![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 1, 2005 and October 30, 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:RuneScape/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Super Quinn 00:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I edited the external links section; I removed some biased descriptions on the clan links (e.g. "An awesome and powerful clan") and moved them apart from the fansite links. I don't find anything wrong about putting clansite links in the section, but descriptions should be strictly objective.
I then removed the notice on the RuneHQ link since last I heard someone else took the site over and it is not closing down.
I also felt that the more popular and trustworthy fansites should be at the top of the list, while less known sites should go at the bottom (especially ones on free hosts). I based my ordering on oldest at the top to newest lower down, but only for the first few links (the very well known fansites).
Yes I completely agree the external links is getting out of control, it's just people trying to advertise their site, or even scam players. I agree just listing the two official links is safer. Runefire 05:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Ive gone over the entire RuneScape community of articales on here, and I find that it is lacking a bunch of things. I have the ability to add many all the neccesary information, but as for using wikipedia, im not too good at...
Anyways, what im looking for is someone that will help me perform a major overhaul on this article. There are many redundancies and subarticles that need to be created. I just dont know where to get started. In the meantime, I am going to start researching conventions and things and attempt to do it myself (making sure to know what im doing before touching anything).
For example, since RuneScape and RuneScape 2 is essentially identical, then the RuneScape and RuneScape_2 pages have become quite redundant and are therefor pretty much carbon copies of eachother. There isnt much explanation on RuneScape classic, so perhaps just changing the entire RuneScape 2 page to a RuneScape classic page...
Curran919 03:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Curran919 00:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
~Redizot (Red)
Well I've been checking this page for some time, and there lots of greats edits and info going in, but the disorganisation of it really detracts from all the great info, so I've made a real effort to tidy it up. I think the problem largely comes from the fact that the developer of the game is changing it so rapdily (and has changed it so dramatically from when this article was first started) that much of the info is outdated or contradictory.
To be honest this article was great until the developer complete changed the entire game with the launch of RuneScape 2, and from that point on became incredibly confusing. With intermixed sections half talking about what it was like, and half talking about the new version. And all in the present tense! Never really recovered from that and needed tiding up ever since.
As this is an encyclopedia, I would say the article should be 'current', it shouldn't be talking about things that have changed as if they haven't. The article should aim to contain factual information on the current state of the game. Such that anyone coming to look at it to find out what RuneScape is all about will be able to see so clearly. Anything which is historical should be clearly marked as such and if there is a lot of it put in a seperate 'history' section. Unfortunately I don't think for every single point of discussion it is practical to discuss all the different ways that thing has been historically or the article is going to end up absurdly long.
The other thing to be really careful of is making sure each section sticks to the heading and doesn't deviate off topic too far. Ideally each section should be mutually exclusive, and cover it's topic without develling onto others or overlapping with another section. As such I've rearranged the sections to try and make it so what it under each heading is actually what the heading states.
The guidelines for wikipedia state that users "should be bold", and I think now the sections are more clearly defined it's much easier to edit and improve their content.
I've tried to remove outdated info or text that is an opinion rather than a fact. There is SO much one can write about this game that unless we stick to the core facts the article will become unmanageable.
If there is any particular bit deleted that you think shouldn't have been deleted please just copy and paste it back in (if necessary in a new section), rather than doing a widescale revert of all the other changes and work! But I hope you agree with most these changes. Thanks
Does anyone know anything about this article or topic? It is currently proposed for deletion. A skeleton of it was speedy deleted a while ago, the entire content on that occasion was Saradomin- Good Guthix- Neutral Zamorak- Evil. Informed comments and/or votes at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/RuneScape gods would be very helpful. TIA. Andrewa 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
PS Please don't get too worried about allegations of fancruft. I know they can be annoying, but if the material is of interest to a large number of people, it shouldn't be deleted. Andrewa 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a major clean up of this page. The page has lots of frivilous information that nobody really will need to know or find useful. People don't need to know how much a member's subcription costs. (It is not always $5USD) If they want to know this, they can go to the website. I think the player demographics should be omitted they are outdated. about 5500 people voted on those polls, and there were many more people playing the game at the time of this poll. Also, it is not uncommon to see over a hundred thousand people playing at any one time. So I think the demographics section is too old to remain there.
