![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I'd like to note that it's difficult to archive much here because old discussions are brought up a lot. Please make a new subheading for the new discussion unless it's directly related to the old one. Thanks, C omrade T ux 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I see the discussion page has been deleted. Does anyone have anymore information on the events leading up to it? Sardonicone 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need a discussion page about Zezima anyway? I don't feel that it is relative to RuneScape, and it holds no real value, all he is is the #1 ranked player in the game, not a celebrity or something. Damo271190 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I never got that, at all from that page. There were people on both sides of that debate, and it seems draconian at best to delete the page merely because some people felt it not noteworthy.
Sardonicone 01:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Zezima is a celebrity, noobs friggin' worship him. U have not seen the noob shrines to zez? they're all over the place. 74.71.190.253 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Atrocity1313
Good to see now we get a lame link that goes straight to this page, which doesn't include any information on what the person was searching for. Bravo, you guys are so clever. Sardonicone 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people may have heard of "Zezima" but have no idea who he is. " Zezima" now redirects to the RuneScape article, but there was no mention of him, and people would still have no clue why "Zezima" has anything to do with RuneScape. I've therefore added a (very) brief mention of him. -- Ixfd64 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Neither is linking his search term to something that doesn't say anything about him. Are you telling me you find that to be logical? Sardonicone 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You guys we don't need anything about Zezima. This is a general encyclopedia. if you guys want to put soeething about Zezima do it in the runescape wiki. Dappled Sage 03:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if an exception could be made to allow Runevillage to be added, as it is around the same size as the top three as far as members and information.-1 ring—Preceding unsigned comment added by 1 ring ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
RuneHQ | Tip.it | Zybez | RuneVillage | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Members | 51,000 | 163,000 | 79,000 | 41,000 |
Alexa Rank | 2,574 | 3,757 | 3,207 | 190,004 |
I added the member numbers for RuneHQ. I am not registered here so I can't sign. Mario_Freak4— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.57.128 ( talk) 15:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There has been much discussion in the past about the number of fansites included on this page. In reality, it should be ONLY the top (i.e. highest ranked, which does not necessarily mean "best" as best is extremely subjective) fansite that is listed per Wikipedia's own rules. We are already listing three; any more than that could very likely start up the "down with RuneScape" articles people again. In this case, the old adage of "less is more" is the truth. 75.111.205.63 14:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see Zybez as the 3rd most ranked RS site, it's http://runescape.salmoneus.net/ that is the 3rd most ranked RS Site. Zybez was made in 2005 while Sal's was made in 2001 I think & then made a new site which was made in 2004 so Zybez can't be the 3rd most ranked RS Site, whatever the "Alexa" ranking is, it's not that. It doesn't have to just be members on the forums, it's a lot of guests too. -- Kanonkas 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved a page about moderators from its original article that I created (RuneScape Moderators) to the RuneScape page. Feel free to edit it or tell me to edit it.
RuneScape Rocks!---Sleepydragn1---RuneScape Rocks! 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Name one game that has a player moderator. (or something like it)
RuneScape Rocks!---Sleepydragn1---RuneScape Rocks! 13:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken once more on the Runescape Wiki. But, we still could add a bit about mods. Namely, what they do (without going into GG territory), and how to identify them (the crowns). Once again, if we do go that route, we have to avoid sounding like a Game Guide. Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, never mind, found it. C omrade T ux 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's the image, but it didn't turn out very well in the scaling up. C omrade T ux 08:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok I do admit my mistake. It was a bit game guidey. Probally because I'm still new to wikipedia. Thanks for fixing the mistake. RuneScape Rocks!---Sleepydragn1---RuneScape Rocks! 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
i think there needs to be a storyline about rsc, and everything its been through, theres a petition going around, many people re-developing, and how rs2 has effected rsc.
rs2 players seem to forget graphics aren't everything...
