is not that good. J.J.Sagnella 16:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But if more and more people like you keep tring to add their sites, it won't work will it?

Don't say that the top 5 are the most useful, because that is not necessarily true. I have noticed a lot of information on those sites to be untrue or incomplete.
 * By far not the truth. Not everyone has hundreds...no...thousands of dollars to waste on creating a site that could be created for free with the same information.  Creating a fansite for free is a lot more difficult and partially limited, but it is possible.

If lots of people keep adding their links, we will simply clean out the bottom of the page and go back to having only the official links. Then people will add their links on that page and say why they should be there on this talk page. It seems like a good system to me.

Once again, the top 5 sites are no more official than any of the others. Dtm142 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The amount of money they've spent on their website proves they care about their website. You can't really have a lot of respect for a website without its own domain name. And what makes you think someone couldn't look through any of the non-major 5 and find incorrect/incomplete information? Once again, i am coming back to old points. A. It doesn't matter at all how official the sites are, it's all about their content. B. Your idea for cleaning out when you have a lot of links simply won't work and it will be in a shambles for a very long time. I can hardly see how it would work.


 * Some people don't want/have/need to spend money on their sites. It does matter how official the sites are.  They're all unofficial fansites.  None of the information is guaranteed to be true.

Exactly. It's the content that matters. So keep all of the sites that have good content. Dtm142 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there's no point in keeping a website which simply repeats good content from the major 5 websites. J.J.Sagnella 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So we're only going to have the top 1 site because all of the other sites are worthless and have the same content as it does? Dtm142 17:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No you misunderstood the point. We are only have the 5 sites as they are the high-traffic sites. Wikipedia is not a site for you to advertise your own website or to have clutters of non-high-traffic sites. J.J.Sagnella 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think that any of them should be there. I'm just trying to get my point across.  Dtm142 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And care to explain why you think none of them should be there? It is standard of wikipedia to have external links leading to guides. Just check any other major MMORPG. J.J.Sagnella 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this article has way too many external links according to many people, and it wouldn't be fair to only include the top 5. So obviously we should keep it how it is or get rid of all of the fansites.  Dtm142 22:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it would be fair to only add the top 5. They are the main sites people go to and deserve a mention in the external links. I can't say the same for the others. J.J.Sagnella 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can. Someone still worked hard to make them, they still have good content, they're still unofficial...How much more do you want to hear? Dtm142 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But the people who made the high-traffic sites worked even harder, not only making the site, but advertising it enough for it to become high traffic.J.J.Sagnella 19:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing this from college, by the way.204.225.7.15 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just remember, the whole reason Wikipedia articles include external links to "non-official" sites is to provide a link to content that is not available in the article or cannot be included in the article (I suppose that #6 on External links applies here). That's why I think having too many links is bad: if anything, too many external links confuses readers. Remember that readers (probably) don't come to RuneScape for guides, they come here to find out what their friend's new favourite game named "RuneScape" is all about (or to vandalise the article). Someone42 04:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nicely put. I think a good metric is the intent: is the user adding the link for the benefit of the article?  If so, he should be able to explain why.  If he's doing it for the benefit of the website, then he can sod off. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And to back it up again: someone42 isn't bias. Shadowdancer and dtm142 both own their own sites and are trying to use wikipedia as advertising space in my opinion. Someone42, care to comment on my suggested proposal for links at the bottom? J.J.Sagnella 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because I own a fansite my opinion is biased? Please.  I already suggested simply deleting them all; last I checked All meant every last one including mine.
 * Keep top 5 suggested at start of discussion. Theres no point having loads of sites listed, its just an overload of links - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • Dussst •  T 12:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This Article = Vandalism Magnet
This article cannot seem to go 2 hours without being vandalised by someone.

I hereby propose that it be protected from vandalism, or protected from anonymous edits.

