![]() | This page 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. |
Talk about how the Grand Exchange works such as if people buy items on max price, the market price will rise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GotMoney999 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Make sure that you read the artical before you give any ideas because they may be on the page already GotMoney999 ( talk) 22:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, no i wasn't being specific, I was directing it to the "editor" or request person for this article. Sorry for the inconvenience. 99.154.0.165 ( talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help in making the article of Runescape better for the community. GotMoney999 ( talk) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
it ses that it has 25 skills but now it has 26 due to the new skill called dungeoneering so please change it in the skill section thank u I pker lol x ( talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Runescape HD mode now supports DirectX rendering. I edited the article to include it under the sub-section 'graphics and sound', and would welcome any improvement ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usbdriver ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Please add "Jagex can now celebrate becasue today (15th May, 2010) marks the 3000th day since the release of RuneScape in 2001." after "RuneScape is a fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) released in 2001 by Jagex Ltd."
Surfjamaica ( talk) 12:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, which release date are we going to use in the lead? If we're using the initial beta release, 4 January 2001, then it wasn't released by Jagex. But then again, maybe the actual non-beta date should be used. I'm not sure...-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Excuse me I wanted to ask you if I (or you) can add dungeoneering on this.you did so well describing it too!i didn't even know about a RuneScape classic!but dungeoneering was just recently made.Can you? Heres My Edit:
Dungeoneering The Dungeoneering skill was released on the day of April 20th,2010.This skill was released to mainly bring friendly Quests to the players of runescape.The Home of the Dungeoneering Skill is Daemonhiem.To start and/or Have a Raid you must Have the ring of Kinship.With this ring you can check your Journal,Teleport to Daemonhiem, or start a party.A party is a group of players doing a raid or just simply going solo.To have a party you must invite people only in the lobby of Daemonhiem.A not so hidden secret is if you look at your party log and click a players name you can see there stats,inventory,and much more.You must also choose a complexity that is acceptable for your team.The complexity levels are 1-6.Remember,The higher the Complexity,the harder it is!For an area,you must choose a floor.The floors can be from floor 1 all the way up to maybe even 70!Almost finally there are challenges.Challenges mostly Appear in complexities of 5 or 6. Challenges are puzzles that you need to figure out to advance a door.As i like to call them,Blockages are another thing.Blockages Are Things that can either be Wood,Rocks, or maybe even a spirit.To get through these doors you must have a high level of any skill from Rune Crafting,Magic,Fire making,and Mining.Sometimes Even Crafting.For the last there are Bosses,Monsters,and Keys.Keys and any shape and color that you need to unlock a door.Some keys are found in bonus rooms (Challenges and Blockages).The monsters in Daemonhiem are much different from the ones in The outside area of Runescape.The monsters in the dungeons Seem to drop large amounts of items,including money.The money and items seem very Beautiful and great in this game,and are.but you don't get to keep them.After you win and want to leave the dungeon the items you had in the dungeon will be gone.you can Maybe get (or make) them back once you play again.Finally,bosses.The Bosses in this game are sometimes either a higher level than you or lower.Most of them are very unique.One of the hardest and common Bosses for New Dungeoneerers is the Gluttonous Behemoth.This monster Attacks you with brute strength and power.The worst part is if your not standing in front of his food then we will heal very quickly and theres is nothing you can do about it.Once you beat the boss you get a certain item.If you like it and want to keep it throughout The dungeon Realm,right click and click bind.To bind another item you must have a high level in dungeoneering. ShuShumuX3 ( talk) 02:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
In 'player reception', although stating that player versus player was removed in 2007, player versus player was infact re-established in 2009.
Chiffmonkey (
talk)
10:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have posted replies to comments made at the last peer review. Comments should be made here as the peer review is now archived. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Not even one measly sentence on unique Bounty World +1 drops? (Rune Tip It, RunescapeWiki, ect.) Think about it? < http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/pvp_worlds>
I'm sorry, could you please delete one of these two???
I added the second paragraph the the player reception section to off-set the clearly biased first paragraph, but this is a fairly consistent theme. The quotes used throughout are very out of date, especially the "not easy on the eyes" one - made long before the High Detail update. Large parts of the article should be rewritten to reflect the current state of the game. Finding new quotes as well is necessary, I know of several useful ones that I will add in. Lewis06593 ( talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I was just looking at that page, and no, it's not in the article. Silly question, but how does it relate to player reception? Or did you want to use it in the bit of the article on fansites? 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
(will also post on WT:VG) I do intend to change the protection level from semi-protection to Level 1 Pending Changes when the software gets turned on, which should be shortly (unless another admin beats me to the punch, that is). – MuZemike 22:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I only started watching this page to help with the pending changes trial, so forgive me if this is a stupid question: Why is this article such a target for vandals. -23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Now that the peer review has been closed, we should look at the images being used in the article, and whether they meet the non-free content criteria. We presently have 5 images being used under fair-use, and per criteria 3 this is too many and one or two should be removed.
