![]() | 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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The Below is old Discussion. If you feel anything below needs to be commented on, bring it up in the RuneScape Talk Page. J.J.Sagnella 08:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Please Peer Review Place Comments Below
RuneScape is an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role-playing game) implemented in Java, with over 4 million active players. RuneScape was launched by Jagex Ltd. on January 4, 2001 and offers both pay to play ("P2P") and free to play ("F2P") membership options to players. RuneScape allows players to develop many different non-combat skills ranging from runecrafting and mining to cooking and crafting. The large range of non-combat skills means that RuneScape has an expansive, dynamic player economy. Being implemented in Java, RuneScape requires no installation and can easily be accessed from the official site.
RuneScape is set in a medieval fantasy world, similar to " Guild Wars" or " EverQuest", where players control character representations of themselves. As with most MMORPGs, there is no overall objective or end to the game. Players can explore, form alliances, earn gold coins, perform optional tasks, and complete quests for rewards and to build character's skills.
During peak hours, it is common to see around 170,000 players online across the 115 international servers located in five different countries, with a peak in excess of 185,000 simultaneous logged-in players reached in early February 2006. Up to 2,000 players may be on one server at once, allowing a maximum of 230,000 online players at any one time. These servers are called "worlds" in RuneScape. These servers are located in the United States (79), the United Kingdom (18), Canada (6), the Netherlands (6) and Australia (6), making it the most popular online Java based game in the world. RuneScape is usually updated once a week, with the addition of new skills, quests, areas of the map, items, or other details added to the imaginary world.Nominated By: H-BOMB 21:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
We need to ditch the negative attnetion on RS it's more than just some stupid chatroom game with some junk to do when your friends arn't on. It teaches you things like social skills and how hard work and training has rewards, then game never ends so it doesn't get boring, and it use british spelling what not to like? H-BOMB 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
How about you just edit it? H-BOMB 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The whole of the RS series is up for deletion
here. I encourage all you scapers to vote Keep with good arguments and reasons to do so. We provided a good series of inforamion for Wikipedians, and it shouldnt be deleted -
• | Đܧ§§Ť | •
T |
C
21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm done now.
But yeah, we put a lot of work into those! And now the anti-RuneScape/Deletionist community wants to throw it all away/merge it all into one or several oversized articles that will hopefully only take one minute to load on the next Windows computer. Dtm142 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm done now. Dtm142 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
As seen from archive 3, the general decision was to delete all links except the main 5 from the article ( runehq, sal's realm, tip.it, runevillage and zybez). Any attempt to put other links on the page will be treated as vandalism and will be dealt with in that way. J.J.Sagnella 18:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is better avoided than reverted. Dtm142 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Many people did get their account hacked beacuse of the runehq forums. Even got a message from Jagex regarding the problem. If the creators of runescape thinks it worth a mention I think it's worth a mention also.
It was a forum post by Andrew. Search for it in News/announcments if you want I will copy it here
here it is:
Andrew
Jagex Mod
22 Apr 2005 16:53
Warning: fansite users getting hijacked
It has come to our attention that several users of a large RuneScape fansite have recently had their RuneScape password stolen. The fansite is an independent website, and isn't run by us or affiliated with us, but many of our users do choose to use it.
We don't know for sure, and we are basically trying to work this out from the pattern of attack, but it seems quite likely this was done by someone posting malicious content or images on the forums of the 3rd party fansite. People viewing that page then got infected with a keylogger which could be used to steal all their passwords.
I know it's hard to believe that just viewing a page on a forum could be enough to be infected with a keylogger, but there have actually historically already been a number of security flaws in the image code in web browsers which allowed exactly that! If you don't have ALL the latest patches you are at risk.
Our own forums deliberately don't allow users to post images or html exactly because of this security risk. Lots of people complain that we don't offer this feature, but we believe security is far more important than features. Unfortunately many third party fansites aren't as secure as ours with regards to this. Indeed we've noticed the attacker spreading recent rumours to try to pursuade more people to use fan-site forums instead of ours, presumably so he can hack more people through them.
I would like to emphasize that we believe the security of our own servers and forums is in no way compromised. It appears that the accounts are being stolen not by targeting our servers, but by instead targeting the home computers of users. Possibly via fansite forums.
We have of course very thoroughly double checked our own server security as well, but can find no sign of intrusion, and the fact that the people being hijacked are users of the same fansite seems unlikely to be a coincidence.