And i also dont think that demographics would change in 6 months of play. Although my specific clan's demographics differ extremely, i dont think that means anything. Curran919
I just naturally assumed a pure section would be in this article. I had to add one myself. I did not do a good job though. Someone else can append it. Elyk 23:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I've removed all the fansites since commenting them out wasn't working, people were just removing them and adding their latest RuneScape hacks .tk site.
This is the code I removed, perhaps a few of the better, informative ones can be selected to be put back in.
**RuneScape Fansites ** [http://zybez.com Zybez] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://runehq.com Rune HQ] (fan site, guides, forums, databases) ** [http://tip.it/RuneScape RuneScape Tips] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.RuneScapecommunity.com RuneScape Community] (forum only, Unofficial RuneScape Encylopedia) ** [http://www.runevillage.com RuneVillage] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.runehq.com Rune Headquarters] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.windowsmobileworld.com/ RuneScape help, tips and guides] (Fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.rsfaces.com RuneScape Faces] (player photos) ** [http://www.rs-tavern.co.uk RuneScape Tavern] (forums) ** [http://rsinn.com/forum/ RS Inn forum] (fan site) ** [http://www.RuneScapia.com/ Runescapia] ** [http://www.runetoday.co.uk Rune Today] (forum) ** [http://www.arenascape.net/ ARENAscape] (fan site, text-browser based MMORPG) ** [http://RuneScape.salmoneus.net/ Sal's Realm of RuneScape] (fan site, guides, forum) ** [http://runesource.cjb.net RuneScape Source] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.runeweb.net Runeweb] (fan site, item database, guides with pictures, replacing RuneNews) ** [http://www.geocities.com/rune_universe/ Rune Universe] (fansite, guides) ** [http://rsh.dabu4u.com/ RuneScape Hall] (fan site, guides, forums) *RuneScape Clan Websites ** [http://phoenix-elite.tk/ Phoenix Elite]A clan that will probably take anyone level 50 and above ** [http://25thLegion.tk/ The 25th Legion] ** [http://www.industrialgothclan.com/ Industrial Goth Clan] (Pk, Skill-based, and Community clan for goths and others alike.) ** [http://www.themoriquendi.com/ The Moriquendi] ** [http://tsunami2k5.cjb.net/ The Tsunami Clan] ** [http://wecanpkyouclan.cjb.net Pkers Clan] ** [http://www.fear.ingame.org/ FEAR Clan] (fansite, clan community) ** [http://www.optirs.net/ OptiRuneScape] (helpsite, community) ** [http://s4.invisionfree.com/corruption_clan Corruption Clan] (clan community)
-- Kevin 00:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
What is it about this article that seems to attract vandals? -- WCFrancis 19:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What's THIS supposed to mean^? Appearently, some of us may not like this game, and if you want to say so, labeling the overview section "overview of my asshole" isn't exaclty the best way to do it. This is a warning to whoever did this - people here can and will block you from this site if you do it again. I'm not saying I can or will, I'm just warning you. -- Wack'd About Wiki 02:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've been going through the pages, making some changes, minor and large, most notably the Story section. I had trouble calling it Game History or something of that sort, since there really isn't a continuous story, I figured that would be fine. Those knowledgable on the subject, feel free to add your own additions, but I want to keep quest plotlines out of there. Also, if it gets large enough, it could be split into subsections, like with Mythology, History, Lore, Gods, etc. etc. but that's a while off, anyway. ~Redizhot
I say we add the RuneScape gods article onto the RuneScape Series, makes enough sense to me. Redizhot 21:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the growth rate isnt exponetial. It is much harder to gain lvl 98-99 than 45-55
creepy, huh?
I say we add a RuneScape classic article to the series, since it is a much different game from the RuneScape we know today, if anyone would like to aid me, let me know, my username is Redizhot, but am not logged in as it I am using a public computer. I made comments on the "Massive Improvements" comment on here, so I have a few other things I've said there too.