this is runescape, which includes rsc and rs2...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.221.99 ( talk) 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've done an SVG version of the RuneScape logo in Inkscape by bitmap-tracing it (I also corrected it a bit to make it look more similar). Is it acceptable to use it on this article? And if so, what template should be applied - Template:non-free logo or Template:trademark (I probably will never understand all of these anti-legal-trouble templates)? Also, I suggest that the logo could go to the "title" field of the infobox and the "image" field could contain a screenshot, perhaps of a new character on Tutorial Island. [ Litis :: Talk to me ] 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
it only says good things about runescape, like how it is free to play and educational, but never says any bad things, like how many players scam and insult others and how bad the graphics are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Level 3 river troll ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Comrade Tux. All MMORPG's will have some 'bad apples' so there is no reason to include information on RuneScape's... err... 'bad things' as such. As well, the bad graphics have been mentioned... they constantly improve graphics, but choose to focus more on gameplay than on graphics. Samir Patel 15:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with River Troll here. It is biased, only shows the good sides of RS, but this article really does lack warnings about scamming and many player's rude behaviors. Yes I know, I'm a bit late for this conversation... ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
RS has no greater problem with scamming than any other MMORPG, or any other online game for that matter. Duping proliferates on Diablo II for instance. On the Halo 3 beta, my brother was repeatedly teamkilled just to get a better gun. Ironically, simply making up criticism for the sake of it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. And don't get me started on the "bad graphics" arguement; I'll just say that if you want World of Warcraft-standard graphics on RS, be prepared for the client to take more than an hour to download. By my calculation, downloading the 6GB WoW client over a 10Mbps connection would take 82 minutes: (6GB x 1024MB per GB) / (10Mbps / 8bits per byte) = 4915.2s = 81.92min. CaptainVindaloo t c e 12:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"RS has no greater problem with scamming than any other MMORPG" - I dont agree with that for a moment, I know this isnt varyfied and all that but its the truth as I see it. I play Rappelz and almost every player seems to be honest & kind the chances are if you ask someone to hold your 100k while you get your other character they will almost definatly be there when you get back. With runescape they would be come in an instant. Also in Runescape there are botters EVERYWHERE again I have never ever seen 1 botter in Rappelz because we know that it is 'wrong' The main problem for Runescape is that it is full of 10 year old kids. The majority of the players in the majority of MMO's are around 15 - 30ish. 81.151.78.61 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Point Taken. I agree that it wasn't always how it is - I think it pretty much began when Jagex aggreed to appear on MiniClip... BIG mistake... I am sorry, I know this cant be included in the article =( ZLiang 08:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
According to its article, Rappelz was only started last November, whereas RS has been around for donkey's years. Of course there won't be as much scamming, because there won't be anywhere near as many players. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of this. Many people have added 'criticism' sections to this article, which have been reverted. Recently, this article was npov tagged by somebody, which was luckily reverted quickly. If someone can find a source or two besides a gamer's review or personal opinion, then by all means add that. But just because you don't like the game, please do not say that this article is 'biased'. Thanks. Samir Patel 02:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, to the person who says that 'the problem is RS is filled with 10 year olds' Jagex has a rule that players must be 13 or older. However, nobody listens to it, and as such they have no way of verifying players ages. Samir Patel 02:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Samir Patel. Don't say it's biased on the actual article unless there's some source that isn't personal opinion. This is one of Wikipedia's most visible articles (as evidenced by the huge amount of vandalism). Putting your own (or someone else's) opinion on Wikipedia is more biased than leaving it off. Bart133 (t) (c) 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I started playing RS at the age of nine. Just commenting. {{ ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12}} 04:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that one person, or even several people, may think that this article is biased in no way means that it is. Suppose that you think that "water" is actually the scientific term for llama hair. That doesn't mean that the article on water should be edited to mention that. To use a more pertinent example, suppose that you don't like pizza. Suppose that you decide to add a "criticism" section to the Pizza article to add that information. That criticism section is useless unless there is some sort of notability to your opinion. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like three new subheaeding
1) The creation of a DeviousMUD subheading and paragraph in the article Runescape.
2) RS Classic - It's a different game, seperate article. Otherwise create a subheading and paragraph.
3) Future, Runescape 3, however not officialy confirmed from Jagex, include future speculation. Fan hopes. Jagex unconfirmation, e.t.c.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.185.102 ( talk) 13:28, 16 June 2007
I see a new frame appeared onto the section regarding rules and cheating, and this frame shows the pictures of all the crowns of the moderators found in Runescape.
However, the image doesn't look like a good point of use from my point of view. It just has white background, and the quality isn't a charm either.
I was thinking that maybe we should move the crowns next to the words stating about moderators. White crowns should be moved next to "Player Moderators", green crowns next to "Forum Moderators", and gold crowns next to "Jagex Moderators".