We take our own security very seriously here, but our users still have to take good care of their own computer as well. It is essential that you are careful to keep your computer secure to prevent a keylogger being installed on it, we recommend EVERYONE pays close attention to the following advice:
1) Ensure your computer is fully patched. Go to www.windowsupdate.com and make sure you have all the latest patches for your machine and web-browser. You may have to reboot and visit the site several times to get all patches.
2) Make sure your web-browser and other software is the latest version. For example if you use FireFox to browse the web make sure you using the latest version (at the time of writing this is 1.0.3). Using out of date software is VERY risky.
3) DON'T use your password anywhere except runescape.com. It is very important NOT to use the same password for RuneScape and other websites.
4) Make sure you have anti-virus software installed, and your virus defintions are up to date! And perform regular scans of your computer.
5) You should also install anti-spyware to get the things your anti virus misses. For example the keylogger mentioned above doesn't appear to be spotted by norton, but is spotted by ad-aware. Popular (free) anti-spyware programs are: Ad-Aware and Spybot
6) Even with all the latest patches and protection programs you should still be careful about what you download and run to avoid picking up anything nasty.
If you've recently used a fansite forum, then we recommend you follow the above steps (in order) to secure and clean your computer. If steps 4 or 5 find anything you should obviously remove it and change your password.
Xxxvikingxxx 16:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that quite a few fellow Wikipedians play RuneScape as well, so I made that template. :) -- Ixfd64 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
RS | This user plays RuneScape. |
As Jagex who produced the game are British, and Runescape was created in Britain, shouldn't it have British Spelling throughout? J.J.Sagnella 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, I think it should. Jagex are British, and RS is a British-made game, so it shouldn't have AmE spelling in it -
• | Đܧ§§Ť | •
T |
C
12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
any good sites? Shadin 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just have a look at this and see, Runescape Community. It is a stub about a website which fails to get a mention here. J.J.Sagnella 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone42 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to clear up a few of these (from personal experience):
-- Blue (note: not the registered user), 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
umm like ive never done this so dont get mad i paly runescape and was wondering where to talk to other people that do and do i say my name on runescape or what????
At a resolution of 800x600 in Firefox 1.5.0.1, the RuneScape series box mashes into the table of contents and confines it to a small, thin box. This creates a lot of whitespace below the infobox. I've tried experimenting with using {{TOCleft}}, but this just squashes the start of the first section (Overview) in the small space between the contents and the RuneScape series box. What other ways are there of arranging the TOC/series/infobox boxes to be slightly less conflicting?
Someone42
09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as it has become clear that there are people who do not agree with the RuneScape series (enough for it coming damn close to being deleted), I thought a practical solution (as merging the articles into one would be impossible) was to create a RuneScape Portal. I put a request for it on
Wikipedia:Portal, as I do not feel capable enough to create one myself. Plus I thought we would need a general concensus to create one, as the RS series would have to be moved there and extended. Comments? -
• | Đܧ§§Ť | •
T |
C
20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Just kidding. I'll get ready to create the portal, as nobody has opposed so far... Dtm142 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Do people think the 'official affiliates' and the 'reviews' sections of external links actually add to the article? The reviews are massively out of date and are in fact reviewing a game which doesn't even exist any more, and to be honest there are many other better written reviews of RuneScape out there. (although also sadly out of date). Furthermore I'm really not sure how the official affiliates links are helpful at all, as they are just rebranded versions of exactly the same page as the above link. I'd vote to get rid of those two sections and so just have links to jagex.com and runescape.com at the top, and then the top 5 fansites already listed. What to people think? Note this isn't a discussion about which fansites to link to, but about the other 4 apparently abitrary links. Runefire 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
'offical affiliate' is an alternative way to get to the game and they are not exactly the same page if you notice thoroughly enough i would say. in fact, 'runescape.com' itself is also one of the 'offcial affiliate' and there is nothing to do with 5 fansite, as they are information reasource rather than the location of the material. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 09:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks is in need of your help. The article Runescape is in need of a cleanup. Guides have insufficient information, some guides have no info even. If you want to write your own guides or quest walkthroughs, go to Wikibook's Runescape article.
