![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I've seen a couple edits of dates being "wikified" lately, and I'd like to point this out. Try not to pipe the links to appear as a certain way. The Wikimedia software automatically changes dates to appear as a user has set them in their preferences panel if they're left normally. Piping the links (eg. [[21 December|December 21]] causes them to display inconsistently unless they're all formatted that way. Here's what one paragraph from the article looks like. The first date is normal, the last two are piped:
..site started on September 26, 2005 and has since become one of the most accessed pages of the site. From 24 September 2002 through 9 December 2004, players could..
See what I mean? Either we pipe all the links, or we leave them all for the software to display. For now though I suggest we leave them unpiped, unless someone has a reason to do so (Does the "This is a British game" reason apply here?) I don't mean to point fingers here, but see this edit as an example on the first line modified - [[4 January]] is the same as [[January 4]] - there's no need to change them in that type of case, as the order in the code doesn't affect the end output to the user. I know this is a bit nitty-gritty, but we need to have consistency for FA/GA. Unless anyone objects, I'll unpipe most of the dates sometime tomorrow. Agentscott00( talk) 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
apparently is doesnt matter how they look, they look the way the user wants them to look - with so much other stuff to worry about, changing them seems to be low priority Xela Yrag 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It has, this article used to be good, about a year or so ago, but it's just been getting badder and badder.. Now it's garbage. It's a horrible article now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.190.37 ( talk • contribs).
Well, looking at revision 32371249 ( diff), which is from 16:17 22 December 2005, I see cruft, gameguidance, bad writing and an external links section the size of the Ark Royal. I'd say the latest, GA's doorstep version is much better. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
If this article is garbage then keep adding banana peels and used teabags, it is now much more readable, relevant and credible as an encyclopedia article thanks to the effort of countless contributors and several who've spent many hours hammering away. You've all done bloody well, so thank you. QuagmireDog 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, The Giant Puffin, this IP's only contributions appear to be to Talk:RuneScape, so he's not a vandal as far as we know. -- Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I say this article is much better than the one from a year ago. → puppy441 (lvl 80) ← RS
...Have A Happy Christmas and a Joyous new Year.
J.J.Sagnella 11:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
glow2:shake: (even though it dosn't work) Happy new year!
→ p00rleno (lvl 79) ←
ROCKS
C
RS 01:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy New 2007 everyone. Anyone got any new years' resolutions? J.J.Sagnella 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
My New Years' resolution is to play Runescape more. (so I can get a skillcape) =P Flare Mage22
This guy made a request at WP:AFC, and has since created the article (actually, taken the redirect), despite the problems I had with it. I don't really feel comfortable doing anything, seeing as the AfD was a year ago, so if someone else could? - Amarkov blah edits 06:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
As I have previously mentioned, before aiming for GA status, we must establish consensus and make binding decisions on the following three issues:
Even if consensus already exists, it must be established, and a binding decision made based on that consensus. For example, I believe there is a consensus to permanently semi-protect the article. We should, through a straw poll or other means, establish this consensus, and then make a binding decision that this article is to be permanently semi-protected. Then means to enforce the binding decision should be implemented, such as having "Please don't unprotect" warnings on the talk page and in the article itself (in the form of hidden comments), and having several admins watch the article so that, should it be unprotected for whatever reason, an admin can immediately reprotect it.
I understand that consensus can change. For example, consensus for listing only a single fansite, RuneHQ, was previously established, and a binding decision was made, and enforced by having any violations reverted. When someone presented evidence that Tip.it was catching up, consensus changed. Therefore, after consensus is established and binding decisions made, we should introduce a process whereby consensus (and binding decisions) can be changed (or re-established). To avoid vexatious litigation, after consensus is established (or re-established after a failed attempt to change consensus), 3 months (arbitrary time limit) should pass before anyone is allowed to file another request to change consensus.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Question: Should the RuneScape article be perminantly semi protected?