The 5 images affected are:
Personally, I would definitely lose the image of a random event, but that may not be enough. Does anyone else want to share their opinion? 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 14:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, I reverted the removal of some images today in the hopes of getting further discussion. So, to pick at the points:
First, my apologies - I had intended to close this some time ago, but I have no Internet access at home and won't do for some time, so I've thought about it some more.
To that end, unless someone argues otherwise, these images will be removed. Anyone who wants to offer a new opinion can revert be, but please explain why. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is not organized at all, I'll make a list of suggestions that (I hope that) should be considered for its improvement:
The problem of writing a good article about games and online games is that inside wikipedia there are few article for reference, template and style, but there are (somewhat) well written articles, and runescape's one should follow they criteria. These include EverQuest, Warhammer Online and World of Warcraft.
Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 05:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
http://belo.dk/ is a new fansite. Is it posible to add the link? Stras77 ( talk) 09:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
I would like to edit some of this information because i find some of it incorrect.
Dredpk (
talk)
18:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Betrayal at Falador, a novel based on RuneScape, was originally released as a limited-edition in 2008 and has now been mass-released as a paperback. Unfortunately, the last article on it didn't make the grade, but I've found some secondary sources and think it might have a chance. Before I recreate the article, I want to be sure it's good enough (or not).
I've created a subpage at User:1ForTheMoney/Betrayal at Falador. Please feel free to comment. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, not a big change, just noticed as I was skimming the article that you called runes "runestones." I play runescape and that's not what there called. Maybe just change to runes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolrok ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Specifically the "Random events" and "Economy" sections. RE aren't even that big within the game, and I don't see why we should have more then a couple sentences in the article. Same with economy. Does that really need it's own section? I really don't think we'll ever get to GA with stuff like that in there. Furthermore, could we merge and shorten "Chat system" into "Community"? and then maybe rename that section (Player interaction, Player community, etc.)? Nolelover It's football season! 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
We could put the mini-games section under Quests....and I wouldn't feel bad about leaving out the muting point. Anyways, here's what we have so far:
Also:
Your thoughts? Nolelover It's football season! 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
One more :). Is the last paragraph of PvP combat (on bounty worlds) really necessary? Nolelover It's football season! 01:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
While the article still has some cruft and sourcing issues, this article appears to be vastly improved from the last time I saw it. It is far better off than the other MMORPG articles I have seen, that is for sure. IAmSasori ( talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
For readability, I'm splitting this into its own section. The main issues to be resolved before any GA push (as I see them) are:
Okay, we need to decide about this image. Does it stay? I personally agree with it being taken out, despite it being free-licence (which is not a reason in and of itself to have a picture included). Thoughts? Let's refrain from an all-out edit war. Nolelover It's football season! 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
That drawing should stay. Before reading this article, I didnt know that there was a community with people who drew things related to Runescape. That picture was a useful example of one of the things people drew. I agree with Tarikochi. That drawing is more useful than that pointless map. 99.98.187.106 ( talk) 02:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Being "annoyed that it has to be the same character" is not is a good reason for it to be removed. 64.134.103.25 ( talk) 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Working with images, I imagine, would be far more difficult than making simple text edits in an article. A lot of effort must have been taken for the contributor to obtain the image, and having it removed for poor reasons would not go well for them. It certainly doesn't help that there's already a strict limit on fair use images. Attacking the free images is not the most generous thing you can do for both that contributor and the article itself. Removing the images is comparable to putting up the entire Runescape article for deletion and it successfully passing, disregarding the efforts of those who have contributed (it does appear that Tarikochi did not draw that image him/herself, so it wasn't only Tarikochi's efforts that would have been wasted). This especially applies if such images do not even break any policies.
Image contributors are badly taken for granted. I'm surprised Tarikochi wasn't driven away by such policies. If I had a talk page like his/hers, I would certainly not be motivated to contribute images any more. 64.134.103.25 ( talk) 02:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I did not notice it earlier in this section, but are you talking about this fan-art drawing from [3] this edit in the community section? If so, I see no problem with it being included in this article. It's a free image which helped improve the article. If it was a non-free image, then it would be a different story.
As for whether or not the fan-art is useful: that is a very silly question. It improves the article and people have already given their input on why it is useful. "It isn't useful enough" is subjective and a poor reason to remove it, especially before discussing about it first. I would say to look at WP:IGNORE, but I do not think this image even broke any rules in the first place. Removing it, however, is certainly keeping it from improving (or maintaining) the article.
There are more important things to worry about, such as the remaining cruft that still exists on this article. IAmSasori ( talk) 22:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It's good that it's settled. I find the existence of this discussion silly myself. 64.134.103.25 ( talk) 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please replace:
On 18 October 2010, RuneScape's game engine was updated to allow "real world" sound effects, replacing the synthesised sounds used previously.[87]
With:
On 18 October 2010, RuneScape's game engine was updated to allow "real world" sound effects, in addition to the synthesised sounds used previously.[87]
Because the former is incorrect.