Can we have a final consensus on what fansites you want on the list. We have many people posting fansites and I really don't know what the consensus is. Tawker 14:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
unarchived at 10:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of reverting the last sentence back and back again, jmods simply do have private chat.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.126.56 ( talk • contribs)
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)
As for the section, I mean that it isn't important by comparison to the rest of the article. Dtm142 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
While jmods, pmods and fmods are not a huge part of the game they are a popular part of it. I found the dumbing down of this section to be a bit of a disappointment. -- Christn 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is somewhat different from the one already posted. Feel free to merge with that one if you (whoever is reading/replying to this) please.
I'm incredibly confused about how these are ordered. Yes I must admit that I have in the past deliberately switched one site, primarily because I was still heavily involved in that particular fansite and was surprised at the five link rule. However, what are the criteria? It is clear that there is another fansite (that I am a part of and have been since October of 2004) that is larger than another fansite with clearly more visits. This is counting FANSITES, NOT FORUMS, am I correct? Being part of the administration I know for a fact that RuneCrypt is not an inexperienced site nor does it have faulty content as it is always being updated for any mistakes it has via the forums which are registered with over 8000 members with OVER 220 Thousand posts. Unlike several other communities, our forums are not the main site, so one can very easily assume that the actually site gets much more visits than the forum itself (similarly most other sites have a completely different URL as well as two or more URLs for their fansite itself versus one main url for runecrypt and a branch for the forum).
Please take a look comparing Zybez.net (as it is listed in the external links) and RuneCrypt.com as seen in Alexa:
Zybez.NET (AS LISTED ON external links): 203,356
RuneCrypt.com: 165,666
I feel no reason why there should be no limit to external links as to which sites stay on and off. Why should one site be left out which is growing while one site is left in which is declining (not zybez though)? Now I am biased as you can tell towards RuneCrypt, but if someone were to go to that site, you can tell that it is BY FAR not a small and inexperienced site. The current list does not equally allow sites that are large with a good activity rate to be shown. Why should sites which are already so incredibly large be shown, while some thats not nearly as large, but has MUCH of the same content be denied from showing?
Now if this is relating to the keyloggers and etc, it is not our site that is responsible. Tip.it and RuneHQ are notorious for these, yet these are listed there. So this really isn't the issue.
Please answer as to limits and etc. on this issue. Either the limits should be extended, more clarity given, or ALL taken off. It's the only reasonable solution. Thanks. Onejsin (aka The Arrowz/Arrowz on rc).
However, I would be very intrested to here what you call "...the limits should be extended...". And I will consider it. As for more clarity given, a giant warning above the 5 links, I think is enough warning. J.J.Sagnella 08:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As to limits, I worded that wrong. I meant that the amount of sites listed should be increased. The current sites listed is not a good representation of the good fansites out there. Whether or not I am biased (or anyone else towards what site should be there or what site they are a part of), there is no definite reason as to why those particular five are listed while others are not. Onejsin.
Now I can share the frustration of seeing dozens upon dozens of fansites which are quite useless, but you need to take a look at the others out there. It is obvious one of the external link's site is in major decline, yet it is obvious there are sites out there for Runescape that are growing. So, I just want to know your justification on this, because based on what I read in Archive 3, it really isn't such a strong support/arguement. Onejsin
B. So, it's quite obvious that you dislike the current layout. I can see you clearly have cleverly thought out a better idea, and I am very intrested in hearing it. So now please tell me how you would set the Fansite Section out, if it was up to you and maybe, if it's good it will get chnaged. J.J.Sagnella 18:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ive said it beofre and i'll say it again, if we have to many links then it looks messy, and also it would be pointless. Much of the stuff on the websites is just repeated over and over again. Also the high traffic sites have obviously done more work to get to where they are, so its only fair that they are the ones to be linked. Dracion 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously no ones seen the site I'm talking about. But I'm curious, no one gave you, J.J.Sagnella, authority in ruling this page; I don't see it in your profile, discussion, etc. How come you get to say what goes on here? Afterall, having 1000+ edits doesn't make you leader of an article you didn't create (or mention on your profile on wikipedia as a "Page I have made significent help in creating:". And if (just if) you think you have more authority than anyone else does because of a level on RuneScape, wake up. This isn't runescape.
