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 | → | Archive 10 |
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.
Um, Swiftswitch is debated over wether it's actually legal or not. -- OSborn
So i archived it so like anything new we wanna talk about do it here. -- Super Quinn 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I thinks it really cool that RuneScape finally introduced a Dragon Hatchet to the game, but I was very dissapointed that they didn't create a quest in order to get this hatchet. Having a monster drop it is a pretty lame and lazy way to introduce it. I think RS should pay more attention to what the players are suggesting. There is a lot of fantastic ideas for quests, weapons and what not in the RS forums.
I agree just this page is not for talking about the game,it's for talking about the article an questions/disputes you have. J.J.Sagnella 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
-- 1. the players suggested the hatchet NOT have a quest to get it 2. who wants to do a quest for a stupid drag hatchet, go get a life and do desert treasure instead. they listen to the players so good its not even funny, they get so many thousands of ideas a day though that they cant possibly put them all on the game at once, but they do it peice by peice, and its just a hatchet, pretty soon it wont be that special anymore itll just be a part of the game, do you think its lame that drag sq's chains, legs, meds, and abby whips are ALL dropped by monsters to?---
A hatchet is not armour such as drag sq's chains, legs, meds you lamer. The way to get a drag hatchet should have to do with the players wood cutting skills.
Response from a player: Many people posted threads in the forums that talked about this situation. The problem with rare items is you have to be patient to get one. If Jagex put them in quests or make them part of a shop it would not be rare anymore. (ANYBODY could get one then, sort of obivious)
Are you retarded? there are several quests where players can get dragon equipment, such as dargon hally, scimitar, dagger and dragon battle axe.
P.S.(Post-Script) Anyway my RuneScape username is Doomedrusher and if anyone asks me nicely I can tell them almost anything. For example: where do we get free gems??? How to get rich (and I mean REAL rich, not noob rich) real fast??? Where is Onyx??? And many other hard questions that many old RS p2p players don't even know.
Anyone that has been to a RuneScape fan site can answer those questions you noob.
Er... Dragon Weapons aren't rare which whereas Dragon Chain, legs, skirt and helm are. The differences if you didn't notice is the armour is through monster drops as opposed to the weapons being accessed through quests. That's how Jagex regulates rarity anyway. Secondly the hatchet is widely regarded as the most pointless update ever made when Jagex confirmed that it is on-par with a standard Rune hatchet when it comes to woodcutting speed and quality. This is precisely why the monetary value of the Dragon Hatchet bombed within days and although you could consider it "rare" hardly anyone cares enough about it with the exception of "hardcore" pkers who are seeking the hatchet's rather amusing "special attack". Now that I've cleared things up, could everyone stop reverting to calling each other "lamers"? sheesh. --
RBlowes 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I also removed the "In game banner advertisements" section, as it advocates the potential interference with one of Jagex' revenue streams. The ethics of it has nothing to do with the removal, however Wikipedia doesn't have articles describing how to build a Macrovision killer, or how to rip DVDs, so it shouldn't have instructions on "how to block banners". Those who want to, can look somewhere else. If whoever is adding it really wants to add instructions, make a site and link to it in external links. Someone42 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
They seem very similar with the use of runes instead of "regular" magic etc. Unfortunately I only own the "bad" edition, set in pseudo-Europe and not any of the good books with its own world. Information about the ttrpg is hard to come by on the net, it's all about the java-version. So, is there a connection or have the mmorpg nicked the trademarks of/been inspired by a tabletop game I used to play in the early nineties? Anyway, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the RuneScape-pages so a little disambig-note somewhere would be fine. -- Kaleissin 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
there are tons of games that use "runes" instead of regular magic, diablo has runes, gauntlet has runes, theyre everywhere, its just something based on the beginning of rpg's----------
-thanks
In the introduction, the sentence "Being a free player on RuneScape is one of the worst things possible." should probably be removed, or be changed to a NPOV version. Also, the opening sentence claims RuneScape has over 100,000 players - I assume this should be over 1,000,000 players, since under Overview it claims over 160,000 can be online at peak hours. -- PeruvianLlama( spit) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Im just removing some of the edits made by somebody who obviously does not like the game such as 'fagex' and 'Low IQ, Non-Existant Frontal Lobe Functions, Fused Cerebellam ,' from the information box. Somebody must have had a bad experiance with the game.