The weapons section (
RuneScape#Weapons) needs a thorough clean-up. Originally it was just a link to a separate article,
RuneScape weapons. However, 219.79.204.39 replaced this link with a proper section of information, which he may or may not have written himself. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but in general it is not wikified. For example, in the source, the "weapons chart" is set out with whitespace. But in the published version of the page, of course, the extra whitespace is ignored and chart does not resemble a chart at all. I didn't want to revert the change back to the original link because it is good, decent information, but this is just a request for it to be cleaned up. Don't worry about it, Robertvan1 reverted it back to normal. Thanks! --
Daverocks 4 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)
Can anyone verify this? This was added by Und0 whose only contributions other than some vandalism to this article consist of a little vanity page in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to present another side of the community aspect of RuneScape. I edited the article to include this reference but it was removed later: http://www.RuneScapehaven.com/bhe/viewtopic.php?t=2591 I think people should be aware of the childishness this game seems to propagate. If Wikipedia finds this entry offensive then please forgive me.
I'll have to agree with some users that the RuneScape articles need a lot of work. Unfortunately, not every experienced Wikipedian plays RuneScape, and those who do play it might not be professional writers. So I think that these articles will take quite to improve. -- Ixfd64 18:04, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
OK I've never played RuneScape because it did not appeal to me at the time. However RuneScape has made its mark in the mmorpg world.
In alot of beta's I play, when it goes p2p people complain about having to pay. And they demand a free to play server. And they give all sorts of arguements like oh look at RuneScape, f2p servers = money.
So I came to wikipedia to find more info but this site is somewhat lacking on the whole "how RuneScape is so succesful even tho its f2p"
Just thought it was a section some of you might want to throw in. Either adding on or as a stub
Jagex have added about 10 new random events.
I'm kinda new here, and I'm also an admin and head of content at a popular RS Help site. I added a picture of DeviousMUD, the first version of the game. I also updated some pictures that were already there.
If I had the time I'd go ahead and add them. The new randoms are: Gift-Givers: Pirate's Combination Lock Freaky Forester Frog Highwayman Quiz Master Certers (Miles, Niles and Giles are BACK!!! They note stuff in your inventory if you don't talk to them) Jekyll and Hyde Lost Pirate Evil Bob
Dangerous randoms: Evil Chicken
Inconveniences: Lost & Found office Dr Ford Farming rake/spade heads flying off
More information can be found at the RuneScape.com > manual > random events page.
Does anyone know the duplication cheat? I know it propbably won't work, but I just want to see what it was.
I heard people saying try to duplicate items by dropping them then standing on them and pressing Ctrl+Alt+Delete or Ctrl+Alt+Enter. Is this true? (Not that I want people to try it)
Aleksei 08:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
One of the most notable comments is:
An enigmatic Wise Old Man lives in Draynor Village. He has recently broken into the neighbouring bank and, apparently, stolen a lot of money and a valuable party hat. Members may watch a 'security recording' of the attack, which provoked a torrent of laughter on the official discussion forums when it was first released. Certainly it isn't every day that you can watch an elderly gentleman amble into a bank, politely request that everyone stay still, murder two bankers and four players, then perform a kung-fu kick on a watchman (unless you live in North Korea).
How can we let such biased trash like this article exist on wikipedia? Anouymous 01:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Its hard to keep out the younger players that genuinely think they are contributing something... True, that substance is not tolerable and I'll delete it immediately (I vouched to delete the entire RuneScape humour section), but this article will constantly attract sush "biased trash". Curran919 07:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I suppose the wording was a bit too hard. I shouldnt have went as to call it trash, but you get my drift. But I still feel it could use some clean up :/ Anouymous 04:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Heres an example. What you posted is the least of our worries as there was no malintent, and they just added something that can easily be deleted, but when somebody comes in and deleted entire sections, replacing it with "A new player called chiped wood", and it has been 30 edits since you last checked up, i have to revert to an edit a week ago, losing a bunch of good information. I can't believe how unregistered users are allowed to edit... its so stupid. Curran919 20:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Today i deleted two unneccesary sections, the RuneScape Humour, one of the less enyclopedic areas of the article, and the chat effects, something that is such a small form of the game and that can be summed up in a sentence when i do some expansions on the community area later tonight or later this week. Also, i understand that my large Random Events update today mnay contradict what im trying to do, but i am addressing priorites as Jagex lays them forth, and i think that it should have its own article in the series. And ill say this here since nobody else visits the discussion pages of the subarticles, all the information in the runes article is either unneccesary, or covered in the RuneScape Weapons and RuneScape Skills articles. Curran919 03:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
noobs these days....lol jk btw i have the new maul!