(comment deleted by me)
Yes. The article stays good when sprotected, and only bad comes when this is removed. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. RuneScape is among the top 10 most vandalised articles in the English Wikipedia. In July, it was in 6th place. Wikipedia's reputation was slightly tarnished when, in September, Joystiq published an article about the vandalism. As long as RuneScape's not semi-protected, it will continue to receive lots of vandalism. Such vandalism affects contributors' ability to improve the article, and subtle vandalism (sucb as fact-changing) occasionally slips through the cracks. Very little vandalism has occured since RuneScape received de facto long-term semi-protection, and the article has slipped to 10th place as of 3 January 2007, so semi-protection has been proven to be effective. Consensus should not be ignored by a few admins valuing freedom over quality. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree It has been shown to improve the article. When it is unprotested, a whole shedload of vandalism appears, and just slows us down from getting GA status for this article. If people want to edit this article properly, then they can just make an account and wait a bit - • The Giant Puffin • 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly for the main article, and I think that the other articles in the RS cateory should be semi-protected as well. I think it would kind of defeat the purpose to protect the main article and not the category as a whole (with vandals targetting the category as a whole, not just this article.). -- SuperLuigi31 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Agree for the main article only. The other ones really aren't vandalized nearly as much, but the main one instantly becomes a mass of vandalism and revertion when it's unprotected. Every time. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree It would certainly help. True, everyone is supposed to be able to edit Wikipedia...but if they're only going to try to mess it up, why let them? I agree that we only need to protect the main article. Discordant Note Cntrbtns 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes But only for the main article, for the same reason as above
You're not allowing IP votes to count? That's very thoughtful. Having a one-sided straw poll to promote response bias was a great idea. I am one of the few admins who patrols this article, and I feel that semi-protection on an article should never be permanently implemented. As per WP:SEMI policy, Semi-protection should not be used: To prohibit anonymous editing in general. By the way, what the community wants is not always what's best for the article in general. We're at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. If a page is being vandalized by many people, just revert to an unvandalized version. Nishkid 64 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OpposeChanged my vote to disagree. See below for my original reasons. We can get the point accross to admins that semi-protection should stay, for an extended period at least, by other means. I do not disagree with the idea of protection, but I oppose to permanent protection, and to the way this is being carried out. If need be we can set up a bot to monitor the series, and only that. We shouldn't use permanent protection as an easy way out. Agentscott00( talk) 04:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Don't permanently semi-protect. But putting semi-protection in place to stabilize the article and get it up to GA or even FA level would be fine. -- DeweyQ 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You cannot have straw polls, nor can you discriminate against anonymous editors just because they don't have an account.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? Reviews? 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I really doubt we can have straw polls on this matter, it's the administrator's decision on whether it keeps semi-protection or whether they unprotect it (only to re-protect it a few days/hours later). Straw polls being "fun" shouldn't apply as a reason to use them :\
Agentscott00(
talk) 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Three things:
This article has recently been edited by Subatomicguy. The information about the system requirements has been altered. The old information was true but the new information was false. I dont know how to revert and I don't think i'm allowed to edit s-protected articles. Would an established user please revert this change. Joshua1995 04:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this qualifies as a good article, but I'm not sure. Does anyone agree with me? Exarion 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, it is close to being ready. We need some work on the Membership section, if we even need the section at all. I think someone suggested a map, showing the free areas versus the member areas. Is this an option? Sounds good to me, but so much copywritten information. I'm not up on all that "legal" stuff. Xela Yrag 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Put all your anything not good for the article here, i dont care.
RS ANYTHING GOES PAGE Note, this is off my
User Page.
→ p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 13:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Add things on the scams surrounding runescape and involvement of ebay and real money —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmn ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 January 2007
The criticism section has enough on that. Beyond that, it gets into gamecruft or ranting. Sign your posts! Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been nearly six months since I quit RuneScape, and came to Wikipedia, but I thought it would be appropriate for me to give you guys a GA-to-be evaluation of the article.
I'll add more things if I can think of them. By the way, you may have noticed that I copyedited some parts of the article while doing my review (couldn't help myself :P). Nishkid 64 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Top note on this page indicates that UK English should be used throughout. Collective nouns are treated like plurals in the UK. Please take note of this. Chris Cunningham 17:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Collective nouns may be, but the word "Jagex" is not a collective noun. It is the name, albeit proper name, of a company. A collective noun is collection of persons or things regarded as a unit. If Jagex was a group of people who loosely gathered together to accomplish something, I could, maybe, see where you are going. But a specific company name is not a collective noun, in American or British usage. Xela Yrag 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This has never been an issue before, and we have many British editors of this series of articles. I did the changes needed to make sure there were no other references, such as the "their"s you mentioned, but you reverted them as well. If this is such an issue, why is it just coming up now? I have looked at many articles, British and otherwise, and I have not seen instances of a specific, singular company name being followed by a plural verb. We need more input. In the meantime, I am trying to fix it so that this is not an issue. Xela Yrag 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you - I thought so too. I think I got it all, but they can be sneaky. LOL Xela Yrag 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
RuneScape has been unprotected, but has only been vandalised by one IP. With this info, does it need to be permanently semiprotected? Exarion 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey you guys missed one of his vandalisms. it says "RUNESCAPE SUCKS!!!!!" I'd fix it but I wasn't impressed with this game enough to really be against his statement. {—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnLattier ( talk • contribs).