Comments, please. Mike 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I already nominated it for semi-protection. It seems that isn't necessary for this article. | Check the submission out. Kevin 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently the people who commented don't monitor this article too closely. Mike 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to resubmit. I'll back you up on it if you like. Kevin 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is frequently vandalized, and as a very popular wikipedia article, the rs article needs all the help it can get to remain good.
 * If they didn't listen to you, why would they listen to me? Mike 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you resubmitted and other people backed you up your petition would carry more weight. But then, Wikipedia is not a democracy so I don't know... Kevin 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree As I said before, the page is being trashed enough. Signing here so that it'll count for this section --RBlowes 03:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the concern for administrators is that since this article is the target of constant vandalism, semi-protection will either have to be indefinite or else it would just be a superficial temporary break (which won't really stop vandalism, as it will just continue after protection expires).
 * However, you could argue that, since school has ended for the vast majority of people who do go to school, the increased vandalism is just a result of immature kids having more idle time. Certainly, the rate of vandalism reverts has increased sharply over November and December. The only problem is, school doesn't start until about 2 months, and you will probably not have much luck asking for 2 month protection. So I'm really not sure how we can deal with the barrage of vandals. Maybe we should start a "Project RuneScape" to get RuneScape onto more watchlists? (As a side note, such a project would have the benefits of cleaning up the RuneScape articles.) Someone42 07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm... If there was a filtering of edits by a team of dedicated members of this section I'm sure it would eliminate or minimise vandalisation, of course it would be player controlled but I get the feeling that would pratically turn it into a fanpage/site if in the wrong hands? --RBlowes 10:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I semi-protected this article. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with protection. This article gets an unusually high amount of regular vandalism, and something needs to be done then just reverting the vandals' edits. - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» Talk 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggest re-nomination Just edited out some more vandalisation, I wouldn't think severity should have anything to do in the influencing of locking this page... Vandalisation is vandalisation. --RBlowes 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It gets vandalised practically every day - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • Dussst •  T 13:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting RS2 Release Date
In the main RS article, it says that RS2 (RS3D) was released on March 29th. Later in the article, in the History and Development section, it says that it was released on March 17th. Which one is correct, if either?
 * March 29, 2004 is when RS2 exited Beta and launched fully live.Mike 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

-Russoc4

==It should be noted somewhere in the article that some fan sites will deliberatly give you a virus or keylogger to steal your account and anyhting else they can steal. Anyone that uses fan sites will eventually get hacked.==

You are obviously a fool, since a) your second sentence is untrue and b) you wrote that whole thing as a title. Vimescarrot 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

False Seriously, legitimate fansites (i.e: Rsbandb, tip.it, Runehq) do not contain viruses or keyloggers nor do they steal or hack your account. Illegitimate fansites are blatantly obvious as they ask for your username/password. That being said if you're asked for your account name don't give it, if in doubt... etc. --RBlowes 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Untrue real fansites do not contain keyloggers. You can only get hacked if you download something, or provide your username and password. And please do not write your message as a title, stupid. I cant even write an edit summary because the title is so long - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» T 21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note that there are a number of fan sites (zybez, tip.it, runehq, sals(?)) who have a *large* number of player moderators (trusted by Jagex staff) who are heavily involved with the development and organisation of the content that goes onto the website. Stick to websites with few advertisements (as these can carry spyware or viruses), and always clean your internet cache after visiting the website.

violation of wiki rules
Not allowing people to change the main article is a violation of wiki rules. Why not just lock all the Wikipedia articles? because it would no longer be a wiki thats why.


 * But vandalism is also a violation of wiki rules. This articlle uently vandalized by people that either don't like RS or people who play the game and think that they are better than the article or people that have nothing better to do. The RS article was put under protection so only registered, active members can edit it. This protection might have been removed. It should not have been.

- Russoc4
 * If people keep vandalising a page, it should be protected for a limited amount of time to help prevent future vandalism - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» T 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

15000 accounts banned
Jagex is creating major random lagg in several areas now in order to wreck macroers and autoers. RuneScape is going down the shitter.