Also, the reference was from Mod Bond, not Mod Bono.
Adabon ( talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
True, but only a minority of sounds have actually been replaced, so I've slightly edited it for clarity Muskeato 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Could we list some more quest series? Just like a few more important ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollersox ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
a few more quests listed here has nothing to do with game guides. Important quests include rune mysteries (introduces rune skills) and other quests that introduce skills, useful items, and pets. Please recheck the quests you put in here, as they are not in the least important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domecraft ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Who makes these users in "charge" of the contributions to a public wiki? I think you both should take time to review the guidelines for Wikipedia contributions. If the person can cite legitimate references on a contribution, then all the rollbacks in the world are only going to make you look like a vandal. This is not what being an admin or useful contributor to Wikipedia is about. It is not about what you "think" is the right thing to put in a wiki, its about following the guidelines and allowing the free flow of information as long as it is reputable and it maintains the factual basis for information reference. If this same ideology was applied to military pages, then pages for operations in the middle east would not be allowed to exist as wikis. Perhaps, I would suggest, making another page which lists the quests as a factual account of what occurs during these quests, not as a guide to completion, but as a reference to the existence of game content. Just an idea. Aetern142 ( talk) 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
{edit} I agree that there needs to be more of the important quests added in. IE Wolfs Whistle. This is the quest that actually allows you to use the Summoning skill. You mention all of the skills in the game but not the fact that there are three different skills which you must do a quest before you can even use a freaking exp lamp to raise the skill. please add the important quests as it will add more depth into how the game mechanics work. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
165.138.12.250 (
talk)
14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
At that point why not at least add to the quests or skills section one that some skills are unlocked by the quests? or put the quests in parentheses after the skill to show the connection. IE "...Summoning"(After Wolf Whistle quest) in that case it isn't a major addition and will satisfy those who know about the game and think it needs to be added...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enm7 ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
At least add that skills are also rewards in the Quests section as it mentions different rewards. This is neither specific nor is it something that you would have to play the game to know.
Could you please add an article on the controversy behind the report system. For example, why does Jagex feel they can permanently ban paying players without giving evidence of their offence, not allowing players to contact them or giving a personal response.
( Neofighterx5 ( talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC))
By the way, some add the refferendum of wilderness and free trade. This is pretty major part, but since I kind of suck at editing, can you guys do it? Jun Hao Wu 06:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juwu7 ( talk • contribs)
The pre-2007 wilderness will be re-added to the game tomorrow, so should the article be edited in advance? -- 43?9enter ( talk) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)43
Am I the only tired of looking at the exact same character in every screenshot on this page? Even the fanart picture is of this character. It's not even a typical looking character, which is what we should try to include in screenshots to show how the game normally looks. There used to be a screenshot of another character, but it was recently removed. -- 66.169.101.69 ( talk) 22:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of free images from the RuneScape Wiki. 76.180.164.245 ( talk) 00:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see some information added regarding the negative effects of Jagex's anti cheating programs, such as when an account is banned for legitimate activity. I am not familiar with any reliable source on the issue, but I think it would be reckless not to mention it, as well as Jagex's policy on not providing proof in "cheating" cases. Also, I would like to see info on the apparent lack of attention paid to appeals, youtube videos confirm that users with legit appeals remain banned, and non-real appeals are approved. I can link two videos specifically to illustrate the issue. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
just a quickie: i notice the first image used of the graphical user interface is in low quality, i think it would be worth mentioning this as people viewing that poor quality image may judge the game before theyve even played it. i.e "A screenshot of the typical user interface in RuneScape on the minimum graphical settings." As it looks far far better on the higher graphical settings. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zukias (
talk •
contribs)
09:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As a former player of Runescape I have been e-mail, within the last few days, that there is currently a user referendum to repeal the ban on Free-trade and PvP battles in the Wilderness. It may be worth putting this on the page but as this is protected I can't. If someone thinks that this would be useful could they make the necessary adjustments. Thanks Shadoinslomo ( talk) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you mention how leveling up is signaled by fireworks and how when you get level 99 you get a bigger show
Under community about the events can you say about the event for winter where high leveled players can kill the hati wolf for a decorative mask and a pair of gloves with a limited charge that gives you 2x combat xp -- Ulmuchiha ( talk) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm worried that this analysis is a bit dubious in its material.