Similarly, I was looking over archive three; this user named Dussst; why should you and him be ones to decide. Haha look at him; he's Banned from editing Wikiepdia indefinetely. Check his wikipedia page. And back to Article three, once again; take a look at RuneCrypt. It is not a low traffic site; one reasons there are adverts is because of the huge growth of users and the increasing hardness of being able to pay for it (yes it has a .com domain BTW). And obviously you are a Rune HQ user; you know for yourself FIRST hand that they had financial problems before and even publically announced the idea of shutting down. You should take a look at sites other than the top five and I'm positive you'll find at least one that is not "immature" or "low traffic" or "unexperienced" or "not commited. " onejsin 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think a new section listing helpful players or players telling about themselves or: a new section having links to runescape players user talk should be created. Either way the should be a new section.-- Hilotsunami 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, i wonder if it is ok if i can put this site on the RuneScape page, it is of good quality and has its own forum.
http://runescape.rulers.googlepages.com/home
Why not, what does it need to be classes as a 'good' website
Yes i guess that would be true but I know there is a section on wikipedians who play Runescape mabye there should be a link from the Runescape article to that?-- Hilotsunami 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there already a page about that?-- Hilotsunami 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh duh sorry I wasn't reading it correctly-- Hilotsunami 21:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the link
I still think its to hard to find-- Hilotsunami 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
why not put the link to wikipedians who play runescape directly on the runscape page?-- Hilotsunami 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What if there just intrested in seeing which wikipedians play runescape?-- Hilotsunami 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok I give up I just thought it would be nice to have users actually look at user talks and be able to talk to each other.-- Hilotsunami 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)-- Hilotsunami 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You would have to be really set on finding other runescape users to do find it!!!! (laugh)nice discussing this with you-- Hilotsunami 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Anything specific that needs to be cleaned up? Or do we need to clean up pretty much everything? - • The Giant Puffin • 21:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
"RuneScape is an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role-playing game)" - Found in the lead
"As with most massive multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMORPG)" - Found in the first paragraph
MMORPG is linkd to both times, we can try to cut down on duplicate links too as well as more information that is stated in main articles removed.
Also, there are NO references, citations, or inline citations at all. I'm sure we could get a couple of game guides or somethings as references but that is a major flaw. SandBoxer 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
is it posible to shrten the contents and add a small list before each topic? ( 208.178.240.143 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
I was considering rephrasing all the sentences which contain "you" ( ?), but I think an experienced player would do a better job at that than me. -- HeteroZellous 02:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been going through the RS series, creating sub pages - enabling me to summarise the series pages. So far I have worked on the RuneScape items page. As each of the RS series pages are shortened, we can summarise this main page. As for the "you" thing, that need to be changed to "players" or something similar - • The Giant Puffin • 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need these sections? Having a miscellaneous section means heaps of writing because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of miscellaneous items in RuneScape. This also applies to useless items. There are loads of items that are useless for one reason or another. I was going to remove these sections, but I would atleat consult people on this page (seeing as more people look here than the RS items talk page) before doing so. I propose their removal because:
I'm for a "RuneScape quest items" page, as long as there is a lot of information about the items - and that only important items are listed - • The Giant Puffin • 20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have now removed the lists - • The Giant Puffin • 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The Below is old Discussion. If you feel anything below needs to be commented on, bring it up in the RuneScape Talk Page. J.J.Sagnella 08:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Please Peer Review Place Comments Below
RuneScape is an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role-playing game) implemented in Java, with over 4 million active players. RuneScape was launched by Jagex Ltd. on January 4, 2001 and offers both pay to play ("P2P") and free to play ("F2P") membership options to players. RuneScape allows players to develop many different non-combat skills ranging from runecrafting and mining to cooking and crafting. The large range of non-combat skills means that RuneScape has an expansive, dynamic player economy. Being implemented in Java, RuneScape requires no installation and can easily be accessed from the official site.
RuneScape is set in a medieval fantasy world, similar to " Guild Wars" or " EverQuest", where players control character representations of themselves. As with most MMORPGs, there is no overall objective or end to the game. Players can explore, form alliances, earn gold coins, perform optional tasks, and complete quests for rewards and to build character's skills.