Comments? ~IS7 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that many of the supposedly 'reliable third-party sources' cited in this article (in fact, more than half) are from Jagex (the owner of RuneScape) or the RuneScape site, as well as a few smaller fan sites. Many of these therefore are not valid credible sources for the RuneScape article as they are not impartial or third-party. Onionguy92 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)onionguy92
I've heard some rumours about a third version coming out with wayy better graphics. True?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.21.1 ( talk) 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've heard that JaGeX will consider RS to be RS3 when every monster/player/NPC is updated. This does make sence since so many monsters are being updated. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that this article needs a section for http://www.runescape.com website itself. What I have came across onto, that this article is mainly talking about the game. Many people interested onto MMORPG information, might be also interested no, how is the website managed along with the game, or does the game have a website at all. ~IS7 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the community section might be in need of some work. Looking from an FA perspective, it may be the weakest part of the article. If we are going to satisfy criterion 1a (and possibly others as well) then there are some things that I think need to be fixed.
First of all, many of the paragraphs seem to be in no particular order. We have a paragraph on ages/nationalities, three paragraphs on the website, and then we go and talk about the economy? There either needs to be some sort of paragraph order or a couple of subheadings to stick the text under. Some of the text needs to be cleaned up as well. As discussed above, we need to find a better image to illustrate moderator identification.
However, the biggest problem in this section is the final paragraph (excluding the paragraphs under the subheading):
Other than the quality of prose, the paragraph is incorrect in some respects, although some points are debatable. It probably needs to be re-written without the invalid/irrelevant points (originally bots were included as well...) or removed altogether.
In addition to this, there are probably other parts of the article that need work, and we need to make sure that everything is sourced as needed. Hopefully we can get to FA soon. C omrade T ux 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"RuneScape isn't specifically targeted at kids and never has been."
This article could definatly use this section added, as others ( The_Realm_Online) have it. Loads of things could be mentioned. The 6.6.06 House bug, Item copying (Story of P.hat), etc... Just for another little interesting section. -- Iatchi 19:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
RSW has an article of about every notable event/riot/glitch. It even has a large disambugation page for all of them, right here. RSW would always like to have more information, so don't hesitate to add more! ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 05:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "In response, Jagex made direct interaction with the client impossible" in the article I find hard to believe. Unless you are getting a direct video feed of the game from the server, making direct interactions with 'impossible' is impossible. There are various techniques that can be used to make this more difficulty though. Subanark 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Every game I know have has had bugs. There is really no reason to add a section to this game as nothing makes them stand out compared to other games, or even other MMORPGs. The only comparative to the major bugs in RuneScape is the "Corrupted Blood Plague" in World of Warcraft's Wiki page, however that affected every server and was the target of a few pieces of major research into epidemics and plagues, whereas this game's PvP-based bug affected one small city on one server, hardly something worth mentioning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 12:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that there are some specific spots for the random events in rs? I have found almost all of them except the Freaky Forester which most people say are from Varrock west bank. An example, you can get full camo easily in the catacombs, so im asking people to retell their experiences of where they got it and what they were doing when they got it. This will help me to improve the data on Random Events on runescape wikia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.178.86 ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 July 2007.
I agree with 142.59.178.86. I have often walked a certain spot near the Draynor bank and gotten a random event. On one occasion I also got the Grave Digger event 3 times in the course of about and hour and 10 minutes, by burying big bones at the Hill Giants outside of Varrock. I could go on about where to find other Random events but I don't want to bore anyone. Link's Awakening 21:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this game ridiculed as often as it is praised, for things like repetitive gameplay, poor community, and having to pay to access the complete game. Perhaps these should be touched on?-- 209.243.31.233 11:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article keeps being vandelised. I think it's been like 5 times in 2 days! Should there be a temporary admin-only protection so the vandals may step off? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 00:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am the author and publisher of a website called TruthScape that includes dozens of comprehensive articles on safe game play, and exposing RuneScape scams, lures and other issues. I think it would be a valuable reference to readers of this article, but am not sure if me putting a link to my own site is considered fair, so I'd like if someone more objective could take a look and decide.
For reference (and disclosure), I am the author of the two articles in footnotes #56 and #59 in the main page on RS; I did not add those links, however. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleskoz ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This article gives a spin on the idea that Macroers and Real-World Traders cannot ever be stopped, with comments such as "Nevertheless, real-world trading and macroing activities will still continue." It would surely be more correct to say "Nevertheless, real-world trading and macroing activities have still continued." Secondly, this article mentions nothing (unless I am mistaken) of the thousands of accounts banned due to breaches of the rules in this way. It almost seems as if those who macro are being left allowed to break the rules according to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is there any mention of rule-breaking in the first place? Surely this happens in any and all games? The Moderators, sure, that's unique, however why the mentions of macros?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Gielnor is not the official name of the land that RuneScape takes place in. Gielnor is the name the land is called by the RuneScape God "Guthix", only people of that 'religion' call it Guthix.