Whoever posted that is clearlly wrong, Jagex have just banned over 15000 people, while the game plays normal. ANy lag must be caused by your own computer Dracion 19:13, 19 January 2006
 * Exactly. The banning of people's accounts doesnt affect the game in any way other than there being less people playing - • Dussst •  T 14:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

RuneVillage
This site it an outcropping of RuneScape and should be included here, since it has little value apart from RuneScape.--Esprit15d 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new template for external links
As it is evident to see, the external links are bubbling out of control for the second time. It is now yet again, a clutter of links and almost useless to a reader as there are so many. I have a proposed to template for all these links.

The first 3 paragraphs will remain the same, clearly leaving all review, official affiliates and the website.

The fansites part is the one which causes problems. The proposed suggestion is to permantly delete all other links except the 5 high-traffic websites. That means all websites will be removed no matter how many times they are added, except:Runhehq,Sal's realm of RuneScape,runevillage, tip.it and zybez.

Post your ideas or comments here as, quite simply that amount of fanistes is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. J.J.Sagnella 11:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Dtm142 16:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why not, and one reason it wouldn't work? J.J.Sagnella 16:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I regret making the fansite section but agree that the 5 main sites should be kept on there. Also i joined the Wikispam thingy. Dracion 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, Dracion i Think you made a mistake, Runehq is also high-traffic. I'll put it on for you, and take any others off. If i make a mistake, let me know here. J.J.Sagnella 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dracion, no decision has yet been made about the fansites. Do not change it until more people come and make a final decision.  Dtm142 17:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this suggestion is good, if there are too many fansites in the list, the worth of each one will decline. The ones we should keep should be: Tip.it, RuneHQ, Sal's realm of RuneScape, Runevillage and Zybez (as suggested) - • Dussst •  T 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dussst. "Tip.it, RuneHQ, Sal's realm of RuneScape, Runevillage and Zybez" are the most active and often used fansites in my opinion. They are "top of the radar" for me.


 * Those 5 do not deserve to be there any more than the other fansites with good content. They are no more official than the others, they only have more traffic.  What you guys are saying is that those 5 are the only ones that deserve to be there.  All of the others are worthless just because they aren't huge and/or haven't been around as long as the others.Dtm142 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Labour doesnt deserve to be in gorvernment, many smaller companies do not deserve to be unpopular or poorer - but they are! Its public opinion that counts! If the other sites are so good, why dont as many people visit them? The 5 suggested get more visitors. They have better resources, better tools and better information (as well as more). They have more members in their forums to get help from and buy/sell stuff with. They have an extensive number of skill and smecial guides, and skill and special calculators. My point it, why go to a number of smaller sites to get information, when you could go to a bigger site like Tip.it and find all the information you need within one website?!? Theres just no need for it!! - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]]  • Dussst •  T 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes what you said above is what we are doing. If you think about it is common sense. If they've already done the hard work of getting them high-traffic then they deserve to get a mention. J.J.Sagnella 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry bout removing them all. Dtm i reckon that they should be removed, most of the material contained in them will probably be repeated and theres no point in having links which basically repeat stuff. Anyway, the smaller sites stand a very low chance of becoming high traffic sites like the others. Dracion 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All fansites start off "small". Whether they become big or not depends on their exposure and management.Mike 02:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeh, and the top 5 have been managed better - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • Dussst •  T 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we compromise. We have the top 5 high traffic sites above the others with a hidden message saying not to edit that section.  Below, we have the rest of the good content fansites. Dtm142 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Wikipedia is not a link farm. J.J.Sagnella 19:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a solution. Why not have fansites listed that have been around for a minumum of 6 months and have demonstrated some modicum of integrity?Mike 02:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Of course I won't like it very much because my site won't be there, but it's a way better solution than simply including the top 5 sites.  Dtm142 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "I won't like it very much because my site won't be there" See! Bias! - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • Dussst •  T 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Shadowdancer, but it would still mean too many sites and wikipedia is not a link farm. A lot of RuneScape sites are like that. There could be still be over 100 sites fitting your description.J.J.Sagnella 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the only fair alternative is to simply remove ALL fansites completely then and remain militant in doing so.Mike 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to do that. It is standard of wikipedia to have external links, and makes sense to put up the 5 most-commonly used sites. We can't have more as wikipedia is not a link farm, and no matter what standards you ask for, it will still probably spiral out of control. J.J.Sagnella 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are tons of fansites, and at the rate their being added it wont take long till the listt goes OTT. All the information on the game is listed in the 5 high traffic sites anyway, most other fansites are just about specific clans or players. Dracion 18:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But not all of them. My fansite is not about a clan or player.  And you'd be surprised at how many external links we'd be rid of if you got rid of all of the ones that were < 6 months old (this includes my site).Dtm142 22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your faniste should be kept on your own page and not on the article itself then. Also i never said we should get rid of ones < 6 months old. Dracion 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Shadowdancer did, and his idea is better than yours. I still don't like it because it won't include my site, but it's better than only including the top 5.