i'll take this chance to say that there wouldn't BE 2.8 million players if there wasn't free world, if i never played free i would have never become a member, its like a big sample to get people into the game, nobody's going to pay for a game if they dont even know what it is-------- if they really like the game they can become members, thats where all the cool stuff is anywayz-----
-holocaust (5 year RuneScape veteran)
Is this pictue copyrighted? (image deleted) The tip.it website says that nothing on it can be repoduced without consent.
Its a screenshot i took, its not a copyfight vio, becasue the subject isnt a picture, its something you enter text in! Bourbons3 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
if the site even fails to provide the latest quest guide within a certain period, it just seems that the traffic isn't really high Gspbeetle 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above article was nominated for deletion (the result was to merge it here). I did so, creating a new section called "Monsters", which contains text from the KBD article, as well as from other monsters who have articles. Feel free to edit it at will, or fix any mistakes I may have made (I don't play RuneScape, so...) Ral315 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL you wrote an article about a game you dont even play, i would refrain from doing that.... -gravity -5year RS veteran
I am going to modify the www.tip.it comment as itsn't NPOV in nature.
Philip
I think we are starting to push the bounds of the external links guidelines. I know User:Someone42 and I had discussed privately before the establishment of an OpenDirectory portal...and I see there is a link to one in that section. Not knowing whats involved to be able to edit there, can I get a consensus reading on whether the list should stay or be pared down significantly. It just seems that we are on a slippery slope, and allowing even one dynamic signature or RuneScape quest info site leads to a huge list in just a week or two. Thoughts? -- Syrthiss 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Useful: high traffic sites eg.runehq Useless: World Changer programs Useless: Websites which are clans Useless: Websites which have copied guides What do you think of that suggestion? J.J.Sagnella 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
note that some fansite (ie:high traffic) provide reference information with greater details, which some are limited by the wiki formating... Gspbeetle 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Created a members quests page, so its no longer red on the links box at the start of the article. check it out - Bourbons3 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
where has it gone?? - Bourbons3 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. Apparently too large to put in an encyclopedia, not needed. I personally disagree. J.J.Sagnella 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we'd better place the infobox 1 step higher, and the first image more below. I feel kind a like annoyed when i see the top of this article.
SidewinderXP2 Talk to Me! 14 dec 2005 4:41 PM (CEST)
I think they should be added to the free quests page. I was looking up info on them and they werent there anymore =(
Note: i added this page useing the code i saw above it, so if its a little messed up sry i hope to fix it soon
Stoutn 16 Dec 2005 2:55 PM (Central Time Zone)
Disagree: Any idea how large that would be? J.J.Sagnella 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Yesterday i edited a part of the text, it currently says there are 105 servers, but i changed it to 106. I play RuneScape everyday, i know there are 106 worlds, but someone changed it back to 105.
Just thought i would point it out.
maddog 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have created a RuneScape Quests article which purely lists the quests for both free and p2p players, describes what a quest is and how difficulty is decided. It is not a game guide. The Free RuneScape quests page is also up for deletion, becasue it acts as a game guide (which Wikipedia is not) and is being replaced with the RuneScape Quests page. Becasue of this, the These articles are part of the RuneScape series box needs to have the Free RuneScape quests page changed to RuneScape Quests - Bourbons3 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Where did the categories all go?... Mike 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
should jagex be under the RuneScape series box?
that make it sound like it is %100 safe... nothing online is that safe... inface nothing is that safe at all... i dont see any reason that the word safe shouldn't be changed to "safer than" under the pricing section... -- cattrain 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to nominate this article be on the Counter Vandalism Unit's "watch" page - this article suffers from several vandalism attacks per day it seems. Opinions? Mike 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Seconded The page's been vandalised twice since I've checked last night... -- RBlowes 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. ( You can help!)