Confirmed by talking to a Void Knight and asking about Gielnor.
We should remove this, most of the NPCs in the game refer to the land as "RuneScape", not as "Gielnor". 156.34.186.37 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, as the player can visit at least one alternate plane at this time (Zanaris, the Lost City), the entire game is not set in Gielinor.
RuneScape is the multiplanar universe. Gielinor is technical name for the main setting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 12:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I had always assumed that Gielinor was the real name for the entire area RuneScape was set in, like the entire world, thier Earth is called Gielinor. Metty 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I would not doubt that the lack of mention of Gielinor is simply to stop confusion on the part of new players...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that the Good Article status has been gained a while ago, and this time we are specifically aiming to the Featured Article status, I think this article is ready to have the fourth peer review. The last peer review based for this article was last held in March, this year, and even on that month the main goal was to achieve the Good Article status, whilist we are now aiming for the Featured Article status.
Some errors from the article could be spotted, especially the need of as many references/cites as possible, but it wouldn't be too bad to hear opinions about other users too, no? ~Iceshark7 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the page for RuneScape private server needs something done to it. Dude902 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well people, after a long break, i'm back. First post in a while: Do we think clan chat will merit anything more than a line or two?
P.S. If the function isnt mem only, im gonna make a group "Wikipedians" for chat. Will confirm after update.
→ p00rleno (lvl 86) ←
ROCKS
C
RS 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Why isnt it added yet?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.192.32 ( talk) 10:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you freaking kidding me? I'm sure we can get a better picture of runescape combat then that. It may seem trivial, but the one up now is just idiotic. 66.69.122.185 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Last post in 7
August 2007, active.
Keep - Last post in 5 August 2007, needs to be left open because the comment in the external links is often questionized.
Archive - Last post in 24
June 2007, issue solved.
Archive - Last post in 2 June 2007, probably not going to have an expected reply.
Archive - Last post in 5 June 2007, probably not going to have an expected reply.
Keep - Last post in 7 August 2007, even if it wouldn't have a purpose, it's still active.
Archive - Last post in 16 June 2007, solved.
Archive - Last post in 23 June 2007. Something needs to be done about this, hopefully everyone intending to make the article better already knows that the crowns need a touch of a new image.
Archive - Last post in 18 June 2007, solved.
Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, there is absolutely no need to discuss about a game which doesn't exist.
Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, I've noted the issue and don't feel a need to keep the discussion open. I'll try to do my best.
Keep - Last post in 4 August 2007, an ongoing issue.
Archive - Last post in 26
July 2007, it will be rebrought if it is noted again, no need to keep as it is solved at this point.
Archive - Last post in 25 July 2007, and even if worthy, uncyclopedic.
Archive - Last post in 9 July 2007, a comment from an IP, not going to have an expected reply.
Archive - Last post in 12 July 2007. Vandalism is annoying, it is probably noted, and this is at the moment too old to be kept.
Archive - Last post in 19 July 2007, the current consensus is to allow only the 3 major fansites of the game.
Archive - Last post in 29 July 2007. We are trying to make the article as valuable to the readers as possible, and it should be not related into any "in-game" religions at all. As far I know,
Gielinor is the only description used to view the world of Runescape as. I don't think this needs any further changing.
Keep - Last post in 1 August 2007, too new for an archive.
Archive - Last post in 4 August 2007. The article is deleted, no need for this comment anymore.
Keep - Last post in 6 August 2007, a recently added feature, worthy of a section for now.
Keep - Last post in 4 August 2007, it's not too old, and there might be a chance for an expected reply.
Keep - It might be useful for some people, knowing that some comments got just archived.