Opinions, please. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 13:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Give him time to ref it. Then we can take action. Nolelover It's football season! 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
you're all paid people from jagex trying to spin the message and revise history. you can't stop Wiki. -- Scarmudgeon ( talk) 15:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Since User:Scarmudgeon has been blocked for 48h for edit-warring, I've requested a return to indefinite semi-protection as he was the only one fighting to keep the material in. Thanks to imminent changes in the game, I want to make an edit to the section on PvP combat to account for these changes. If trouble resumes, we can just apply for more full-protection. Are there any further problems? 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
To expand this article, we should add a list of quests, and their plots. I am a professional at Runescape, so i can help with that quite a bit. What do you think? UserDarkJak495 talk orange 23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If you add Sal Realms to the external links, it would be very good. Sal Realms has every thing you would ever need to know about Runescape. UserDarkJak495 talk orange 13:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Jagex updated RuneScape 1 February, 2011, bringing back player-versus-player combat and free trade which was removed in December 2007, following a vote in which over 90% of players voted Yes, that they wanted to two to return. This information should be added to the Player Reception section of the article which discusses the removal. 99.117.82.109 ( talk) 18:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize in advance for faux pas; this is my first comment on a Wikipedia article. The section that discusses the referendum is in error. I have posted a comment on the source article footnoted #99. 90% of players DID NOT vote in favor of the referendum; 91% of VOTES CAST were in favor, but "yes" voters multivoted in huge numbers (by very frequent admission on the forum thread debating the topic - 5 and 10 votes per "yes" voter were not uncommon by these admissions), while "no" voters tended strongly to vote honestly, i.e. once per player (I saw ZERO evidence/admissions of multiple "no" voters). Thus the true percentage of PLAYERS in favor is unknowable to all but Jagex employees. 24.130.171.10 ( talk) 03:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Warren Houghton
Meanwhile, if you have a source for that, the current erroneous information must be removed. 43?9enter ( talk) 04:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
For a number of years, the consensus has been to link to the three fansites with the highest traffic rankings according to Alexa Internet. See this discussion for more. Because the position of "the top 3" has never shifted, we have never needed to revisit this consensus, although there are a few potential issues with this approach.
Recently, a link to the Open Directory Project was added to the article. This directory provides links to websites related to the subject, including a number of fansites. My point is: do we need to keep linking to fansites when someone else can do that for us without our restrictions on external links and spam?
I want to test the waters by discussing this. Is it valid, or am I making a big deal out of nothing? 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 16:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
In response to 1ForTheMoney's question...
Reference 77 - Why did I not think of this earlier? http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/forums That was so obvious... 43?9enter ( talk) 06:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, this discussion has been open for 2 weeks. While it hasn't garnered a huge discussion, we seem to agree (or at least, we don't disagree) that the fansites should go. I'm not hopeful that leaving this open will attract more discussion, but I can't think of a suitable way to advertise it. As I see it, a Wikipedian not familiar with local consensus would wonder why we have 3 fansites when that goes against external link guidelines (although we could just say we're ignoring the rules), while readers might argue that they provide useful information and should be kept (although since we're not getting rid of the RuneScape Wiki that argument could be refuted.)
By digging through the archives, I've found that current consensus came at a time when there were a lot more active editors and a lot more arguments over what content to include (leading to lots of sub-articles that took a long time to remove.) Nowadays it is very different, since there is just one article and very few regular editors. As I see it, there is a valid consensus to remove the fansites, and we're capable of dealing with the arguments likely to come our way following this. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 22:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
1FortheMoney, could you insert sources about the Return to Canifis book? I just don't get the reference format for this article. Here is the amazon page. Nolelover It's almost football season! 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The player reception paragraph sources that RuneScape lost 60k subscribers when they removed free trade/pking.
The source has no background information on this and only mentions it while showing no proof.
This kind of information would only be available by Jagex but they never reported how many subscribers were lost. Players have only been left to guess which makes me believe that the editor simply picked it up as a rumor from somewhere else.
I believe the sentence should be removed since it has no backing of evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 ( talk) 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
1FTM is correct. By current policy, information presented by a reliable source may be included, there is no requirement that the information from that source to be reliable. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, even given the scale I can see that the graph records much lower growth in the second half of 2007 (the affected period), compared to the periods before and after. This would be explained by either lots of subscribers going out or fewer subscribers going in, but I suppose that could be used to support The Times' claim. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Runescape has a bunch of in-game event updates for the different holiday times every year. Should we document it? -- JJRcop ( send msg) 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You've probably not realised this, but Jagex included a lot of links to real life subjects such as Monty Python, Star Wars and even WoW. I think this would merit being mentioned in the article as it shows that British culture is interlinked with the game. 78.146.132.102 Classics ( talk) 09:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yellow-clothes-with-green-hair-and-a-fire-cape is clearly trying to dominate this Wikipedia article, or at least try establishing a cult of personality. That isn't even a common avatar for characters. Can we, at least, have a more typically-clothed character be used? -- 43?9enter ☭msg ☭contribs 06:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see overuse. And without a name to go wit the char, its unlikely the player shown will get anything significant out of its use. In the first image, you can barely even tell its supposed to be the same player. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't mind seeing that girl on the wikipedia page. I don't see what's the problem at all. She's not even all over the page like before. If you ask me, it looks like you two are very jealous of her rather than having an actual good reason to hate her pictures. 64.134.100.74 ( talk) 22:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently, there is little information about clans other than that mentioning the clan chat systems. Information for the new updates would probably fit under Player interaction, PvP, and community scetions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.105.197 ( talk) 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Talk about how the Grand Exchange works such as if people buy items on max price, the market price will rise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GotMoney999 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Make sure that you read the artical before you give any ideas because they may be on the page already GotMoney999 ( talk) 22:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, no i wasn't being specific, I was directing it to the "editor" or request person for this article. Sorry for the inconvenience. 99.154.0.165 ( talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help in making the article of Runescape better for the community. GotMoney999 ( talk) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
it ses that it has 25 skills but now it has 26 due to the new skill called dungeoneering so please change it in the skill section thank u I pker lol x ( talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Runescape HD mode now supports DirectX rendering. I edited the article to include it under the sub-section 'graphics and sound', and would welcome any improvement ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usbdriver ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Please add "Jagex can now celebrate becasue today (15th May, 2010) marks the 3000th day since the release of RuneScape in 2001." after "RuneScape is a fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) released in 2001 by Jagex Ltd."