Just because The Black Hole Experience is not huge doesn't mean it's worthless, and for that matter I don't think any of the other fansite should be "cleaned out" just because they're not mammoth either. Mike 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
So my idea is to add various categories to organize the external links into various categories, and add a description for each site. So we'd have the 5 most popular sites at the top (Tipit, Runevillage, Runehq, Zybez, etc) with a description for each. Then we'd have standard helpsites (Nomad Gaming, RSwriter, Runeweb, Runemasters, etc) with a description of each. Then there would be communities/clansites (BHE, Pigpen, etc) with a description for each. At the bottom, there would be other sites that have things like signature calculator sites, such as RuneScape Bits and Bytes. Dtm142 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
And yes, the major 5 do deserve to be there more than others as they have put more work in than other sites. And they are more useful to people. By the way, have a look at the proposed revision at the bottom of this page, and leave your comment, if you think it is not that good. J.J.Sagnella 16:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't say that the top 5 are the most useful, because that is not necessarily true. I have noticed a lot of information on those sites to be untrue or incomplete.
If lots of people keep adding their links, we will simply clean out the bottom of the page and go back to having only the official links. Then people will add their links on that page and say why they should be there on this talk page. It seems like a good system to me.
Once again, the top 5 sites are no more official than any of the others. Dtm142 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It's the content that matters. So keep all of the sites that have good content. Dtm142 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm writing this from college, by the way. 204.225.7.15 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This article cannot seem to go 2 hours without being vandalised by someone.
I hereby propose that it be protected from vandalism, or protected from anonymous edits.
Comments, please. Mike 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I already nominated it for semi-protection. It seems that isn't necessary for this article. Check the submission out. Kevin 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It is frequently vandalized, and as a very popular wikipedia article, the rs article needs all the help it can get to remain good.
Agree As I said before, the page is being trashed enough. Signing here so that it'll count for this section -- RBlowes 03:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
In the main RS article, it says that RS2 (RS3D) was released on March 29th. Later in the article, in the History and Development section, it says that it was released on March 17th. Which one is correct, if either?
-
Russoc4
You are obviously a fool, since a) your second sentence is untrue and b) you wrote that whole thing as a title. Vimescarrot 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
False Seriously, legitimate fansites (i.e: Rsbandb, tip.it, Runehq) do not contain viruses or keyloggers nor do they steal or hack your account. Illegitimate fansites are blatantly obvious as they ask for your username/password. That being said if you're asked for your account name don't give it, if in doubt... etc. -- RBlowes 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Not allowing people to change the main article is a violation of wiki rules. Why not just lock all the Wikipedia articles? because it would no longer be a wiki thats why.
- Russoc4
Jagex is creating major random lagg in several areas now in order to wreck macroers and autoers. RuneScape is going down the shitter.
Whoever posted that is clearlly wrong, Jagex have just banned over 15000 people, while the game plays normal. ANy lag must be caused by your own computer Dracion 19:13, 19 January 2006
This site it an outcropping of RuneScape and should be included here, since it has little value apart from RuneScape.-- Esprit15d 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
As it is evident to see, the external links are bubbling out of control for the second time. It is now yet again, a clutter of links and almost useless to a reader as there are so many. I have a proposed to template for all these links.
The first 3 paragraphs will remain the same, clearly leaving all review, official affiliates and the website.
The fansites part is the one which causes problems. The proposed suggestion is to permantly delete all other links except the 5 high-traffic websites. That means all websites will be removed no matter how many times they are added, except:Runhehq,Sal's realm of RuneScape,runevillage, tip.it and zybez.