~Iceshark7 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not just follow what has always been done and archive it all? Then start a new "Fansite" category, explaining why it is and is going to remain as it is (that one is constantly being questioned). Then, as other things are brought up, we can send people to the archives to see what has been done in the past. Sometimes, just the sheer fact that "someone else" asked a question can keep a controversy going long after anyone really cares, and there is quite enough controversy about RuneScape without that. Just a thought from one of the former people who is back. Xela Yrag 16:52, 8 August 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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I'd like to note that it's difficult to archive much here because old discussions are brought up a lot. Please make a new subheading for the new discussion unless it's directly related to the old one. Thanks, C omrade T ux 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I see the discussion page has been deleted. Does anyone have anymore information on the events leading up to it? Sardonicone 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need a discussion page about Zezima anyway? I don't feel that it is relative to RuneScape, and it holds no real value, all he is is the #1 ranked player in the game, not a celebrity or something. Damo271190 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I never got that, at all from that page. There were people on both sides of that debate, and it seems draconian at best to delete the page merely because some people felt it not noteworthy.
Sardonicone 01:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Zezima is a celebrity, noobs friggin' worship him. U have not seen the noob shrines to zez? they're all over the place. 74.71.190.253 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Atrocity1313
Good to see now we get a lame link that goes straight to this page, which doesn't include any information on what the person was searching for. Bravo, you guys are so clever. Sardonicone 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people may have heard of "Zezima" but have no idea who he is. " Zezima" now redirects to the RuneScape article, but there was no mention of him, and people would still have no clue why "Zezima" has anything to do with RuneScape. I've therefore added a (very) brief mention of him. -- Ixfd64 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Neither is linking his search term to something that doesn't say anything about him. Are you telling me you find that to be logical? Sardonicone 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You guys we don't need anything about Zezima. This is a general encyclopedia. if you guys want to put soeething about Zezima do it in the runescape wiki. Dappled Sage 03:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if an exception could be made to allow Runevillage to be added, as it is around the same size as the top three as far as members and information.-1 ring—Preceding unsigned comment added by 1 ring ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
RuneHQ | Tip.it | Zybez | RuneVillage | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Members | 51,000 | 163,000 | 79,000 | 41,000 |
Alexa Rank | 2,574 | 3,757 | 3,207 | 190,004 |
I added the member numbers for RuneHQ. I am not registered here so I can't sign. Mario_Freak4— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.57.128 ( talk) 15:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There has been much discussion in the past about the number of fansites included on this page. In reality, it should be ONLY the top (i.e. highest ranked, which does not necessarily mean "best" as best is extremely subjective) fansite that is listed per Wikipedia's own rules. We are already listing three; any more than that could very likely start up the "down with RuneScape" articles people again. In this case, the old adage of "less is more" is the truth. 75.111.205.63 14:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see Zybez as the 3rd most ranked RS site, it's http://runescape.salmoneus.net/ that is the 3rd most ranked RS Site. Zybez was made in 2005 while Sal's was made in 2001 I think & then made a new site which was made in 2004 so Zybez can't be the 3rd most ranked RS Site, whatever the "Alexa" ranking is, it's not that. It doesn't have to just be members on the forums, it's a lot of guests too. -- Kanonkas 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved a page about moderators from its original article that I created (RuneScape Moderators) to the RuneScape page. Feel free to edit it or tell me to edit it.
RuneScape Rocks!---Sleepydragn1---RuneScape Rocks! 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Name one game that has a player moderator. (or something like it)
RuneScape Rocks!---Sleepydragn1---RuneScape Rocks! 13:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken once more on the Runescape Wiki. But, we still could add a bit about mods. Namely, what they do (without going into GG territory), and how to identify them (the crowns). Once again, if we do go that route, we have to avoid sounding like a Game Guide. Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, never mind, found it. C omrade T ux 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's the image, but it didn't turn out very well in the scaling up. C omrade T ux 08:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok I do admit my mistake. It was a bit game guidey. Probally because I'm still new to wikipedia. Thanks for fixing the mistake. RuneScape Rocks!---Sleepydragn1---RuneScape Rocks! 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
i think there needs to be a storyline about rsc, and everything its been through, theres a petition going around, many people re-developing, and how rs2 has effected rsc.
rs2 players seem to forget graphics aren't everything...