Removed the following from external links:
My reason: I visited the page, and found it not quite up to the standard expected of a Wikipedia external link, in my opinion. In addition, the page's own counter claimed "426 hits", which I'd say makes it decidedly non-notable. -- Ashenai 16:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, i am the owner of that site. the reason it has so few visits was that it was only started up a few weeks ago. the reason i put it on wikpedia was that solely it is a free encyclopedia, so i can put on what i want, and secondly, i wanted to advertise it so it gets more popular and it will have more than "426 hits"
In the infobox, Rating was "5/5". I'm pretty sure it's meant to be an ESRB or similar rating, like T or M. Some cursory research didn't turn up a deifnitive rating, but one source said RP, so I went with that for now. If you know better, please fix! -- Ashenai 21:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I categorised the links into 3 section so that it is displayed properly and stops link huggers Nitr021- http://icefuzion.net
It is a minigame so it should be in the minigame section. You DO NOT fight other players in the fight caves. So dont try to keep adding it in.
It bothers me how the RuneScape articles include a "cheats" section. There are no cheats for RuneScape - never have been and never will be.
That said, I'm removing it completely.
I would suggest somebody fixes it, if not done by friday i might just decide to delete it. And before you flame me, read the section, you will agree with me -- Super Quinn 14:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It had simply been vandalized (over a month ago), with random bits deleted turning into nonsense, and it seems nobody actually noticed! I have now restored it back to it's pre-vandalised state, since it was actually one of the more factual and 'enclopediac' section before it was destroyed.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I think we should link to other sites with RuneScape info and guides. So, the external links are back.
However, I don't think small sites without many guides should be there. So, they can be removed. But informative/useful sites should really be there.
Added in the combat system during RuneScape's first year. Editers please feel free to improve on this.
Why is * now a box, instead of a list? - has the CSS template been vandalized?
*Ah, I see, a single space indent is a box, not seen that one before, or at least, never remembered it.
And the * was displayed
this needs to be split up into smaller pages. use a disambiguation page? or what should i use?
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 1, 2005 and October 30, 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:RuneScape/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Super Quinn 00:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I edited the external links section; I removed some biased descriptions on the clan links (e.g. "An awesome and powerful clan") and moved them apart from the fansite links. I don't find anything wrong about putting clansite links in the section, but descriptions should be strictly objective.
I then removed the notice on the RuneHQ link since last I heard someone else took the site over and it is not closing down.
I also felt that the more popular and trustworthy fansites should be at the top of the list, while less known sites should go at the bottom (especially ones on free hosts). I based my ordering on oldest at the top to newest lower down, but only for the first few links (the very well known fansites).
Yes I completely agree the external links is getting out of control, it's just people trying to advertise their site, or even scam players. I agree just listing the two official links is safer. Runefire 05:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Ive gone over the entire RuneScape community of articales on here, and I find that it is lacking a bunch of things. I have the ability to add many all the neccesary information, but as for using wikipedia, im not too good at...
Anyways, what im looking for is someone that will help me perform a major overhaul on this article. There are many redundancies and subarticles that need to be created. I just dont know where to get started. In the meantime, I am going to start researching conventions and things and attempt to do it myself (making sure to know what im doing before touching anything).
For example, since RuneScape and RuneScape 2 is essentially identical, then the RuneScape and RuneScape_2 pages have become quite redundant and are therefor pretty much carbon copies of eachother. There isnt much explanation on RuneScape classic, so perhaps just changing the entire RuneScape 2 page to a RuneScape classic page...
Curran919 03:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Curran919 00:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
~Redizot (Red)
Well I've been checking this page for some time, and there lots of greats edits and info going in, but the disorganisation of it really detracts from all the great info, so I've made a real effort to tidy it up. I think the problem largely comes from the fact that the developer of the game is changing it so rapdily (and has changed it so dramatically from when this article was first started) that much of the info is outdated or contradictory.
To be honest this article was great until the developer complete changed the entire game with the launch of RuneScape 2, and from that point on became incredibly confusing. With intermixed sections half talking about what it was like, and half talking about the new version. And all in the present tense! Never really recovered from that and needed tiding up ever since.