Surfjamaica ( talk) 12:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, which release date are we going to use in the lead? If we're using the initial beta release, 4 January 2001, then it wasn't released by Jagex. But then again, maybe the actual non-beta date should be used. I'm not sure...-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Excuse me I wanted to ask you if I (or you) can add dungeoneering on this.you did so well describing it too!i didn't even know about a RuneScape classic!but dungeoneering was just recently made.Can you? Heres My Edit:
Dungeoneering The Dungeoneering skill was released on the day of April 20th,2010.This skill was released to mainly bring friendly Quests to the players of runescape.The Home of the Dungeoneering Skill is Daemonhiem.To start and/or Have a Raid you must Have the ring of Kinship.With this ring you can check your Journal,Teleport to Daemonhiem, or start a party.A party is a group of players doing a raid or just simply going solo.To have a party you must invite people only in the lobby of Daemonhiem.A not so hidden secret is if you look at your party log and click a players name you can see there stats,inventory,and much more.You must also choose a complexity that is acceptable for your team.The complexity levels are 1-6.Remember,The higher the Complexity,the harder it is!For an area,you must choose a floor.The floors can be from floor 1 all the way up to maybe even 70!Almost finally there are challenges.Challenges mostly Appear in complexities of 5 or 6. Challenges are puzzles that you need to figure out to advance a door.As i like to call them,Blockages are another thing.Blockages Are Things that can either be Wood,Rocks, or maybe even a spirit.To get through these doors you must have a high level of any skill from Rune Crafting,Magic,Fire making,and Mining.Sometimes Even Crafting.For the last there are Bosses,Monsters,and Keys.Keys and any shape and color that you need to unlock a door.Some keys are found in bonus rooms (Challenges and Blockages).The monsters in Daemonhiem are much different from the ones in The outside area of Runescape.The monsters in the dungeons Seem to drop large amounts of items,including money.The money and items seem very Beautiful and great in this game,and are.but you don't get to keep them.After you win and want to leave the dungeon the items you had in the dungeon will be gone.you can Maybe get (or make) them back once you play again.Finally,bosses.The Bosses in this game are sometimes either a higher level than you or lower.Most of them are very unique.One of the hardest and common Bosses for New Dungeoneerers is the Gluttonous Behemoth.This monster Attacks you with brute strength and power.The worst part is if your not standing in front of his food then we will heal very quickly and theres is nothing you can do about it.Once you beat the boss you get a certain item.If you like it and want to keep it throughout The dungeon Realm,right click and click bind.To bind another item you must have a high level in dungeoneering. ShuShumuX3 ( talk) 02:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
In 'player reception', although stating that player versus player was removed in 2007, player versus player was infact re-established in 2009.
Chiffmonkey (
talk)
10:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have posted replies to comments made at the last peer review. Comments should be made here as the peer review is now archived. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Not even one measly sentence on unique Bounty World +1 drops? (Rune Tip It, RunescapeWiki, ect.) Think about it? < http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/pvp_worlds>
I'm sorry, could you please delete one of these two???
I added the second paragraph the the player reception section to off-set the clearly biased first paragraph, but this is a fairly consistent theme. The quotes used throughout are very out of date, especially the "not easy on the eyes" one - made long before the High Detail update. Large parts of the article should be rewritten to reflect the current state of the game. Finding new quotes as well is necessary, I know of several useful ones that I will add in. Lewis06593 ( talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I was just looking at that page, and no, it's not in the article. Silly question, but how does it relate to player reception? Or did you want to use it in the bit of the article on fansites? 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
(will also post on WT:VG) I do intend to change the protection level from semi-protection to Level 1 Pending Changes when the software gets turned on, which should be shortly (unless another admin beats me to the punch, that is). – MuZemike 22:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I only started watching this page to help with the pending changes trial, so forgive me if this is a stupid question: Why is this article such a target for vandals. -23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Now that the peer review has been closed, we should look at the images being used in the article, and whether they meet the non-free content criteria. We presently have 5 images being used under fair-use, and per criteria 3 this is too many and one or two should be removed.