this is runescape, which includes rsc and rs2...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.221.99 ( talk) 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've done an SVG version of the RuneScape logo in Inkscape by bitmap-tracing it (I also corrected it a bit to make it look more similar). Is it acceptable to use it on this article? And if so, what template should be applied - Template:non-free logo or Template:trademark (I probably will never understand all of these anti-legal-trouble templates)? Also, I suggest that the logo could go to the "title" field of the infobox and the "image" field could contain a screenshot, perhaps of a new character on Tutorial Island. [ Litis :: Talk to me ] 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
it only says good things about runescape, like how it is free to play and educational, but never says any bad things, like how many players scam and insult others and how bad the graphics are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Level 3 river troll ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Comrade Tux. All MMORPG's will have some 'bad apples' so there is no reason to include information on RuneScape's... err... 'bad things' as such. As well, the bad graphics have been mentioned... they constantly improve graphics, but choose to focus more on gameplay than on graphics. Samir Patel 15:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with River Troll here. It is biased, only shows the good sides of RS, but this article really does lack warnings about scamming and many player's rude behaviors. Yes I know, I'm a bit late for this conversation... ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
RS has no greater problem with scamming than any other MMORPG, or any other online game for that matter. Duping proliferates on Diablo II for instance. On the Halo 3 beta, my brother was repeatedly teamkilled just to get a better gun. Ironically, simply making up criticism for the sake of it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. And don't get me started on the "bad graphics" arguement; I'll just say that if you want World of Warcraft-standard graphics on RS, be prepared for the client to take more than an hour to download. By my calculation, downloading the 6GB WoW client over a 10Mbps connection would take 82 minutes: (6GB x 1024MB per GB) / (10Mbps / 8bits per byte) = 4915.2s = 81.92min. CaptainVindaloo t c e 12:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"RS has no greater problem with scamming than any other MMORPG" - I dont agree with that for a moment, I know this isnt varyfied and all that but its the truth as I see it. I play Rappelz and almost every player seems to be honest & kind the chances are if you ask someone to hold your 100k while you get your other character they will almost definatly be there when you get back. With runescape they would be come in an instant. Also in Runescape there are botters EVERYWHERE again I have never ever seen 1 botter in Rappelz because we know that it is 'wrong' The main problem for Runescape is that it is full of 10 year old kids. The majority of the players in the majority of MMO's are around 15 - 30ish. 81.151.78.61 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Point Taken. I agree that it wasn't always how it is - I think it pretty much began when Jagex aggreed to appear on MiniClip... BIG mistake... I am sorry, I know this cant be included in the article =( ZLiang 08:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
According to its article, Rappelz was only started last November, whereas RS has been around for donkey's years. Of course there won't be as much scamming, because there won't be anywhere near as many players. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of this. Many people have added 'criticism' sections to this article, which have been reverted. Recently, this article was npov tagged by somebody, which was luckily reverted quickly. If someone can find a source or two besides a gamer's review or personal opinion, then by all means add that. But just because you don't like the game, please do not say that this article is 'biased'. Thanks. Samir Patel 02:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, to the person who says that 'the problem is RS is filled with 10 year olds' Jagex has a rule that players must be 13 or older. However, nobody listens to it, and as such they have no way of verifying players ages. Samir Patel 02:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Samir Patel. Don't say it's biased on the actual article unless there's some source that isn't personal opinion. This is one of Wikipedia's most visible articles (as evidenced by the huge amount of vandalism). Putting your own (or someone else's) opinion on Wikipedia is more biased than leaving it off. Bart133 (t) (c) 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I started playing RS at the age of nine. Just commenting. {{ ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12}} 04:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that one person, or even several people, may think that this article is biased in no way means that it is. Suppose that you think that "water" is actually the scientific term for llama hair. That doesn't mean that the article on water should be edited to mention that. To use a more pertinent example, suppose that you don't like pizza. Suppose that you decide to add a "criticism" section to the Pizza article to add that information. That criticism section is useless unless there is some sort of notability to your opinion. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like three new subheaeding
1) The creation of a DeviousMUD subheading and paragraph in the article Runescape.
2) RS Classic - It's a different game, seperate article. Otherwise create a subheading and paragraph.
3) Future, Runescape 3, however not officialy confirmed from Jagex, include future speculation. Fan hopes. Jagex unconfirmation, e.t.c.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.185.102 ( talk) 13:28, 16 June 2007
I see a new frame appeared onto the section regarding rules and cheating, and this frame shows the pictures of all the crowns of the moderators found in Runescape.
However, the image doesn't look like a good point of use from my point of view. It just has white background, and the quality isn't a charm either.
I was thinking that maybe we should move the crowns next to the words stating about moderators. White crowns should be moved next to "Player Moderators", green crowns next to "Forum Moderators", and gold crowns next to "Jagex Moderators".