Post your ideas or comments here as, quite simply that amount of fanistes is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. J.J.Sagnella 11:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Vimescarrot 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If you have your site there, it guarantees free traffic. Don't say it doesn't because it does. That's not what it's there for, but it guarantees free traffic nonetheless. What you are trying to do is get rid of the links to the sites that are not in the top 5. This guarantees free traffic for them, but not for any of the other sites. This is not fair. Pretty much everyone knows about them, but you're saying that they should get free traffic because you think they are better. While the sites that could actually use free traffic are not good enough, simply repeated information, and that we're just using Wikipedia to advertise.
The top 5 sites can get special mention. But I really think that the external link section should be categorized. Dtm142 23:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Apparently not very many people add their sites to that article. Just take out the whole fansite section, or link it to a directory of fansites. Just including the top 5 is not a solution. Dtm142 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh... Why is this (below) in there? Is it just for show? Wouldnt this just encourage people to trade money on ebay?
"Using the going rates on eBay, the value of the RuneScape economy can be roughly measured in real-world currencies. Based on data obtained on 17th January 2006, one GP is worth about 0.000008548 US dollars (£0.000004828). Thus if every one of the 2.8 million players of RuneScape had a net worth (the economic value of both items and GP) of 100,000 GP, then the entire RuneScape economy would be worth approximately 2.4 million US Dollars (£1.35m)."
Back to the point. Think about something like political views. Someone is critising the government of country A in country B, country A would say it is illegal but country B has no reason to mute that person. country A might ban him or arrest him afterwards, but that is out of the point. GSPbeetle 06:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of reverting the last sentence back and back again, jmods simply do have private chat.
Here's a quite recent screenshot I took myself as proof of this:
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/1192/modmog43kv.png
Just delete the whole sentence if it is not sure they can or cannot do private chat, untill someone has confirmed source. GSPbeetle 11:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Despite this, most "pures" have a significant disadvantage against a player with balanced combat levels - they cannot effectively defeat anyone with a decent Defence level, which limits them to only being able to take on other pures. In pure vs. pure combat, the outcome of a duel is often decided by whoever lands the first unguarded hit.
I removed that previously and somebody has put it back. There is no proof to this statement and it is just a personal, uninformed opinion, which is not valid.
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 | → | Archive 10 |
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.
Um, Swiftswitch is debated over wether it's actually legal or not. -- OSborn
So i archived it so like anything new we wanna talk about do it here. -- Super Quinn 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I thinks it really cool that RuneScape finally introduced a Dragon Hatchet to the game, but I was very dissapointed that they didn't create a quest in order to get this hatchet. Having a monster drop it is a pretty lame and lazy way to introduce it. I think RS should pay more attention to what the players are suggesting. There is a lot of fantastic ideas for quests, weapons and what not in the RS forums.
I agree just this page is not for talking about the game,it's for talking about the article an questions/disputes you have. J.J.Sagnella 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
-- 1. the players suggested the hatchet NOT have a quest to get it 2. who wants to do a quest for a stupid drag hatchet, go get a life and do desert treasure instead. they listen to the players so good its not even funny, they get so many thousands of ideas a day though that they cant possibly put them all on the game at once, but they do it peice by peice, and its just a hatchet, pretty soon it wont be that special anymore itll just be a part of the game, do you think its lame that drag sq's chains, legs, meds, and abby whips are ALL dropped by monsters to?---
A hatchet is not armour such as drag sq's chains, legs, meds you lamer. The way to get a drag hatchet should have to do with the players wood cutting skills.
Response from a player: Many people posted threads in the forums that talked about this situation. The problem with rare items is you have to be patient to get one. If Jagex put them in quests or make them part of a shop it would not be rare anymore. (ANYBODY could get one then, sort of obivious)
Are you retarded? there are several quests where players can get dragon equipment, such as dargon hally, scimitar, dagger and dragon battle axe.
P.S.(Post-Script) Anyway my RuneScape username is Doomedrusher and if anyone asks me nicely I can tell them almost anything. For example: where do we get free gems??? How to get rich (and I mean REAL rich, not noob rich) real fast??? Where is Onyx??? And many other hard questions that many old RS p2p players don't even know.
Anyone that has been to a RuneScape fan site can answer those questions you noob.
