Talk:RuneScape/Archive 4

The Below is old Discussion. If you feel anything below needs to be commented on, bring it up in the RuneScape Talk Page. J.J.Sagnella 08:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Runescape Featured Article Idea
Please Peer Review Place Comments Below



RuneScape is an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role-playing game) implemented in Java, with over 4 million active players. RuneScape was launched by Jagex Ltd. on January 4, 2001 and offers both pay to play ("P2P") and free to play ("F2P") membership options to players. RuneScape allows players to develop many different non-combat skills ranging from runecrafting and mining to cooking and crafting. The large range of non-combat skills means that RuneScape has an expansive, dynamic player economy. Being implemented in Java, RuneScape requires no installation and can easily be accessed from the official site.

RuneScape is set in a medieval fantasy world, similar to "Guild Wars" or "EverQuest", where players control character representations of themselves. As with most MMORPGs, there is no overall objective or end to the game. Players can explore, form alliances, earn gold coins, perform optional tasks, and complete quests for rewards and to build character's skills.

During peak hours, it is common to see around 170,000 players online across the 115 international servers located in five different countries, with a peak in excess of 185,000 simultaneous logged-in players reached in early February 2006. Up to 2,000 players may be on one server at once, allowing a maximum of 230,000 online players at any one time. These servers are called "worlds" in RuneScape. These servers are located in the United States (79), the United Kingdom (18), Canada (6), the Netherlands (6) and Australia (6), making it the most popular online Java based game in the world. RuneScape is usually updated once a week, with the addition of new skills, quests, areas of the map, items, or other details added to the imaginary world. Nominated By:H-BOMB 21:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to ditch the negative attnetion on RS it's more than just some stupid chatroom game with some junk to do when your friends arn't on. It teaches you things like social skills and how hard work and training has rewards, then game never ends so it doesn't get boring, and it use british spelling what not to like? H-BOMB 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I believe RuneScape is not even close to that level and may never be due to the fact that the article is not that stable with many anons adding information in poor grammar and spelling which some of the time is not even right. The whole article still needs cleanup, needs to cite more references, and right now it reads like a game guide due to the fact that it constantly assumes the reader plays by using "you" rather than "players" and many spots that will be completely unfarmiliar with people who do not know the game added by people who do. The article also needs to be made smaller and the whole what articles do we need and what do we not need sorted out. I am going to create a To Do... list soon which I hope might help. SandBoxer 02:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How about you just edit it? H-BOMB 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Series deletion
The whole of the RS series is up for deletion here. I encourage all you scapers to vote Keep with good arguments and reasons to do so. We provided a good series of inforamion for Wikipedians, and it shouldnt be deleted -  • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * GO DUSST! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Sorry, I'm done now.

But yeah, we put a lot of work into those! And now the anti-RuneScape/Deletionist community wants to throw it all away/merge it all into one or several oversized articles that will hopefully only take one minute to load on the next Windows computer. Dtm142 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If the series is now "safe", then moving some of the weapons detail to an appropriate series page (Combat?) would be a good idea, as the main page should be more of a summary, while the extra pages should deal with important supporting areas, the same way as for major and important characters in a work of fiction. we do need to strive to keep bias and irrelevancy out though. Ace of Risk 15:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why delete it? It helps with slows computers, and it is an advantage to the millions of runescapers like me (Snuffles72 on runescape) H-BOMB 17:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

new Babel template - user rs
I'm sure that quite a few fellow Wikipedians play RuneScape as well, so I made that template. :) --Ixfd64 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to burst the bubble, buts there already one of those. its  Dracion 09:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we re-direct one to the other? The userboxes project suggests this on all userboxes that are similar or for the same purpose - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 10:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. If we don't do this, it's likely that something really stupid will be done with both of them...Dtm142 17:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
As Jagex who produced the game are British, and Runescape was created in Britain, shouldn't it have British Spelling throughout? J.J.Sagnella 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I think it should. Jagex are British, and RS is a British-made game, so it shouldn't have AmE spelling in it -  • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also I noticed one other thing in the game RuneScape- the word favor/favour. In Both the Quest listing ( One small Favour) and the reward from the mini-game ( Tai Bwo Wannai Favour) they are spelt the British way. British Spelling therefore must be used. J.J.Sagnella 15:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Since Jagex are British, its only fair that the article is written in British English. Dracion 16:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you spot any American spellings, change them on sight. J.J.Sagnella 16:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