Comments? ~IS7 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that many of the supposedly 'reliable third-party sources' cited in this article (in fact, more than half) are from Jagex (the owner of RuneScape) or the RuneScape site, as well as a few smaller fan sites. Many of these therefore are not valid credible sources for the RuneScape article as they are not impartial or third-party. Onionguy92 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)onionguy92
I've heard some rumours about a third version coming out with wayy better graphics. True?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.21.1 ( talk) 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've heard that JaGeX will consider RS to be RS3 when every monster/player/NPC is updated. This does make sence since so many monsters are being updated. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that this article needs a section for http://www.runescape.com website itself. What I have came across onto, that this article is mainly talking about the game. Many people interested onto MMORPG information, might be also interested no, how is the website managed along with the game, or does the game have a website at all. ~IS7 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the community section might be in need of some work. Looking from an FA perspective, it may be the weakest part of the article. If we are going to satisfy criterion 1a (and possibly others as well) then there are some things that I think need to be fixed.
First of all, many of the paragraphs seem to be in no particular order. We have a paragraph on ages/nationalities, three paragraphs on the website, and then we go and talk about the economy? There either needs to be some sort of paragraph order or a couple of subheadings to stick the text under. Some of the text needs to be cleaned up as well. As discussed above, we need to find a better image to illustrate moderator identification.
However, the biggest problem in this section is the final paragraph (excluding the paragraphs under the subheading):
Other than the quality of prose, the paragraph is incorrect in some respects, although some points are debatable. It probably needs to be re-written without the invalid/irrelevant points (originally bots were included as well...) or removed altogether.
In addition to this, there are probably other parts of the article that need work, and we need to make sure that everything is sourced as needed. Hopefully we can get to FA soon. C omrade T ux 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"RuneScape isn't specifically targeted at kids and never has been."
This article could definatly use this section added, as others ( The_Realm_Online) have it. Loads of things could be mentioned. The 6.6.06 House bug, Item copying (Story of P.hat), etc... Just for another little interesting section. -- Iatchi 19:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
RSW has an article of about every notable event/riot/glitch. It even has a large disambugation page for all of them, right here. RSW would always like to have more information, so don't hesitate to add more! ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 05:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "In response, Jagex made direct interaction with the client impossible" in the article I find hard to believe. Unless you are getting a direct video feed of the game from the server, making direct interactions with 'impossible' is impossible. There are various techniques that can be used to make this more difficulty though. Subanark 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Every game I know have has had bugs. There is really no reason to add a section to this game as nothing makes them stand out compared to other games, or even other MMORPGs. The only comparative to the major bugs in RuneScape is the "Corrupted Blood Plague" in World of Warcraft's Wiki page, however that affected every server and was the target of a few pieces of major research into epidemics and plagues, whereas this game's PvP-based bug affected one small city on one server, hardly something worth mentioning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 12:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that there are some specific spots for the random events in rs? I have found almost all of them except the Freaky Forester which most people say are from Varrock west bank. An example, you can get full camo easily in the catacombs, so im asking people to retell their experiences of where they got it and what they were doing when they got it. This will help me to improve the data on Random Events on runescape wikia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.178.86 ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 July 2007.
I agree with 142.59.178.86. I have often walked a certain spot near the Draynor bank and gotten a random event. On one occasion I also got the Grave Digger event 3 times in the course of about and hour and 10 minutes, by burying big bones at the Hill Giants outside of Varrock. I could go on about where to find other Random events but I don't want to bore anyone. Link's Awakening 21:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this game ridiculed as often as it is praised, for things like repetitive gameplay, poor community, and having to pay to access the complete game. Perhaps these should be touched on?-- 209.243.31.233 11:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article keeps being vandelised. I think it's been like 5 times in 2 days! Should there be a temporary admin-only protection so the vandals may step off? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 00:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am the author and publisher of a website called TruthScape that includes dozens of comprehensive articles on safe game play, and exposing RuneScape scams, lures and other issues. I think it would be a valuable reference to readers of this article, but am not sure if me putting a link to my own site is considered fair, so I'd like if someone more objective could take a look and decide.
For reference (and disclosure), I am the author of the two articles in footnotes #56 and #59 in the main page on RS; I did not add those links, however. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleskoz ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This article gives a spin on the idea that Macroers and Real-World Traders cannot ever be stopped, with comments such as "Nevertheless, real-world trading and macroing activities will still continue." It would surely be more correct to say "Nevertheless, real-world trading and macroing activities have still continued." Secondly, this article mentions nothing (unless I am mistaken) of the thousands of accounts banned due to breaches of the rules in this way. It almost seems as if those who macro are being left allowed to break the rules according to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is there any mention of rule-breaking in the first place? Surely this happens in any and all games? The Moderators, sure, that's unique, however why the mentions of macros?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Gielnor is not the official name of the land that RuneScape takes place in. Gielnor is the name the land is called by the RuneScape God "Guthix", only people of that 'religion' call it Guthix.