As this is an encyclopedia, I would say the article should be 'current', it shouldn't be talking about things that have changed as if they haven't. The article should aim to contain factual information on the current state of the game. Such that anyone coming to look at it to find out what RuneScape is all about will be able to see so clearly. Anything which is historical should be clearly marked as such and if there is a lot of it put in a seperate 'history' section. Unfortunately I don't think for every single point of discussion it is practical to discuss all the different ways that thing has been historically or the article is going to end up absurdly long.
The other thing to be really careful of is making sure each section sticks to the heading and doesn't deviate off topic too far. Ideally each section should be mutually exclusive, and cover it's topic without develling onto others or overlapping with another section. As such I've rearranged the sections to try and make it so what it under each heading is actually what the heading states.
The guidelines for wikipedia state that users "should be bold", and I think now the sections are more clearly defined it's much easier to edit and improve their content.
I've tried to remove outdated info or text that is an opinion rather than a fact. There is SO much one can write about this game that unless we stick to the core facts the article will become unmanageable.
If there is any particular bit deleted that you think shouldn't have been deleted please just copy and paste it back in (if necessary in a new section), rather than doing a widescale revert of all the other changes and work! But I hope you agree with most these changes. Thanks
Does anyone know anything about this article or topic? It is currently proposed for deletion. A skeleton of it was speedy deleted a while ago, the entire content on that occasion was Saradomin- Good Guthix- Neutral Zamorak- Evil. Informed comments and/or votes at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/RuneScape gods would be very helpful. TIA. Andrewa 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
PS Please don't get too worried about allegations of fancruft. I know they can be annoying, but if the material is of interest to a large number of people, it shouldn't be deleted. Andrewa 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a major clean up of this page. The page has lots of frivilous information that nobody really will need to know or find useful. People don't need to know how much a member's subcription costs. (It is not always $5USD) If they want to know this, they can go to the website. I think the player demographics should be omitted they are outdated. about 5500 people voted on those polls, and there were many more people playing the game at the time of this poll. Also, it is not uncommon to see over a hundred thousand people playing at any one time. So I think the demographics section is too old to remain there.
And i also dont think that demographics would change in 6 months of play. Although my specific clan's demographics differ extremely, i dont think that means anything. Curran919
I just naturally assumed a pure section would be in this article. I had to add one myself. I did not do a good job though. Someone else can append it. Elyk 23:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I've removed all the fansites since commenting them out wasn't working, people were just removing them and adding their latest RuneScape hacks .tk site.
This is the code I removed, perhaps a few of the better, informative ones can be selected to be put back in.
**RuneScape Fansites ** [http://zybez.com Zybez] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://runehq.com Rune HQ] (fan site, guides, forums, databases) ** [http://tip.it/RuneScape RuneScape Tips] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.RuneScapecommunity.com RuneScape Community] (forum only, Unofficial RuneScape Encylopedia) ** [http://www.runevillage.com RuneVillage] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.runehq.com Rune Headquarters] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.windowsmobileworld.com/ RuneScape help, tips and guides] (Fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.rsfaces.com RuneScape Faces] (player photos) ** [http://www.rs-tavern.co.uk RuneScape Tavern] (forums) ** [http://rsinn.com/forum/ RS Inn forum] (fan site) ** [http://www.RuneScapia.com/ Runescapia] ** [http://www.runetoday.co.uk Rune Today] (forum) ** [http://www.arenascape.net/ ARENAscape] (fan site, text-browser based MMORPG) ** [http://RuneScape.salmoneus.net/ Sal's Realm of RuneScape] (fan site, guides, forum) ** [http://runesource.cjb.net RuneScape Source] (fan site, guides, forums) ** [http://www.runeweb.net Runeweb] (fan site, item database, guides with pictures, replacing RuneNews) ** [http://www.geocities.com/rune_universe/ Rune Universe] (fansite, guides) ** [http://rsh.dabu4u.com/ RuneScape Hall] (fan site, guides, forums) *RuneScape Clan Websites ** [http://phoenix-elite.tk/ Phoenix Elite]A clan that will probably take anyone level 50 and above ** [http://25thLegion.tk/ The 25th Legion] ** [http://www.industrialgothclan.com/ Industrial Goth Clan] (Pk, Skill-based, and Community clan for goths and others alike.) ** [http://www.themoriquendi.com/ The Moriquendi] ** [http://tsunami2k5.cjb.net/ The Tsunami Clan] ** [http://wecanpkyouclan.cjb.net Pkers Clan] ** [http://www.fear.ingame.org/ FEAR Clan] (fansite, clan community) ** [http://www.optirs.net/ OptiRuneScape] (helpsite, community) ** [http://s4.invisionfree.com/corruption_clan Corruption Clan] (clan community)
-- Kevin 00:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