The 5 images affected are:
Personally, I would definitely lose the image of a random event, but that may not be enough. Does anyone else want to share their opinion? 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 14:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, I reverted the removal of some images today in the hopes of getting further discussion. So, to pick at the points:
First, my apologies - I had intended to close this some time ago, but I have no Internet access at home and won't do for some time, so I've thought about it some more.
To that end, unless someone argues otherwise, these images will be removed. Anyone who wants to offer a new opinion can revert be, but please explain why. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is not organized at all, I'll make a list of suggestions that (I hope that) should be considered for its improvement:
The problem of writing a good article about games and online games is that inside wikipedia there are few article for reference, template and style, but there are (somewhat) well written articles, and runescape's one should follow they criteria. These include EverQuest, Warhammer Online and World of Warcraft.
Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 05:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
http://belo.dk/ is a new fansite. Is it posible to add the link? Stras77 ( talk) 09:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
I would like to edit some of this information because i find some of it incorrect.
Dredpk (
talk)
18:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Betrayal at Falador, a novel based on RuneScape, was originally released as a limited-edition in 2008 and has now been mass-released as a paperback. Unfortunately, the last article on it didn't make the grade, but I've found some secondary sources and think it might have a chance. Before I recreate the article, I want to be sure it's good enough (or not).
I've created a subpage at User:1ForTheMoney/Betrayal at Falador. Please feel free to comment. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, not a big change, just noticed as I was skimming the article that you called runes "runestones." I play runescape and that's not what there called. Maybe just change to runes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolrok ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Specifically the "Random events" and "Economy" sections. RE aren't even that big within the game, and I don't see why we should have more then a couple sentences in the article. Same with economy. Does that really need it's own section? I really don't think we'll ever get to GA with stuff like that in there. Furthermore, could we merge and shorten "Chat system" into "Community"? and then maybe rename that section (Player interaction, Player community, etc.)? Nolelover It's football season! 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
We could put the mini-games section under Quests....and I wouldn't feel bad about leaving out the muting point. Anyways, here's what we have so far:
Also:
Your thoughts? Nolelover It's football season! 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
One more :). Is the last paragraph of PvP combat (on bounty worlds) really necessary? Nolelover It's football season! 01:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
While the article still has some cruft and sourcing issues, this article appears to be vastly improved from the last time I saw it. It is far better off than the other MMORPG articles I have seen, that is for sure. IAmSasori ( talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
For readability, I'm splitting this into its own section. The main issues to be resolved before any GA push (as I see them) are:
Okay, we need to decide about this image. Does it stay? I personally agree with it being taken out, despite it being free-licence (which is not a reason in and of itself to have a picture included). Thoughts? Let's refrain from an all-out edit war. Nolelover It's football season! 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
That drawing should stay. Before reading this article, I didnt know that there was a community with people who drew things related to Runescape. That picture was a useful example of one of the things people drew. I agree with Tarikochi. That drawing is more useful than that pointless map. 99.98.187.106 ( talk) 02:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Being "annoyed that it has to be the same character" is not is a good reason for it to be removed. 64.134.103.25 ( talk) 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Working with images, I imagine, would be far more difficult than making simple text edits in an article. A lot of effort must have been taken for the contributor to obtain the image, and having it removed for poor reasons would not go well for them. It certainly doesn't help that there's already a strict limit on fair use images. Attacking the free images is not the most generous thing you can do for both that contributor and the article itself. Removing the images is comparable to putting up the entire Runescape article for deletion and it successfully passing, disregarding the efforts of those who have contributed (it does appear that Tarikochi did not draw that image him/herself, so it wasn't only Tarikochi's efforts that would have been wasted). This especially applies if such images do not even break any policies.
Image contributors are badly taken for granted. I'm surprised Tarikochi wasn't driven away by such policies. If I had a talk page like his/hers, I would certainly not be motivated to contribute images any more. 64.134.103.25 ( talk) 02:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I did not notice it earlier in this section, but are you talking about this fan-art drawing from [3] this edit in the community section? If so, I see no problem with it being included in this article. It's a free image which helped improve the article. If it was a non-free image, then it would be a different story.
As for whether or not the fan-art is useful: that is a very silly question. It improves the article and people have already given their input on why it is useful. "It isn't useful enough" is subjective and a poor reason to remove it, especially before discussing about it first. I would say to look at WP:IGNORE, but I do not think this image even broke any rules in the first place. Removing it, however, is certainly keeping it from improving (or maintaining) the article.
There are more important things to worry about, such as the remaining cruft that still exists on this article. IAmSasori ( talk) 22:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It's good that it's settled. I find the existence of this discussion silly myself. 64.134.103.25 ( talk) 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please replace:
On 18 October 2010, RuneScape's game engine was updated to allow "real world" sound effects, replacing the synthesised sounds used previously.[87]
With:
On 18 October 2010, RuneScape's game engine was updated to allow "real world" sound effects, in addition to the synthesised sounds used previously.[87]
Because the former is incorrect.