Confirmed by talking to a Void Knight and asking about Gielnor.
We should remove this, most of the NPCs in the game refer to the land as "RuneScape", not as "Gielnor". 156.34.186.37 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, as the player can visit at least one alternate plane at this time (Zanaris, the Lost City), the entire game is not set in Gielinor.
RuneScape is the multiplanar universe. Gielinor is technical name for the main setting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 12:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I had always assumed that Gielinor was the real name for the entire area RuneScape was set in, like the entire world, thier Earth is called Gielinor. Metty 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I would not doubt that the lack of mention of Gielinor is simply to stop confusion on the part of new players...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 ( talk) 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that the Good Article status has been gained a while ago, and this time we are specifically aiming to the Featured Article status, I think this article is ready to have the fourth peer review. The last peer review based for this article was last held in March, this year, and even on that month the main goal was to achieve the Good Article status, whilist we are now aiming for the Featured Article status.
Some errors from the article could be spotted, especially the need of as many references/cites as possible, but it wouldn't be too bad to hear opinions about other users too, no? ~Iceshark7 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the page for RuneScape private server needs something done to it. Dude902 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well people, after a long break, i'm back. First post in a while: Do we think clan chat will merit anything more than a line or two?
P.S. If the function isnt mem only, im gonna make a group "Wikipedians" for chat. Will confirm after update.
→ p00rleno (lvl 86) ←
ROCKS
C
RS 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Why isnt it added yet?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.192.32 ( talk) 10:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you freaking kidding me? I'm sure we can get a better picture of runescape combat then that. It may seem trivial, but the one up now is just idiotic. 66.69.122.185 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Last post in 7
August 2007, active.
Keep - Last post in 5 August 2007, needs to be left open because the comment in the external links is often questionized.
Archive - Last post in 24
June 2007, issue solved.
Archive - Last post in 2 June 2007, probably not going to have an expected reply.
Archive - Last post in 5 June 2007, probably not going to have an expected reply.
Keep - Last post in 7 August 2007, even if it wouldn't have a purpose, it's still active.
Archive - Last post in 16 June 2007, solved.
Archive - Last post in 23 June 2007. Something needs to be done about this, hopefully everyone intending to make the article better already knows that the crowns need a touch of a new image.
Archive - Last post in 18 June 2007, solved.
Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, there is absolutely no need to discuss about a game which doesn't exist.
Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, I've noted the issue and don't feel a need to keep the discussion open. I'll try to do my best.
Keep - Last post in 4 August 2007, an ongoing issue.
Archive - Last post in 26
July 2007, it will be rebrought if it is noted again, no need to keep as it is solved at this point.
Archive - Last post in 25 July 2007, and even if worthy, uncyclopedic.
Archive - Last post in 9 July 2007, a comment from an IP, not going to have an expected reply.
Archive - Last post in 12 July 2007. Vandalism is annoying, it is probably noted, and this is at the moment too old to be kept.
Archive - Last post in 19 July 2007, the current consensus is to allow only the 3 major fansites of the game.
Archive - Last post in 29 July 2007. We are trying to make the article as valuable to the readers as possible, and it should be not related into any "in-game" religions at all. As far I know,
Gielinor is the only description used to view the world of Runescape as. I don't think this needs any further changing.
Keep - Last post in 1 August 2007, too new for an archive.
Archive - Last post in 4 August 2007. The article is deleted, no need for this comment anymore.
Keep - Last post in 6 August 2007, a recently added feature, worthy of a section for now.
Keep - Last post in 4 August 2007, it's not too old, and there might be a chance for an expected reply.
Keep - It might be useful for some people, knowing that some comments got just archived.
~Iceshark7 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not just follow what has always been done and archive it all? Then start a new "Fansite" category, explaining why it is and is going to remain as it is (that one is constantly being questioned). Then, as other things are brought up, we can send people to the archives to see what has been done in the past. Sometimes, just the sheer fact that "someone else" asked a question can keep a controversy going long after anyone really cares, and there is quite enough controversy about RuneScape without that. Just a thought from one of the former people who is back. Xela Yrag 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)