i need a map
any good sites? Shadin 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's talk pages are concerning the article itself, not about the game itself. I would either suggest Runescape's world map, or runehq's world map. J.J.Sagnella 16:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Any Of The Exteranl Links and Search Them.H-BOMB 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded Runescape article
Just have a look at this and see, Runescape Community. It is a stub about a website which fails to get a mention here. J.J.Sagnella 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I created an AfD entry. You can express your opinion about it here. Someone42 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we can't, because Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote. They'll probably be able to express an opinion, though. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Some weird edits (by 65.2.135.217)
Someone42 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In "Weapon specials", this user added "25% of special", "100% of special" etc. Not being a RuneScape player, I did not understand what this meant. If someone could explain to me exactly what was meant, then I'll re-add a clarified version.
 * In the same section, a paragraph claimed the Dragon Hatchet was a non-combat weapon, although it could be used to fight. This seemed like a contradiction to me. So is the Dragon Hatchet non-combat or not? Or is there some RuneScape definition of "non-combat" that needs to be added to the article?
 * About the Dragon Hatchet: "the price outweighs the risk of carrying it into the Wilderness" - is the price high, or is it low? Specifically, how does its price outweigh the risk of carrying it into the Wilderness?
 * About the Seercull bow: "This rare weapon is not to be found in the wilderness as the risk is greater than the reward." Is obtaining the bow in the Wilderness too risky, or can the bow simply not be found in the Wilderness?
 * From "Ket-Zek": "Reaching this monster requires either using many prayer potions and wasting a bit of time, or ranging the 180s from the "Safe spot" conserving prayer potions saving food and time." I'm not really sure what "ranging the 180s from the Safe spot" means.
 * From slang section, "Baiting": "wearing a valuable item/asking to take into Wilderness." What does "asking to take into Wilderness" mean? I'm guessing it means wearing the valuable item and going into the Wilderness, so I'm editing the statement to reflect this. I might be wrong, so feel free to correct it (or me).

I'll try to clear up a few of these (from personal experience): -- Blue (note: not the registered user), 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weapon specials: the use of each special uses up a part of an "energy bar"; the percentages refer to the amount of the bar each special uses, some only use 25% of their bar per use, some 100%.
 * Dragon hatchet: can be used both for combat and for woodcutting
 * Dragon hatchet 2: price is high, and if taken into the wilderness, it could be lost
 * Seercull bow: What the author probably means is that no player takes them along in the wilderness because the chance of loosing their expensive bow is too great in comparison to the combat benefits the bow gives.
 * Ket-Zet: "ranging the 180s from the safe spot" means: Using ranged weapons (such as bows) to kill the monsters with a combat level of 180 from a spot where the monster cannot attack you.
 * Baiting: "asking to take into wilderness" means that 1 player will ask another to take a valuable item into the wilderness, where a second player usually waits to attack the victim and kill him (pvp combat only possible in wilderness), the victim will drop the valuable item upon dieing.

umm like ive never done this so dont get mad i paly runescape and was wondering where to talk to other people that do and do i say my name on runescape or what????

Formatting of TOC/series/infobox
At a resolution of 800x600 in Firefox 1.5.0.1, the RuneScape series box mashes into the table of contents and confines it to a small, thin box. This creates a lot of whitespace below the infobox. I've tried experimenting with using, but this just squashes the start of the first section (Overview) in the small space between the contents and the RuneScape series box. What other ways are there of arranging the TOC/series/infobox boxes to be slightly less conflicting? Someone42 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Scrap that, I figured out how to force a break. Someone42 10:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Portal?
Seeing as it has become clear that there are people who do not agree with the RuneScape series (enough for it coming damn close to being deleted), I thought a practical solution (as merging the articles into one would be impossible) was to create a RuneScape Portal. I put a request for it on Wikipedia:Portal, as I do not feel capable enough to create one myself. Plus I thought we would need a general concensus to create one, as the RS series would have to be moved there and extended. Comments? -  • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * At the amazingly high amount of people who don't like the Runescape Series, i guess it would be a good idea. But I would defintely not move it to WikiBooks J.J.Sagnella 20:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Anything's better than handing them over to the anti-RuneScapers and deletionists. Dtm142 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A portal is better than Wikibooks, more people could see it, etc - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 21:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well, if nobody disagrees in the next 3 days, I'll create the portal... Dtm142 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Now this might just be me getting suspicious and if that is true i'm truly sorry, but is Dtm142 in allegiance with Shadowdancer? BHE recently made a runescape wiki here and are tehy going to work together to advertise their websites. Once again, i'm sorry if I'm being overly supsicious but I'm looking into it now. J.J.Sagnella 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checked it over. What i said above is gobbledegook. Sorry about that dtm142. J.J.Sagnella 16:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm I'll forgive you if you guys let me put a link to my website on the portal main page for a week.