Er... Dragon Weapons aren't rare which whereas Dragon Chain, legs, skirt and helm are. The differences if you didn't notice is the armour is through monster drops as opposed to the weapons being accessed through quests. That's how Jagex regulates rarity anyway. Secondly the hatchet is widely regarded as the most pointless update ever made when Jagex confirmed that it is on-par with a standard Rune hatchet when it comes to woodcutting speed and quality. This is precisely why the monetary value of the Dragon Hatchet bombed within days and although you could consider it "rare" hardly anyone cares enough about it with the exception of "hardcore" pkers who are seeking the hatchet's rather amusing "special attack". Now that I've cleared things up, could everyone stop reverting to calling each other "lamers"? sheesh. --
RBlowes 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I also removed the "In game banner advertisements" section, as it advocates the potential interference with one of Jagex' revenue streams. The ethics of it has nothing to do with the removal, however Wikipedia doesn't have articles describing how to build a Macrovision killer, or how to rip DVDs, so it shouldn't have instructions on "how to block banners". Those who want to, can look somewhere else. If whoever is adding it really wants to add instructions, make a site and link to it in external links. Someone42 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
They seem very similar with the use of runes instead of "regular" magic etc. Unfortunately I only own the "bad" edition, set in pseudo-Europe and not any of the good books with its own world. Information about the ttrpg is hard to come by on the net, it's all about the java-version. So, is there a connection or have the mmorpg nicked the trademarks of/been inspired by a tabletop game I used to play in the early nineties? Anyway, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the RuneScape-pages so a little disambig-note somewhere would be fine. -- Kaleissin 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
there are tons of games that use "runes" instead of regular magic, diablo has runes, gauntlet has runes, theyre everywhere, its just something based on the beginning of rpg's----------
-thanks
In the introduction, the sentence "Being a free player on RuneScape is one of the worst things possible." should probably be removed, or be changed to a NPOV version. Also, the opening sentence claims RuneScape has over 100,000 players - I assume this should be over 1,000,000 players, since under Overview it claims over 160,000 can be online at peak hours. -- PeruvianLlama( spit) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Im just removing some of the edits made by somebody who obviously does not like the game such as 'fagex' and 'Low IQ, Non-Existant Frontal Lobe Functions, Fused Cerebellam ,' from the information box. Somebody must have had a bad experiance with the game.
i'll take this chance to say that there wouldn't BE 2.8 million players if there wasn't free world, if i never played free i would have never become a member, its like a big sample to get people into the game, nobody's going to pay for a game if they dont even know what it is-------- if they really like the game they can become members, thats where all the cool stuff is anywayz-----
-holocaust (5 year RuneScape veteran)
Is this pictue copyrighted? (image deleted) The tip.it website says that nothing on it can be repoduced without consent.
Its a screenshot i took, its not a copyfight vio, becasue the subject isnt a picture, its something you enter text in! Bourbons3 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
if the site even fails to provide the latest quest guide within a certain period, it just seems that the traffic isn't really high Gspbeetle 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above article was nominated for deletion (the result was to merge it here). I did so, creating a new section called "Monsters", which contains text from the KBD article, as well as from other monsters who have articles. Feel free to edit it at will, or fix any mistakes I may have made (I don't play RuneScape, so...) Ral315 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL you wrote an article about a game you dont even play, i would refrain from doing that.... -gravity -5year RS veteran
I am going to modify the www.tip.it comment as itsn't NPOV in nature.