Vimescarrot 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to explain the reasoning behind that decision? I may be wrong, but it looks to me that you're favouring that decision so in 6 month time you can add your site. Also Wikipedia is not a link farm and with that idea there will still be way too mnay links. J.J.Sagnella 07:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This entire "link farm" thing is being beaten to death. There really is no magic wand solution here.  We either simply let the fansites be and clear out the ones that are obvious frauds, or we simply remove all fansites period.  There is no "middle ground" that you or anyone else for that matter will find acceptable.Mike 11:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well at lot of people are agreeing with this proposal and a lot of people are accepting this, so please, don't lie.
 * Mike...plenty of people think the 5-link suggestion is acceptable. Don't lie.
 * I would love to know where you get off calling me a liar?Mike 21:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * When you said "There is no "middle ground" that you or anyone else for that matter will find acceptable". People are finding it acceptable. J.J.Sagnella 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Who gets to decide which 5-links stay? Either delete all of them or create a seperate page for all the legitimate links to be listed on.
 * Who gets to decide? Everyone. It is the amount of people who go to a website who decides if it is one of the 5 high-traffic high-used websites. J.J.Sagnella 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See the comment one above mine.Dtm142 14:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Decision reached? Every voter so far who does not own tehir own RuneScape site has agreed on this decision. May it be changed? J.J.Sagnella 16:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a sutiable compromise would be to do that, and add your own fansites to your own user page, possibly even ones that you like, but dont fall under the 5 main ones. A good idea would be to ask one of the mods Dracion 20:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Player mods do not know anything. Jagex staff would tell you what Shadowdancer and I have been trying to say.  Well, here is my point:

If you have your site there, it guarantees free traffic. Don't say it doesn't because it does. That's not what it's there for, but it guarantees free traffic nonetheless. What you are trying to do is get rid of the links to the sites that are not in the top 5. This guarantees free traffic for them, but not for any of the other sites. This is not fair. Pretty much everyone knows about them, but you're saying that they should get free traffic because you think they are better. While the sites that could actually use free traffic are not good enough, simply repeated information, and that we're just using Wikipedia to advertise.

The top 5 sites can get special mention. But I really think that the external link section should be categorized.Dtm142 23:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But the top 5 are the ones everybody uses. They already have free traffic and in my mind, deserve more. Thta is why wikipedia always has some liks for sites. However other sites usually have repeated information from other websites. Also, if you look around other MMORPG games on wikipedia, you'll see they ahve very few. Also wiki admins wouldn't approve of 5 or more lkinks J.J.Sagnella 08:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But they aren't here right now, are they? Other MMORPGS might not have as many good fansites, or not as many people entered them.  Again, the top 5 have been around for longer.  I don't mind if they get any special mention. Dtm142 17:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're kidding me right? Check how many fansites there are for Everquest. Compare that to RuneScape. See what i mean? And also as this argument is settled, i'm putting my plan into action, ok? J.J.Sagnella 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is settled, I hate to see what unsettled looks like.