During peak hours, it is common to see around 170,000 players online across the 115 international servers located in five different countries, with a peak in excess of 185,000 simultaneous logged-in players reached in early February 2006. Up to 2,000 players may be on one server at once, allowing a maximum of 230,000 online players at any one time. These servers are called "worlds" in RuneScape. These servers are located in the United States (79), the United Kingdom (18), Canada (6), the Netherlands (6) and Australia (6), making it the most popular online Java based game in the world. RuneScape is usually updated once a week, with the addition of new skills, quests, areas of the map, items, or other details added to the imaginary world.Nominated By: H-BOMB 21:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
We need to ditch the negative attnetion on RS it's more than just some stupid chatroom game with some junk to do when your friends arn't on. It teaches you things like social skills and how hard work and training has rewards, then game never ends so it doesn't get boring, and it use british spelling what not to like? H-BOMB 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
How about you just edit it? H-BOMB 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The whole of the RS series is up for deletion
here. I encourage all you scapers to vote Keep with good arguments and reasons to do so. We provided a good series of inforamion for Wikipedians, and it shouldnt be deleted -
• | Đܧ§§Ť | •
T |
C
21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm done now.
But yeah, we put a lot of work into those! And now the anti-RuneScape/Deletionist community wants to throw it all away/merge it all into one or several oversized articles that will hopefully only take one minute to load on the next Windows computer. Dtm142 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm done now. Dtm142 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
As seen from archive 3, the general decision was to delete all links except the main 5 from the article ( runehq, sal's realm, tip.it, runevillage and zybez). Any attempt to put other links on the page will be treated as vandalism and will be dealt with in that way. J.J.Sagnella 18:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is better avoided than reverted. Dtm142 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Many people did get their account hacked beacuse of the runehq forums. Even got a message from Jagex regarding the problem. If the creators of runescape thinks it worth a mention I think it's worth a mention also.
It was a forum post by Andrew. Search for it in News/announcments if you want I will copy it here
here it is:
Andrew
Jagex Mod
22 Apr 2005 16:53
Warning: fansite users getting hijacked
It has come to our attention that several users of a large RuneScape fansite have recently had their RuneScape password stolen. The fansite is an independent website, and isn't run by us or affiliated with us, but many of our users do choose to use it.
We don't know for sure, and we are basically trying to work this out from the pattern of attack, but it seems quite likely this was done by someone posting malicious content or images on the forums of the 3rd party fansite. People viewing that page then got infected with a keylogger which could be used to steal all their passwords.
I know it's hard to believe that just viewing a page on a forum could be enough to be infected with a keylogger, but there have actually historically already been a number of security flaws in the image code in web browsers which allowed exactly that! If you don't have ALL the latest patches you are at risk.
Our own forums deliberately don't allow users to post images or html exactly because of this security risk. Lots of people complain that we don't offer this feature, but we believe security is far more important than features. Unfortunately many third party fansites aren't as secure as ours with regards to this. Indeed we've noticed the attacker spreading recent rumours to try to pursuade more people to use fan-site forums instead of ours, presumably so he can hack more people through them.
I would like to emphasize that we believe the security of our own servers and forums is in no way compromised. It appears that the accounts are being stolen not by targeting our servers, but by instead targeting the home computers of users. Possibly via fansite forums.
We have of course very thoroughly double checked our own server security as well, but can find no sign of intrusion, and the fact that the people being hijacked are users of the same fansite seems unlikely to be a coincidence.
We take our own security very seriously here, but our users still have to take good care of their own computer as well. It is essential that you are careful to keep your computer secure to prevent a keylogger being installed on it, we recommend EVERYONE pays close attention to the following advice:
1) Ensure your computer is fully patched. Go to www.windowsupdate.com and make sure you have all the latest patches for your machine and web-browser. You may have to reboot and visit the site several times to get all patches.
2) Make sure your web-browser and other software is the latest version. For example if you use FireFox to browse the web make sure you using the latest version (at the time of writing this is 1.0.3). Using out of date software is VERY risky.
3) DON'T use your password anywhere except runescape.com. It is very important NOT to use the same password for RuneScape and other websites.
4) Make sure you have anti-virus software installed, and your virus defintions are up to date! And perform regular scans of your computer.
5) You should also install anti-spyware to get the things your anti virus misses. For example the keylogger mentioned above doesn't appear to be spotted by norton, but is spotted by ad-aware. Popular (free) anti-spyware programs are: Ad-Aware and Spybot
6) Even with all the latest patches and protection programs you should still be careful about what you download and run to avoid picking up anything nasty.
If you've recently used a fansite forum, then we recommend you follow the above steps (in order) to secure and clean your computer. If steps 4 or 5 find anything you should obviously remove it and change your password.