The vandalism is now here. to WP:RFPP! Exarion 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If you had not noticed yet, the Wikiproject was moved here. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 12:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I havnt looked up runescape un wiki for a very long time, but today I did. And when i got there I was shocked to see what I had seen. The article was striped of its knowlage. This article used to be oozing with every thing I needed to know, and was not blocked by any school. Now the article is barren and lifeless. I dont know about some of you, but theres NEVER to much information. This is wikipedia after all. So dont you think the article deserves contents back? And even then dont stop puting in new info about new things? Lys4764 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone knows how to get auto woodcutters or anything like that for runescape?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.178.86 ( talk)
I've noticed unusualy high levels of vandalism in the variety of "RuneScape Sucks so (insert fowl phrase here) Should we appeal for a short, like 5 day, sprotecion? → p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
According to his contribs, Joshua1995's first was on 14 May 2006. Semi-protection would not have affected him. He just didn't know how to revert. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
RuneScape gods is up for AfD for the fifth time. Problems include the usual cruft and game guide allegations, as well as a lack of references - • The Giant Puffin • 12:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys well the runescape we know and love has changed massivavly lately
i can put some updates myself but well first i want to make sure its ok with you all and second i want to request that other players make updates as well
we need to put info on like the new graphics that are being used and everything Maverick423 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
sounds great =) see if you can find out what kind of new tech they are using because the graphics are lots better and still have the same low load time and minimum lag when loaded.
i'll see if i can place some valuable informaton about the map resizing Maverick423 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
well according to what i read in the updates it appears the game map was resized 3 times last year and the graphics were juiced up 5 times. It doesnt however tell me if they are using new tech. I am certain that with all those updates they have to improve their tech if not the game will be laggy. hmmmm im stumpped im going to see if i can find it on the Jagex website itself Maverick423 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all it appears that the update was just script based. perhaps more compressed codeing that allows for more textured look with the same or maybe less information usage. well in anyways Thanks much! Maverick423 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could somehow fit this image into RuneScape skills (I put it here since this is the page that gets the most traffic). It would show the variety of skills that are availible. I'm not sure what we can do with it, so that why I'm asking :) •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the version 2 the one without the green squares. if anything i think this one will benifit the most Maverick423 21:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Version 2 definitely. puppy441 - (lvl 80)On RS 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I like version 3 the most because it'll help expand the membership section a bit more. I don't think we need an image of just the skills. Discordant Note Cntrbtns 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
you know now that you mention it yea thats a great idea that way people can tell the diff between member and non member skills. however the color is too bright it kinda makes some of the skills a little hard to see how bout a light red or a light blue instead? Maverick423 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure here, but should we really be putting in the skill menu? It is one person's skill menu and would cause publicity for that set of skills with people trying to reach them. The people judging whether this will be a good article or not might pick up on this and say the skill menu does nothing more than show icons of member skills. And there is reasoning behind it as in text form, would you be happy to accept a description of each skill's logo. J.J.Sagnella 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
i get what you mean. Ok i tell ya what i will do ok i have a sepreate account with only lvl 1 on it for all the skilles except HP (as we know it comes with lvl 10 preset) the name needs not to be displayed but i wont be able to crop it or anything so i can upload it and you guys can crop it and add the squares and then place it. since the lvls are all lvl 1 noone will care about whos account it is and it will serve the pourpuse of showing the variaty of all the skills available. if that doesnt work then why doesnt someone make a small account for the same pourpuse. Maverick423 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You are free to do it if you would like JJ i dont get out of work for about 2 hours and then the drive home is another hour and i got to take care of things at home (like children) and make them happy before i get on to play the game. Maverick423 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not green it makes the colors a bit hard to see more of a light blue or a red but thats my saying Maverick423 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Heres a vesrion with blue boxes.
→ p00rleno (lvl 80) ←
ROCKS
C
RS 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That one looks good the colors dont take away too much from the original colors. if you got teh one with the red then display it too that way we can choose.