Just kidding. I'll get ready to create the portal, as nobody has opposed so far...Dtm142 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Scary thing is, that didn't sound like a joke. Create the portal if you want, but we will still have to remain vigilent with external links, and have consistent british spelling.J.J.Sagnella 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I will. I wasn't serious about the external links... Dtm142 15:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, i am watching you very carefully. J.J.Sagnella 17:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ... Dtm142 18:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Portal time. Dtm142 17:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Other external links
Do people think the 'official affiliates' and the 'reviews' sections of external links actually add to the article? The reviews are massively out of date and are in fact reviewing a game which doesn't even exist any more, and to be honest there are many other better written reviews of RuneScape out there. (although also sadly out of date). Furthermore I'm really not sure how the official affiliates links are helpful at all, as they are just rebranded versions of exactly the same page as the above link. I'd vote to get rid of those two sections and so just have links to jagex.com and runescape.com at the top, and then the top 5 fansites already listed. What to people think? Note this isn't a discussion about which fansites to link to, but about the other 4 apparently abitrary links. Runefire 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 'offical affiliate' is an alternative way to get to the game and they are not exactly the same page if you notice thoroughly enough i would say. in fact, 'runescape.com' itself is also one of the 'offcial affiliate' and there is nothing to do with 5 fansite, as they are information reasource rather than the location of the material. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 09:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that could be quite good. Not particularly sure though. J.J.Sagnella 07:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would vote for deletetion of the 'reviews' section, but not sure about the idea of deleting 'offical affiliate' pages.


 * I would vote to get rid of the review section unless we can find a good review that isnt out of date. But i think we should keep the official affiliates section - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 10:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks Runescape
Wikibooks is in need of your help. The article Runescape is in need of a cleanup. Guides have insufficient information, some guides have no info even. If you want to write your own guides or quest walkthroughs, go to Wikibook's Runescape article.


 * And this I why I don't want the RuneScape Series to go to WikiBooks. J.J.Sagnella 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

 * I would like to propose that the criticism section be deleted. There is no way that a criticism section sould be written in NPOV, and it has no actual bearing of the core information of RS. --Driken 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Other fansite articles have criticism sections already though. It would seem out out of place without it. If you feel any part of the article is out of place say so here and we can remove it. J.J.Sagnella 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep please. Criticisms are okay for the RS article, its not like "LOL liek runescapes sucks!" or anything, their reasonable and make sense, and most people agree with them.


 * Deleting it would be against NPOV, as we would only have the positive things about the game. Thats called bais. Plus it is contructive criticism, and provides a lot of information about what RS should or could have -  • The Giant Puffin •  19:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fansites
Can we have a final consensus on what fansites you want on the list. We have many people posting fansites and I really don't know what the consensus is. Tawker 14:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See Chapter 2 of this talk page. Any fansites added should be removed ON SIGHT. Only the current 5 should stay.J.J.Sagnella 14:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If the webiste owner wants to put the website on here, they must first write here why it should be here, and it has to be accepted. J.J.Sagnella 14:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It will only be accepted, however, if it is of quality compareable to the current five - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 16:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Monsters