Philip
I think we are starting to push the bounds of the external links guidelines. I know User:Someone42 and I had discussed privately before the establishment of an OpenDirectory portal...and I see there is a link to one in that section. Not knowing whats involved to be able to edit there, can I get a consensus reading on whether the list should stay or be pared down significantly. It just seems that we are on a slippery slope, and allowing even one dynamic signature or RuneScape quest info site leads to a huge list in just a week or two. Thoughts? -- Syrthiss 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Useful: high traffic sites eg.runehq Useless: World Changer programs Useless: Websites which are clans Useless: Websites which have copied guides What do you think of that suggestion? J.J.Sagnella 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
note that some fansite (ie:high traffic) provide reference information with greater details, which some are limited by the wiki formating... Gspbeetle 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Created a members quests page, so its no longer red on the links box at the start of the article. check it out - Bourbons3 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
where has it gone?? - Bourbons3 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. Apparently too large to put in an encyclopedia, not needed. I personally disagree. J.J.Sagnella 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we'd better place the infobox 1 step higher, and the first image more below. I feel kind a like annoyed when i see the top of this article.
SidewinderXP2 Talk to Me! 14 dec 2005 4:41 PM (CEST)
I think they should be added to the free quests page. I was looking up info on them and they werent there anymore =(
Note: i added this page useing the code i saw above it, so if its a little messed up sry i hope to fix it soon
Stoutn 16 Dec 2005 2:55 PM (Central Time Zone)
Disagree: Any idea how large that would be? J.J.Sagnella 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Yesterday i edited a part of the text, it currently says there are 105 servers, but i changed it to 106. I play RuneScape everyday, i know there are 106 worlds, but someone changed it back to 105.
Just thought i would point it out.
maddog 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have created a RuneScape Quests article which purely lists the quests for both free and p2p players, describes what a quest is and how difficulty is decided. It is not a game guide. The Free RuneScape quests page is also up for deletion, becasue it acts as a game guide (which Wikipedia is not) and is being replaced with the RuneScape Quests page. Becasue of this, the These articles are part of the RuneScape series box needs to have the Free RuneScape quests page changed to RuneScape Quests - Bourbons3 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Where did the categories all go?... Mike 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
should jagex be under the RuneScape series box?
that make it sound like it is %100 safe... nothing online is that safe... inface nothing is that safe at all... i dont see any reason that the word safe shouldn't be changed to "safer than" under the pricing section... -- cattrain 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to nominate this article be on the Counter Vandalism Unit's "watch" page - this article suffers from several vandalism attacks per day it seems. Opinions? Mike 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Seconded The page's been vandalised twice since I've checked last night... -- RBlowes 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. ( You can help!)
Just because The Black Hole Experience is not huge doesn't mean it's worthless, and for that matter I don't think any of the other fansite should be "cleaned out" just because they're not mammoth either. Mike 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
So my idea is to add various categories to organize the external links into various categories, and add a description for each site. So we'd have the 5 most popular sites at the top (Tipit, Runevillage, Runehq, Zybez, etc) with a description for each. Then we'd have standard helpsites (Nomad Gaming, RSwriter, Runeweb, Runemasters, etc) with a description of each. Then there would be communities/clansites (BHE, Pigpen, etc) with a description for each. At the bottom, there would be other sites that have things like signature calculator sites, such as RuneScape Bits and Bytes. Dtm142 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
And yes, the major 5 do deserve to be there more than others as they have put more work in than other sites. And they are more useful to people. By the way, have a look at the proposed revision at the bottom of this page, and leave your comment, if you think it is not that good. J.J.Sagnella 16:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't say that the top 5 are the most useful, because that is not necessarily true. I have noticed a lot of information on those sites to be untrue or incomplete.
If lots of people keep adding their links, we will simply clean out the bottom of the page and go back to having only the official links. Then people will add their links on that page and say why they should be there on this talk page. It seems like a good system to me.
Once again, the top 5 sites are no more official than any of the others. Dtm142 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It's the content that matters. So keep all of the sites that have good content. Dtm142 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm writing this from college, by the way. 204.225.7.15 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This article cannot seem to go 2 hours without being vandalised by someone.
I hereby propose that it be protected from vandalism, or protected from anonymous edits.
Comments, please. Mike 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I already nominated it for semi-protection. It seems that isn't necessary for this article. Check the submission out. Kevin 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It is frequently vandalized, and as a very popular wikipedia article, the rs article needs all the help it can get to remain good.