What is it about this article that seems to attract vandals? -- WCFrancis 19:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What's THIS supposed to mean^? Appearently, some of us may not like this game, and if you want to say so, labeling the overview section "overview of my asshole" isn't exaclty the best way to do it. This is a warning to whoever did this - people here can and will block you from this site if you do it again. I'm not saying I can or will, I'm just warning you. -- Wack'd About Wiki 02:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've been going through the pages, making some changes, minor and large, most notably the Story section. I had trouble calling it Game History or something of that sort, since there really isn't a continuous story, I figured that would be fine. Those knowledgable on the subject, feel free to add your own additions, but I want to keep quest plotlines out of there. Also, if it gets large enough, it could be split into subsections, like with Mythology, History, Lore, Gods, etc. etc. but that's a while off, anyway. ~Redizhot
I say we add the RuneScape gods article onto the RuneScape Series, makes enough sense to me. Redizhot 21:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the growth rate isnt exponetial. It is much harder to gain lvl 98-99 than 45-55
creepy, huh?
I say we add a RuneScape classic article to the series, since it is a much different game from the RuneScape we know today, if anyone would like to aid me, let me know, my username is Redizhot, but am not logged in as it I am using a public computer. I made comments on the "Massive Improvements" comment on here, so I have a few other things I've said there too.
The weapons section (
RuneScape#Weapons) needs a thorough clean-up. Originally it was just a link to a separate article,
RuneScape weapons. However, 219.79.204.39 replaced this link with a proper section of information, which he may or may not have written himself. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but in general it is not wikified. For example, in the source, the "weapons chart" is set out with whitespace. But in the published version of the page, of course, the extra whitespace is ignored and chart does not resemble a chart at all. I didn't want to revert the change back to the original link because it is good, decent information, but this is just a request for it to be cleaned up. Don't worry about it, Robertvan1 reverted it back to normal. Thanks! --
Daverocks 4 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)
Can anyone verify this? This was added by Und0 whose only contributions other than some vandalism to this article consist of a little vanity page in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to present another side of the community aspect of RuneScape. I edited the article to include this reference but it was removed later: http://www.RuneScapehaven.com/bhe/viewtopic.php?t=2591 I think people should be aware of the childishness this game seems to propagate. If Wikipedia finds this entry offensive then please forgive me.
I'll have to agree with some users that the RuneScape articles need a lot of work. Unfortunately, not every experienced Wikipedian plays RuneScape, and those who do play it might not be professional writers. So I think that these articles will take quite to improve. -- Ixfd64 18:04, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
OK I've never played RuneScape because it did not appeal to me at the time. However RuneScape has made its mark in the mmorpg world.
In alot of beta's I play, when it goes p2p people complain about having to pay. And they demand a free to play server. And they give all sorts of arguements like oh look at RuneScape, f2p servers = money.
So I came to wikipedia to find more info but this site is somewhat lacking on the whole "how RuneScape is so succesful even tho its f2p"
Just thought it was a section some of you might want to throw in. Either adding on or as a stub
Jagex have added about 10 new random events.
I'm kinda new here, and I'm also an admin and head of content at a popular RS Help site. I added a picture of DeviousMUD, the first version of the game. I also updated some pictures that were already there.
If I had the time I'd go ahead and add them. The new randoms are: Gift-Givers: Pirate's Combination Lock Freaky Forester Frog Highwayman Quiz Master Certers (Miles, Niles and Giles are BACK!!! They note stuff in your inventory if you don't talk to them) Jekyll and Hyde Lost Pirate Evil Bob
Dangerous randoms: Evil Chicken
Inconveniences: Lost & Found office Dr Ford Farming rake/spade heads flying off
More information can be found at the RuneScape.com > manual > random events page.