I like the blue. Go for it - • The Giant Puffin • 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll make a red one after I get out of school. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
i did a small edit on the quest part that states that there are (well over)100 quest in the member world you know just fixing it up where ever i can hope thats ok Maverick423 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool just making sure though Maverick423 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I've seen a couple edits of dates being "wikified" lately, and I'd like to point this out. Try not to pipe the links to appear as a certain way. The Wikimedia software automatically changes dates to appear as a user has set them in their preferences panel if they're left normally. Piping the links (eg. [[21 December|December 21]] causes them to display inconsistently unless they're all formatted that way. Here's what one paragraph from the article looks like. The first date is normal, the last two are piped:
..site started on September 26, 2005 and has since become one of the most accessed pages of the site. From 24 September 2002 through 9 December 2004, players could..
See what I mean? Either we pipe all the links, or we leave them all for the software to display. For now though I suggest we leave them unpiped, unless someone has a reason to do so (Does the "This is a British game" reason apply here?) I don't mean to point fingers here, but see this edit as an example on the first line modified - [[4 January]] is the same as [[January 4]] - there's no need to change them in that type of case, as the order in the code doesn't affect the end output to the user. I know this is a bit nitty-gritty, but we need to have consistency for FA/GA. Unless anyone objects, I'll unpipe most of the dates sometime tomorrow. Agentscott00( talk) 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
apparently is doesnt matter how they look, they look the way the user wants them to look - with so much other stuff to worry about, changing them seems to be low priority Xela Yrag 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It has, this article used to be good, about a year or so ago, but it's just been getting badder and badder.. Now it's garbage. It's a horrible article now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.190.37 ( talk • contribs).
Well, looking at revision 32371249 ( diff), which is from 16:17 22 December 2005, I see cruft, gameguidance, bad writing and an external links section the size of the Ark Royal. I'd say the latest, GA's doorstep version is much better. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
If this article is garbage then keep adding banana peels and used teabags, it is now much more readable, relevant and credible as an encyclopedia article thanks to the effort of countless contributors and several who've spent many hours hammering away. You've all done bloody well, so thank you. QuagmireDog 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, The Giant Puffin, this IP's only contributions appear to be to Talk:RuneScape, so he's not a vandal as far as we know. -- Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I say this article is much better than the one from a year ago. → puppy441 (lvl 80) ← RS
...Have A Happy Christmas and a Joyous new Year.
J.J.Sagnella 11:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
glow2:shake: (even though it dosn't work) Happy new year!
→ p00rleno (lvl 79) ←
ROCKS
C
RS 01:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy New 2007 everyone. Anyone got any new years' resolutions? J.J.Sagnella 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
My New Years' resolution is to play Runescape more. (so I can get a skillcape) =P Flare Mage22
This guy made a request at WP:AFC, and has since created the article (actually, taken the redirect), despite the problems I had with it. I don't really feel comfortable doing anything, seeing as the AfD was a year ago, so if someone else could? - Amarkov blah edits 06:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
As I have previously mentioned, before aiming for GA status, we must establish consensus and make binding decisions on the following three issues:
Even if consensus already exists, it must be established, and a binding decision made based on that consensus. For example, I believe there is a consensus to permanently semi-protect the article. We should, through a straw poll or other means, establish this consensus, and then make a binding decision that this article is to be permanently semi-protected. Then means to enforce the binding decision should be implemented, such as having "Please don't unprotect" warnings on the talk page and in the article itself (in the form of hidden comments), and having several admins watch the article so that, should it be unprotected for whatever reason, an admin can immediately reprotect it.
I understand that consensus can change. For example, consensus for listing only a single fansite, RuneHQ, was previously established, and a binding decision was made, and enforced by having any violations reverted. When someone presented evidence that Tip.it was catching up, consensus changed. Therefore, after consensus is established and binding decisions made, we should introduce a process whereby consensus (and binding decisions) can be changed (or re-established). To avoid vexatious litigation, after consensus is established (or re-established after a failed attempt to change consensus), 3 months (arbitrary time limit) should pass before anyone is allowed to file another request to change consensus.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Question: Should the RuneScape article be perminantly semi protected?