 * I do not see the need to list the highest level monsters in Runescape. The single highest monster would be understandable but the current top 8 seems to be a bit pointless. The section continues to list 8 of the more well known monsters in runescape. This should be a summary of monsters in general and perhaps a single list instead of descriptions of the particular monsters the write seems to fancy.
 * My apologies if I did this incorrectly. (first time "talker") Ciao. --Christn 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It has the most important monsters. Like the "huge" ones that are almost impossible to kill without a group.  I think that Steel Dragons could be cut though, especially since they aren't one of a kind monsters like the KBD. Dtm142 20:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Black Demons, while being strong, are not very special in any regard. They are not unique in any way that comes to mind. Steel and Iron Dragons are stronger than Black Demons. As are ordinary Black Dragons and Dark Beasts.
 * And while Fire Giants are indeed favoured by rangers, it does not make them special either. Blue dragons are very popular by the same token as are moss giants for lower level players. They are not particularily note worthy and hold no special place in the RuneScape bestiary. --Christn 21:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In-game slang and terminology

 * This section seems to be a mess. While it is helpful, it's lack of proper capitalisation and consistency makes it a bit of an eye-sore. Perhaps making the terms bold and sticking to all lowercase letters for terms and uppercase letters for abbreviations would help.--Christn 22:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea.... J.J.Sagnella 23:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ill take a look through it now -  • The Giant Puffin •  19:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Private chat and Jmods
unarchived at 10:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of reverting the last sentence back and back again, jmods simply do have private chat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.126.56 (talk • contribs)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.126.56 (talk • contribs)


 * this issue is going to be an editing war, therefore i left the mod section be breif; if this issue is going worse, i will further suggest delete the whole mod section.  GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 10:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit excessive, deleting the whole section.... J.J.Sagnella 10:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the section isn't that important, seeing that Moderators are not a super important part of the actual game...Dtm142 18:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What's with the bullet points?
 * More to the point, you can't really say you can get rid of the Moderators section because it "isn't important". Technically, the Runescape article "isn't important". Shall we delete that, too?
 * Plus, there's quite a bit of information in that mod section that, as far as I'm aware, can't be found anywhere short of asking Jagex or a mod, both of which are nigh-on impossible tasks. Vimescarrot 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! No offence, but why did no-one think to actually check on the Runescape website to see if J-mods have private chat? I quote from the stickied thread "Moderators", written by Mod Melvin, "In game, they have gold crowns in front of their names, which can also be seen in private chat." Proof enough that they can P-chat?


 * Maybe they had it at the time that was written, but then they forgot to remove that sentence when it was taken away.

As for the section, I mean that it isn't important by comparison to the rest of the article. Dtm142 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What reason would they have for removing p-chatting functions? (not trying to provoke an argument just prodding a logical thought thingy) Vimescarrot 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

While jmods, pmods and fmods are not a huge part of the game they are a popular part of it. I found the dumbing down of this section to be a bit of a disappointment. --Christn 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The jagex mod in the screenshot may have mentioned not having private-chat in order to not have to add the player requesting it without making them feel too bad about it. Since the only way to confirm this is via query, and the contents of the reply are confidential it's best imo to leave this piece of unconfirmed information out of the article.


 * oh, i did not mean to disapprove the mod section and the measure may as well be temporary. anyone is welcome to recover the section back when it has stable down.  GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 15:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * done -  • The Giant Puffin •  21:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

New section?
I think a new section listing helpful players or players telling about themselves or: a new section having links to runescape players user talk should be created. Either way the should be a new section.--Hilotsunami 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i wonder if it is ok if i can put this site on the RuneScape page, it is of good quality and has its own forum.

http://runescape.rulers.googlepages.com/home


 * No. J.J.Sagnella 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not, what does it need to be classes as a 'good' website


 * Have already made hard work to their website getting high-traffic and high Alexa ranking. J.J.Sagnella 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It just simply wouldn't work. It would be too long, people will lie, it is not helpful, it is not appropiate for an encyclopedia. J.J.Sagnella 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes i guess that would be true but I know there is a section on wikipedians who play Runescape mabye there should be a link from the Runescape article to that?--Hilotsunami 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I got an idea. I'll add the category of Wikipedians who play runescape to the Runescape category J.J.Sagnella 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This way you can find out people who play Runescape and Wikipedia. J.J.Sagnella 20:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there already a page about that?--Hilotsunami 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I linked it to.... J.J.Sagnella 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh duh sorry I wasn't reading it correctly--Hilotsunami 21:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC) I don't see the link
 * If you go to the Category Runescape, there is a subsection called "players who play Runescape" or something like that. Click that. J.J.Sagnella 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think its to hard to find--Hilotsunami 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any way of doing it better. If you have a better idea, do say though. J.J.Sagnella 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