Does anyone know the duplication cheat? I know it propbably won't work, but I just want to see what it was.
I heard people saying try to duplicate items by dropping them then standing on them and pressing Ctrl+Alt+Delete or Ctrl+Alt+Enter. Is this true? (Not that I want people to try it)
Aleksei 08:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
One of the most notable comments is:
An enigmatic Wise Old Man lives in Draynor Village. He has recently broken into the neighbouring bank and, apparently, stolen a lot of money and a valuable party hat. Members may watch a 'security recording' of the attack, which provoked a torrent of laughter on the official discussion forums when it was first released. Certainly it isn't every day that you can watch an elderly gentleman amble into a bank, politely request that everyone stay still, murder two bankers and four players, then perform a kung-fu kick on a watchman (unless you live in North Korea).
How can we let such biased trash like this article exist on wikipedia? Anouymous 01:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Its hard to keep out the younger players that genuinely think they are contributing something... True, that substance is not tolerable and I'll delete it immediately (I vouched to delete the entire RuneScape humour section), but this article will constantly attract sush "biased trash". Curran919 07:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I suppose the wording was a bit too hard. I shouldnt have went as to call it trash, but you get my drift. But I still feel it could use some clean up :/ Anouymous 04:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Heres an example. What you posted is the least of our worries as there was no malintent, and they just added something that can easily be deleted, but when somebody comes in and deleted entire sections, replacing it with "A new player called chiped wood", and it has been 30 edits since you last checked up, i have to revert to an edit a week ago, losing a bunch of good information. I can't believe how unregistered users are allowed to edit... its so stupid. Curran919 20:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Today i deleted two unneccesary sections, the RuneScape Humour, one of the less enyclopedic areas of the article, and the chat effects, something that is such a small form of the game and that can be summed up in a sentence when i do some expansions on the community area later tonight or later this week. Also, i understand that my large Random Events update today mnay contradict what im trying to do, but i am addressing priorites as Jagex lays them forth, and i think that it should have its own article in the series. And ill say this here since nobody else visits the discussion pages of the subarticles, all the information in the runes article is either unneccesary, or covered in the RuneScape Weapons and RuneScape Skills articles. Curran919 03:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
noobs these days....lol jk btw i have the new maul!
Removed the following from external links:
My reason: I visited the page, and found it not quite up to the standard expected of a Wikipedia external link, in my opinion. In addition, the page's own counter claimed "426 hits", which I'd say makes it decidedly non-notable. -- Ashenai 16:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, i am the owner of that site. the reason it has so few visits was that it was only started up a few weeks ago. the reason i put it on wikpedia was that solely it is a free encyclopedia, so i can put on what i want, and secondly, i wanted to advertise it so it gets more popular and it will have more than "426 hits"
In the infobox, Rating was "5/5". I'm pretty sure it's meant to be an ESRB or similar rating, like T or M. Some cursory research didn't turn up a deifnitive rating, but one source said RP, so I went with that for now. If you know better, please fix! -- Ashenai 21:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I categorised the links into 3 section so that it is displayed properly and stops link huggers Nitr021- http://icefuzion.net
It is a minigame so it should be in the minigame section. You DO NOT fight other players in the fight caves. So dont try to keep adding it in.
It bothers me how the RuneScape articles include a "cheats" section. There are no cheats for RuneScape - never have been and never will be.
That said, I'm removing it completely.
I would suggest somebody fixes it, if not done by friday i might just decide to delete it. And before you flame me, read the section, you will agree with me -- Super Quinn 14:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It had simply been vandalized (over a month ago), with random bits deleted turning into nonsense, and it seems nobody actually noticed! I have now restored it back to it's pre-vandalised state, since it was actually one of the more factual and 'enclopediac' section before it was destroyed.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I think we should link to other sites with RuneScape info and guides. So, the external links are back.
However, I don't think small sites without many guides should be there. So, they can be removed. But informative/useful sites should really be there.
Added in the combat system during RuneScape's first year. Editers please feel free to improve on this.
Why is * now a box, instead of a list? - has the CSS template been vandalized?
*Ah, I see, a single space indent is a box, not seen that one before, or at least, never remembered it.
And the * was displayed
this needs to be split up into smaller pages. use a disambiguation page? or what should i use?