(comment deleted by me)
Yes. The article stays good when sprotected, and only bad comes when this is removed. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. RuneScape is among the top 10 most vandalised articles in the English Wikipedia. In July, it was in 6th place. Wikipedia's reputation was slightly tarnished when, in September, Joystiq published an article about the vandalism. As long as RuneScape's not semi-protected, it will continue to receive lots of vandalism. Such vandalism affects contributors' ability to improve the article, and subtle vandalism (sucb as fact-changing) occasionally slips through the cracks. Very little vandalism has occured since RuneScape received de facto long-term semi-protection, and the article has slipped to 10th place as of 3 January 2007, so semi-protection has been proven to be effective. Consensus should not be ignored by a few admins valuing freedom over quality. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree It has been shown to improve the article. When it is unprotested, a whole shedload of vandalism appears, and just slows us down from getting GA status for this article. If people want to edit this article properly, then they can just make an account and wait a bit - • The Giant Puffin • 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly for the main article, and I think that the other articles in the RS cateory should be semi-protected as well. I think it would kind of defeat the purpose to protect the main article and not the category as a whole (with vandals targetting the category as a whole, not just this article.). -- SuperLuigi31 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Agree for the main article only. The other ones really aren't vandalized nearly as much, but the main one instantly becomes a mass of vandalism and revertion when it's unprotected. Every time. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree It would certainly help. True, everyone is supposed to be able to edit Wikipedia...but if they're only going to try to mess it up, why let them? I agree that we only need to protect the main article. Discordant Note Cntrbtns 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes But only for the main article, for the same reason as above
You're not allowing IP votes to count? That's very thoughtful. Having a one-sided straw poll to promote response bias was a great idea. I am one of the few admins who patrols this article, and I feel that semi-protection on an article should never be permanently implemented. As per WP:SEMI policy, Semi-protection should not be used: To prohibit anonymous editing in general. By the way, what the community wants is not always what's best for the article in general. We're at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. If a page is being vandalized by many people, just revert to an unvandalized version. Nishkid 64 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OpposeChanged my vote to disagree. See below for my original reasons. We can get the point accross to admins that semi-protection should stay, for an extended period at least, by other means. I do not disagree with the idea of protection, but I oppose to permanent protection, and to the way this is being carried out. If need be we can set up a bot to monitor the series, and only that. We shouldn't use permanent protection as an easy way out. Agentscott00( talk) 04:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Don't permanently semi-protect. But putting semi-protection in place to stabilize the article and get it up to GA or even FA level would be fine. -- DeweyQ 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You cannot have straw polls, nor can you discriminate against anonymous editors just because they don't have an account.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? Reviews? 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I really doubt we can have straw polls on this matter, it's the administrator's decision on whether it keeps semi-protection or whether they unprotect it (only to re-protect it a few days/hours later). Straw polls being "fun" shouldn't apply as a reason to use them :\
Agentscott00(
talk) 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Three things:
This article has recently been edited by Subatomicguy. The information about the system requirements has been altered. The old information was true but the new information was false. I dont know how to revert and I don't think i'm allowed to edit s-protected articles. Would an established user please revert this change. Joshua1995 04:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this qualifies as a good article, but I'm not sure. Does anyone agree with me? Exarion 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, it is close to being ready. We need some work on the Membership section, if we even need the section at all. I think someone suggested a map, showing the free areas versus the member areas. Is this an option? Sounds good to me, but so much copywritten information. I'm not up on all that "legal" stuff. Xela Yrag 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Put all your anything not good for the article here, i dont care.
RS ANYTHING GOES PAGE Note, this is off my
User Page.
→ p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 13:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Add things on the scams surrounding runescape and involvement of ebay and real money —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmn ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 January 2007
The criticism section has enough on that. Beyond that, it gets into gamecruft or ranting. Sign your posts! Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been nearly six months since I quit RuneScape, and came to Wikipedia, but I thought it would be appropriate for me to give you guys a GA-to-be evaluation of the article.
I'll add more things if I can think of them. By the way, you may have noticed that I copyedited some parts of the article while doing my review (couldn't help myself :P). Nishkid 64 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Top note on this page indicates that UK English should be used throughout. Collective nouns are treated like plurals in the UK. Please take note of this. Chris Cunningham 17:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Collective nouns may be, but the word "Jagex" is not a collective noun. It is the name, albeit proper name, of a company. A collective noun is collection of persons or things regarded as a unit. If Jagex was a group of people who loosely gathered together to accomplish something, I could, maybe, see where you are going. But a specific company name is not a collective noun, in American or British usage. Xela Yrag 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This has never been an issue before, and we have many British editors of this series of articles. I did the changes needed to make sure there were no other references, such as the "their"s you mentioned, but you reverted them as well. If this is such an issue, why is it just coming up now? I have looked at many articles, British and otherwise, and I have not seen instances of a specific, singular company name being followed by a plural verb. We need more input. In the meantime, I am trying to fix it so that this is not an issue. Xela Yrag 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you - I thought so too. I think I got it all, but they can be sneaky. LOL Xela Yrag 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
RuneScape has been unprotected, but has only been vandalised by one IP. With this info, does it need to be permanently semiprotected? Exarion 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey you guys missed one of his vandalisms. it says "RUNESCAPE SUCKS!!!!!" I'd fix it but I wasn't impressed with this game enough to really be against his statement. {—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnLattier ( talk • contribs).