why not put the link to wikipedians who play runescape directly on the runscape page?--Hilotsunami 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah. If people are that dedicated to finding other people the least they can do is do another click. J.J.Sagnella 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What if there just intrested in seeing which wikipedians play runescape?--Hilotsunami 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Think logically. How many people would want to do that? Anybody who would, would probably know where the link is. J.J.Sagnella 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok I give up I just thought it would be nice to have users actually look at user talks and be able to talk to each other.--Hilotsunami 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)--Hilotsunami 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And they can. The list is now linked to the category and is easier to find than before. J.J.Sagnella 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You would have to be really set on finding other runescape users to do find it!!!! (laugh)nice discussing this with you--Hilotsunami 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up
Anything specific that needs to be cleaned up? Or do we need to clean up pretty much everything? -  • The Giant Puffin •  21:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Chaos Elemental. I need to say no more. J.J.Sagnella 21:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one that applied the tag but I notice a way that the article length could be cut down. There is just way too much redundancy which is probably caused by the popularity of this subject and one user maybe making a change in on section they think it belongs in and another user making the same change in another section which they think it belongs in. Here's an example which I fixed.

"RuneScape is an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role-playing game)"'' - Found in the lead

"As with most massive multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMORPG)"'' - Found in the first paragraph

MMORPG is linkd to both times, we can try to cut down on duplicate links too as well as more information that is stated in main articles removed.

Also, there are NO references, citations, or inline citations at all. I'm sure we could get a couple of game guides or somethings as references but that is a major flaw. SandBoxer 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * After looking through all the templates, it seems these three probably apply the most Template:context Template:inappropriate tone Template:Unreferenced SandBoxer 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

is it posible to shrten the contents and add a small list before each topic? (208.178.240.143 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

I was considering rephrasing all the sentences which contain "you" (?), but I think an experienced player would do a better job at that than me. --HeteroZellous 02:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been going through the RS series, creating sub pages - enabling me to summarise the series pages. So far I have worked on the RuneScape items page. As each of the RS series pages are shortened, we can summarise this main page. As for the "you" thing, that need to be changed to "players" or something similar -  • The Giant Puffin •  19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "you" issue, substituting each of these pronouns with "the player" works, but I don't think it's the best solution. Sometimes, it's better to use "the user", "the attacker", "the receiver", "the victim", etc. for less confusion and/or more detail; even a rephrase may be necessary if the sentence becomes awkward after the substitution.  I would like to do this job, but, having zero experience with the game, I'm afraid I'm not able to write good (clear, concise, detailed) sentences for this article. --HeteroZellous 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape items - Miscellaneous/Useless items sections
Do we really need these sections? Having a miscellaneous section means heaps of writing because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of miscellaneous items in RuneScape. This also applies to useless items. There are loads of items that are useless for one reason or another. I was going to remove these sections, but I would atleat consult people on this page (seeing as more people look here than the RS items talk page) before doing so. I propose their removal because:
 * 1) Both these sections can include hundreds of items, causing the page to be way too long - which is exactly what we are trying to prevent.
 * 2) With the miscellaneous section, all the items do not fit anywhere. If there was a need for a listing of the items there, we would have a relavent page or section within a page about them.
 * 3) In regard to the useless items section - if they're so uselss, why would we need to know about them? And how do we decide if they are useless? If an item has a single relatively-useful use, is it automatically not useless?
 * 4) The list is currently, and probably always will be, incomplete. Having an incomplete list isnt much help - especially if it is about something that is literally useless.

I'm for a "RuneScape quest items" page, as long as there is a lot of information about the items - and that only important items are listed -  • The Giant Puffin •  20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's a fairly pointless list, and half the things on there aren't even useless. Vimescarrot 07:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree also, it's a very useless list. J.J.Sagnella 07:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the lists -  • The Giant Puffin •  16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)