Also, the reference was from Mod Bond, not Mod Bono.
Adabon ( talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
True, but only a minority of sounds have actually been replaced, so I've slightly edited it for clarity Muskeato 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Could we list some more quest series? Just like a few more important ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollersox ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
a few more quests listed here has nothing to do with game guides. Important quests include rune mysteries (introduces rune skills) and other quests that introduce skills, useful items, and pets. Please recheck the quests you put in here, as they are not in the least important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domecraft ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Who makes these users in "charge" of the contributions to a public wiki? I think you both should take time to review the guidelines for Wikipedia contributions. If the person can cite legitimate references on a contribution, then all the rollbacks in the world are only going to make you look like a vandal. This is not what being an admin or useful contributor to Wikipedia is about. It is not about what you "think" is the right thing to put in a wiki, its about following the guidelines and allowing the free flow of information as long as it is reputable and it maintains the factual basis for information reference. If this same ideology was applied to military pages, then pages for operations in the middle east would not be allowed to exist as wikis. Perhaps, I would suggest, making another page which lists the quests as a factual account of what occurs during these quests, not as a guide to completion, but as a reference to the existence of game content. Just an idea. Aetern142 ( talk) 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
{edit} I agree that there needs to be more of the important quests added in. IE Wolfs Whistle. This is the quest that actually allows you to use the Summoning skill. You mention all of the skills in the game but not the fact that there are three different skills which you must do a quest before you can even use a freaking exp lamp to raise the skill. please add the important quests as it will add more depth into how the game mechanics work. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
165.138.12.250 (
talk)
14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
At that point why not at least add to the quests or skills section one that some skills are unlocked by the quests? or put the quests in parentheses after the skill to show the connection. IE "...Summoning"(After Wolf Whistle quest) in that case it isn't a major addition and will satisfy those who know about the game and think it needs to be added...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enm7 ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
At least add that skills are also rewards in the Quests section as it mentions different rewards. This is neither specific nor is it something that you would have to play the game to know.
Could you please add an article on the controversy behind the report system. For example, why does Jagex feel they can permanently ban paying players without giving evidence of their offence, not allowing players to contact them or giving a personal response.
( Neofighterx5 ( talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC))
By the way, some add the refferendum of wilderness and free trade. This is pretty major part, but since I kind of suck at editing, can you guys do it? Jun Hao Wu 06:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juwu7 ( talk • contribs)
The pre-2007 wilderness will be re-added to the game tomorrow, so should the article be edited in advance? -- 43?9enter ( talk) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)43
Am I the only tired of looking at the exact same character in every screenshot on this page? Even the fanart picture is of this character. It's not even a typical looking character, which is what we should try to include in screenshots to show how the game normally looks. There used to be a screenshot of another character, but it was recently removed. -- 66.169.101.69 ( talk) 22:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of free images from the RuneScape Wiki. 76.180.164.245 ( talk) 00:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see some information added regarding the negative effects of Jagex's anti cheating programs, such as when an account is banned for legitimate activity. I am not familiar with any reliable source on the issue, but I think it would be reckless not to mention it, as well as Jagex's policy on not providing proof in "cheating" cases. Also, I would like to see info on the apparent lack of attention paid to appeals, youtube videos confirm that users with legit appeals remain banned, and non-real appeals are approved. I can link two videos specifically to illustrate the issue. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
just a quickie: i notice the first image used of the graphical user interface is in low quality, i think it would be worth mentioning this as people viewing that poor quality image may judge the game before theyve even played it. i.e "A screenshot of the typical user interface in RuneScape on the minimum graphical settings." As it looks far far better on the higher graphical settings. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zukias (
talk •
contribs)
09:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As a former player of Runescape I have been e-mail, within the last few days, that there is currently a user referendum to repeal the ban on Free-trade and PvP battles in the Wilderness. It may be worth putting this on the page but as this is protected I can't. If someone thinks that this would be useful could they make the necessary adjustments. Thanks Shadoinslomo ( talk) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you mention how leveling up is signaled by fireworks and how when you get level 99 you get a bigger show
Under community about the events can you say about the event for winter where high leveled players can kill the hati wolf for a decorative mask and a pair of gloves with a limited charge that gives you 2x combat xp -- Ulmuchiha ( talk) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm worried that this analysis is a bit dubious in its material.