The vandalism is now here. to WP:RFPP! Exarion 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If you had not noticed yet, the Wikiproject was moved here. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 12:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I havnt looked up runescape un wiki for a very long time, but today I did. And when i got there I was shocked to see what I had seen. The article was striped of its knowlage. This article used to be oozing with every thing I needed to know, and was not blocked by any school. Now the article is barren and lifeless. I dont know about some of you, but theres NEVER to much information. This is wikipedia after all. So dont you think the article deserves contents back? And even then dont stop puting in new info about new things? Lys4764 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone knows how to get auto woodcutters or anything like that for runescape?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.178.86 ( talk)
I've noticed unusualy high levels of vandalism in the variety of "RuneScape Sucks so (insert fowl phrase here) Should we appeal for a short, like 5 day, sprotecion? → p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
According to his contribs, Joshua1995's first was on 14 May 2006. Semi-protection would not have affected him. He just didn't know how to revert. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
RuneScape gods is up for AfD for the fifth time. Problems include the usual cruft and game guide allegations, as well as a lack of references - • The Giant Puffin • 12:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys well the runescape we know and love has changed massivavly lately
i can put some updates myself but well first i want to make sure its ok with you all and second i want to request that other players make updates as well
we need to put info on like the new graphics that are being used and everything Maverick423 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
sounds great =) see if you can find out what kind of new tech they are using because the graphics are lots better and still have the same low load time and minimum lag when loaded.
i'll see if i can place some valuable informaton about the map resizing Maverick423 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
well according to what i read in the updates it appears the game map was resized 3 times last year and the graphics were juiced up 5 times. It doesnt however tell me if they are using new tech. I am certain that with all those updates they have to improve their tech if not the game will be laggy. hmmmm im stumpped im going to see if i can find it on the Jagex website itself Maverick423 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all it appears that the update was just script based. perhaps more compressed codeing that allows for more textured look with the same or maybe less information usage. well in anyways Thanks much! Maverick423 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could somehow fit this image into RuneScape skills (I put it here since this is the page that gets the most traffic). It would show the variety of skills that are availible. I'm not sure what we can do with it, so that why I'm asking :) •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the version 2 the one without the green squares. if anything i think this one will benifit the most Maverick423 21:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Version 2 definitely. puppy441 - (lvl 80)On RS 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I like version 3 the most because it'll help expand the membership section a bit more. I don't think we need an image of just the skills. Discordant Note Cntrbtns 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
you know now that you mention it yea thats a great idea that way people can tell the diff between member and non member skills. however the color is too bright it kinda makes some of the skills a little hard to see how bout a light red or a light blue instead? Maverick423 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure here, but should we really be putting in the skill menu? It is one person's skill menu and would cause publicity for that set of skills with people trying to reach them. The people judging whether this will be a good article or not might pick up on this and say the skill menu does nothing more than show icons of member skills. And there is reasoning behind it as in text form, would you be happy to accept a description of each skill's logo. J.J.Sagnella 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
i get what you mean. Ok i tell ya what i will do ok i have a sepreate account with only lvl 1 on it for all the skilles except HP (as we know it comes with lvl 10 preset) the name needs not to be displayed but i wont be able to crop it or anything so i can upload it and you guys can crop it and add the squares and then place it. since the lvls are all lvl 1 noone will care about whos account it is and it will serve the pourpuse of showing the variaty of all the skills available. if that doesnt work then why doesnt someone make a small account for the same pourpuse. Maverick423 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You are free to do it if you would like JJ i dont get out of work for about 2 hours and then the drive home is another hour and i got to take care of things at home (like children) and make them happy before i get on to play the game. Maverick423 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not green it makes the colors a bit hard to see more of a light blue or a red but thats my saying Maverick423 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Heres a vesrion with blue boxes.
→ p00rleno (lvl 80) ←
ROCKS
C
RS 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That one looks good the colors dont take away too much from the original colors. if you got teh one with the red then display it too that way we can choose.
I like the blue. Go for it - • The Giant Puffin • 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll make a red one after I get out of school. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ← ROCKS C RS 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
i did a small edit on the quest part that states that there are (well over)100 quest in the member world you know just fixing it up where ever i can hope thats ok Maverick423 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool just making sure though Maverick423 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)