Apparently not very many people add their sites to that article. Just take out the whole fansite section, or link it to a directory of fansites. Just including the top 5 is not a solution.Dtm142 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol what you're saying is gobbledegook. Get any moderator to agree with you and you have your wish. J.J.Sagnella 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And the same to you. Dtm142 21:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, take that back. Sysops are people who are elected by users and have the power to ban and delete stuff.  That doesn't mean that everything they say becomes gospel.  If we can't solve it, we need the agribation commitee. Dtm142 01:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * When i said mods i meant a wikipedia mod, nota p-mod. Seriously if you want to keep all these links why not stick them on your own page? No-one else wants them Dracion 08:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dracion, do you think I should my plan into action now? J.J.Sagnella 08:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this page should only have five links; we're not a link farm, and any more is unbearable to wade through in most cases. --  user:zanimum


 * Yes seing as Zanium agrees with this idea Dracion 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ebay rates...?
Uh... Why is this (below) in there? Is it just for show? Wouldnt this just encourage people to trade money on ebay?

"Using the going rates on eBay, the value of the RuneScape economy can be roughly measured in real-world currencies. Based on data obtained on 17th January 2006, one GP is worth about 0.000008548 US dollars (£0.000004828). Thus if every one of the 2.8 million players of RuneScape had a net worth (the economic value of both items and GP) of 100,000 GP, then the entire RuneScape economy would be worth approximately 2.4 million US Dollars (£1.35m)."


 * They shouldn't be there. I removed them.  Trading RuneScape items on ebay is against the rules.  Dtm142 14:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Against the rules of RuneScape. Not against the rules of Wikipedia. There's no reason why it shouldn't be there. I'm not reverting it, but someone should.


 * Ebay rate is a protocol of estimating money in RuneScape, nothing to do with rule breaking and games rules only work within the framework of the game. GSPbeetle 11:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It violates the copyright laws. Everything in RuneScape belongs to Jagex.  You cannot sell someone else's property.Dtm142 17:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Under those same rules, in-game trading would also be illegal. Vimescarrot 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. Each account is also Jagex's property.  Ingame trading is taking items from one account and putting them on another.  All of it is Jagex's property, so it's not illegal.Dtm142 21:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Back to the point. Think about something like political views. Someone is critising the government of country A in country B, country A would say it is illegal but country B has no reason to mute that person. country A might ban him  or arrest him afterwards, but that is out of the point. GSPbeetle 06:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not too accruate, the goods are still partly belongs to Jagex no matter you sell it or not, just like buying and selling deeds, part of the rights is still in the goverment, although the buyer have gain the right to use the property freely.

Private chat and Jmods
I'm getting tired of reverting the last sentence back and back again, jmods simply do have private chat.

Here's a quite recent screenshot I took myself as proof of this:

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/1192/modmog43kv.png


 * Plop it in the Moderators section pl0x Dtm142 18:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That picture was altered.
 * It was altered in no way, proof please?

Just delete the whole sentence if it is not sure they can or cannot do private chat, untill someone has confirmed source.GSPbeetle 11:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I've given indelible proof to this, and will not have it left out.

Pures
'''Despite this, most "pures" have a significant disadvantage against a player with balanced combat levels - they cannot effectively defeat anyone with a decent Defence level, which limits them to only being able to take on other pures. In pure vs. pure combat, the outcome of a duel is often decided by whoever lands the first unguarded hit.'''

I removed that previously and somebody has put it back. There is no proof to this statement and it is just a personal, uninformed opinion, which is not valid.


 * You're right. It's false, too. Vimescarrot 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)