Opinions, please. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 13:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Give him time to ref it. Then we can take action. Nolelover It's football season! 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
you're all paid people from jagex trying to spin the message and revise history. you can't stop Wiki. -- Scarmudgeon ( talk) 15:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Since User:Scarmudgeon has been blocked for 48h for edit-warring, I've requested a return to indefinite semi-protection as he was the only one fighting to keep the material in. Thanks to imminent changes in the game, I want to make an edit to the section on PvP combat to account for these changes. If trouble resumes, we can just apply for more full-protection. Are there any further problems? 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
To expand this article, we should add a list of quests, and their plots. I am a professional at Runescape, so i can help with that quite a bit. What do you think? UserDarkJak495 talk orange 23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If you add Sal Realms to the external links, it would be very good. Sal Realms has every thing you would ever need to know about Runescape. UserDarkJak495 talk orange 13:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Jagex updated RuneScape 1 February, 2011, bringing back player-versus-player combat and free trade which was removed in December 2007, following a vote in which over 90% of players voted Yes, that they wanted to two to return. This information should be added to the Player Reception section of the article which discusses the removal. 99.117.82.109 ( talk) 18:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize in advance for faux pas; this is my first comment on a Wikipedia article. The section that discusses the referendum is in error. I have posted a comment on the source article footnoted #99. 90% of players DID NOT vote in favor of the referendum; 91% of VOTES CAST were in favor, but "yes" voters multivoted in huge numbers (by very frequent admission on the forum thread debating the topic - 5 and 10 votes per "yes" voter were not uncommon by these admissions), while "no" voters tended strongly to vote honestly, i.e. once per player (I saw ZERO evidence/admissions of multiple "no" voters). Thus the true percentage of PLAYERS in favor is unknowable to all but Jagex employees. 24.130.171.10 ( talk) 03:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Warren Houghton
Meanwhile, if you have a source for that, the current erroneous information must be removed. 43?9enter ( talk) 04:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
For a number of years, the consensus has been to link to the three fansites with the highest traffic rankings according to Alexa Internet. See this discussion for more. Because the position of "the top 3" has never shifted, we have never needed to revisit this consensus, although there are a few potential issues with this approach.
Recently, a link to the Open Directory Project was added to the article. This directory provides links to websites related to the subject, including a number of fansites. My point is: do we need to keep linking to fansites when someone else can do that for us without our restrictions on external links and spam?
I want to test the waters by discussing this. Is it valid, or am I making a big deal out of nothing? 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 16:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
In response to 1ForTheMoney's question...
Reference 77 - Why did I not think of this earlier? http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/forums That was so obvious... 43?9enter ( talk) 06:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, this discussion has been open for 2 weeks. While it hasn't garnered a huge discussion, we seem to agree (or at least, we don't disagree) that the fansites should go. I'm not hopeful that leaving this open will attract more discussion, but I can't think of a suitable way to advertise it. As I see it, a Wikipedian not familiar with local consensus would wonder why we have 3 fansites when that goes against external link guidelines (although we could just say we're ignoring the rules), while readers might argue that they provide useful information and should be kept (although since we're not getting rid of the RuneScape Wiki that argument could be refuted.)
By digging through the archives, I've found that current consensus came at a time when there were a lot more active editors and a lot more arguments over what content to include (leading to lots of sub-articles that took a long time to remove.) Nowadays it is very different, since there is just one article and very few regular editors. As I see it, there is a valid consensus to remove the fansites, and we're capable of dealing with the arguments likely to come our way following this. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 22:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
1FortheMoney, could you insert sources about the Return to Canifis book? I just don't get the reference format for this article. Here is the amazon page. Nolelover It's almost football season! 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The player reception paragraph sources that RuneScape lost 60k subscribers when they removed free trade/pking.
The source has no background information on this and only mentions it while showing no proof.
This kind of information would only be available by Jagex but they never reported how many subscribers were lost. Players have only been left to guess which makes me believe that the editor simply picked it up as a rumor from somewhere else.
I believe the sentence should be removed since it has no backing of evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 ( talk) 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
1FTM is correct. By current policy, information presented by a reliable source may be included, there is no requirement that the information from that source to be reliable. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, even given the scale I can see that the graph records much lower growth in the second half of 2007 (the affected period), compared to the periods before and after. This would be explained by either lots of subscribers going out or fewer subscribers going in, but I suppose that could be used to support The Times' claim. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Runescape has a bunch of in-game event updates for the different holiday times every year. Should we document it? -- JJRcop ( send msg) 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You've probably not realised this, but Jagex included a lot of links to real life subjects such as Monty Python, Star Wars and even WoW. I think this would merit being mentioned in the article as it shows that British culture is interlinked with the game. 78.146.132.102 Classics ( talk) 09:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yellow-clothes-with-green-hair-and-a-fire-cape is clearly trying to dominate this Wikipedia article, or at least try establishing a cult of personality. That isn't even a common avatar for characters. Can we, at least, have a more typically-clothed character be used? -- 43?9enter ☭msg ☭contribs 06:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see overuse. And without a name to go wit the char, its unlikely the player shown will get anything significant out of its use. In the first image, you can barely even tell its supposed to be the same player. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't mind seeing that girl on the wikipedia page. I don't see what's the problem at all. She's not even all over the page like before. If you ask me, it looks like you two are very jealous of her rather than having an actual good reason to hate her pictures. 64.134.100.74 ( talk) 22:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently, there is little information about clans other than that mentioning the clan chat systems. Information for the new updates would probably fit under Player interaction, PvP, and community scetions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.105.197 ( talk) 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)