Agree As I said before, the page is being trashed enough. Signing here so that it'll count for this section -- RBlowes 03:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
In the main RS article, it says that RS2 (RS3D) was released on March 29th. Later in the article, in the History and Development section, it says that it was released on March 17th. Which one is correct, if either?
-
Russoc4
You are obviously a fool, since a) your second sentence is untrue and b) you wrote that whole thing as a title. Vimescarrot 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
False Seriously, legitimate fansites (i.e: Rsbandb, tip.it, Runehq) do not contain viruses or keyloggers nor do they steal or hack your account. Illegitimate fansites are blatantly obvious as they ask for your username/password. That being said if you're asked for your account name don't give it, if in doubt... etc. -- RBlowes 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Not allowing people to change the main article is a violation of wiki rules. Why not just lock all the Wikipedia articles? because it would no longer be a wiki thats why.
- Russoc4
Jagex is creating major random lagg in several areas now in order to wreck macroers and autoers. RuneScape is going down the shitter.
Whoever posted that is clearlly wrong, Jagex have just banned over 15000 people, while the game plays normal. ANy lag must be caused by your own computer Dracion 19:13, 19 January 2006
This site it an outcropping of RuneScape and should be included here, since it has little value apart from RuneScape.-- Esprit15d 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
As it is evident to see, the external links are bubbling out of control for the second time. It is now yet again, a clutter of links and almost useless to a reader as there are so many. I have a proposed to template for all these links.
The first 3 paragraphs will remain the same, clearly leaving all review, official affiliates and the website.
The fansites part is the one which causes problems. The proposed suggestion is to permantly delete all other links except the 5 high-traffic websites. That means all websites will be removed no matter how many times they are added, except:Runhehq,Sal's realm of RuneScape,runevillage, tip.it and zybez.
Post your ideas or comments here as, quite simply that amount of fanistes is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. J.J.Sagnella 11:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Vimescarrot 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If you have your site there, it guarantees free traffic. Don't say it doesn't because it does. That's not what it's there for, but it guarantees free traffic nonetheless. What you are trying to do is get rid of the links to the sites that are not in the top 5. This guarantees free traffic for them, but not for any of the other sites. This is not fair. Pretty much everyone knows about them, but you're saying that they should get free traffic because you think they are better. While the sites that could actually use free traffic are not good enough, simply repeated information, and that we're just using Wikipedia to advertise.
The top 5 sites can get special mention. But I really think that the external link section should be categorized. Dtm142 23:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Apparently not very many people add their sites to that article. Just take out the whole fansite section, or link it to a directory of fansites. Just including the top 5 is not a solution. Dtm142 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh... Why is this (below) in there? Is it just for show? Wouldnt this just encourage people to trade money on ebay?
"Using the going rates on eBay, the value of the RuneScape economy can be roughly measured in real-world currencies. Based on data obtained on 17th January 2006, one GP is worth about 0.000008548 US dollars (£0.000004828). Thus if every one of the 2.8 million players of RuneScape had a net worth (the economic value of both items and GP) of 100,000 GP, then the entire RuneScape economy would be worth approximately 2.4 million US Dollars (£1.35m)."
Back to the point. Think about something like political views. Someone is critising the government of country A in country B, country A would say it is illegal but country B has no reason to mute that person. country A might ban him or arrest him afterwards, but that is out of the point. GSPbeetle 06:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of reverting the last sentence back and back again, jmods simply do have private chat.
Here's a quite recent screenshot I took myself as proof of this:
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/1192/modmog43kv.png
Just delete the whole sentence if it is not sure they can or cannot do private chat, untill someone has confirmed source. GSPbeetle 11:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Despite this, most "pures" have a significant disadvantage against a player with balanced combat levels - they cannot effectively defeat anyone with a decent Defence level, which limits them to only being able to take on other pures. In pure vs. pure combat, the outcome of a duel is often decided by whoever lands the first unguarded hit.
I removed that previously and somebody has put it back. There is no proof to this statement and it is just a personal, uninformed opinion, which is not valid.