Xxxvikingxxx 16:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that quite a few fellow Wikipedians play RuneScape as well, so I made that template. :) -- Ixfd64 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
RS | This user plays RuneScape. |
As Jagex who produced the game are British, and Runescape was created in Britain, shouldn't it have British Spelling throughout? J.J.Sagnella 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, I think it should. Jagex are British, and RS is a British-made game, so it shouldn't have AmE spelling in it -
• | Đܧ§§Ť | •
T |
C
12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
any good sites? Shadin 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just have a look at this and see, Runescape Community. It is a stub about a website which fails to get a mention here. J.J.Sagnella 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone42 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to clear up a few of these (from personal experience):
-- Blue (note: not the registered user), 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
umm like ive never done this so dont get mad i paly runescape and was wondering where to talk to other people that do and do i say my name on runescape or what????
At a resolution of 800x600 in Firefox 1.5.0.1, the RuneScape series box mashes into the table of contents and confines it to a small, thin box. This creates a lot of whitespace below the infobox. I've tried experimenting with using {{TOCleft}}, but this just squashes the start of the first section (Overview) in the small space between the contents and the RuneScape series box. What other ways are there of arranging the TOC/series/infobox boxes to be slightly less conflicting?
Someone42
09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as it has become clear that there are people who do not agree with the RuneScape series (enough for it coming damn close to being deleted), I thought a practical solution (as merging the articles into one would be impossible) was to create a RuneScape Portal. I put a request for it on
Wikipedia:Portal, as I do not feel capable enough to create one myself. Plus I thought we would need a general concensus to create one, as the RS series would have to be moved there and extended. Comments? -
• | Đܧ§§Ť | •
T |
C
20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Just kidding. I'll get ready to create the portal, as nobody has opposed so far... Dtm142 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Do people think the 'official affiliates' and the 'reviews' sections of external links actually add to the article? The reviews are massively out of date and are in fact reviewing a game which doesn't even exist any more, and to be honest there are many other better written reviews of RuneScape out there. (although also sadly out of date). Furthermore I'm really not sure how the official affiliates links are helpful at all, as they are just rebranded versions of exactly the same page as the above link. I'd vote to get rid of those two sections and so just have links to jagex.com and runescape.com at the top, and then the top 5 fansites already listed. What to people think? Note this isn't a discussion about which fansites to link to, but about the other 4 apparently abitrary links. Runefire 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
'offical affiliate' is an alternative way to get to the game and they are not exactly the same page if you notice thoroughly enough i would say. in fact, 'runescape.com' itself is also one of the 'offcial affiliate' and there is nothing to do with 5 fansite, as they are information reasource rather than the location of the material. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 09:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks is in need of your help. The article Runescape is in need of a cleanup. Guides have insufficient information, some guides have no info even. If you want to write your own guides or quest walkthroughs, go to Wikibook's Runescape article.
Can we have a final consensus on what fansites you want on the list. We have many people posting fansites and I really don't know what the consensus is. Tawker 14:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
unarchived at 10:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of reverting the last sentence back and back again, jmods simply do have private chat.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.126.56 ( talk • contribs)
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)
As for the section, I mean that it isn't important by comparison to the rest of the article. Dtm142 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
While jmods, pmods and fmods are not a huge part of the game they are a popular part of it. I found the dumbing down of this section to be a bit of a disappointment. -- Christn 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is somewhat different from the one already posted. Feel free to merge with that one if you (whoever is reading/replying to this) please.
I'm incredibly confused about how these are ordered. Yes I must admit that I have in the past deliberately switched one site, primarily because I was still heavily involved in that particular fansite and was surprised at the five link rule. However, what are the criteria? It is clear that there is another fansite (that I am a part of and have been since October of 2004) that is larger than another fansite with clearly more visits. This is counting FANSITES, NOT FORUMS, am I correct? Being part of the administration I know for a fact that RuneCrypt is not an inexperienced site nor does it have faulty content as it is always being updated for any mistakes it has via the forums which are registered with over 8000 members with OVER 220 Thousand posts. Unlike several other communities, our forums are not the main site, so one can very easily assume that the actually site gets much more visits than the forum itself (similarly most other sites have a completely different URL as well as two or more URLs for their fansite itself versus one main url for runecrypt and a branch for the forum).
Please take a look comparing Zybez.net (as it is listed in the external links) and RuneCrypt.com as seen in Alexa:
Zybez.NET (AS LISTED ON external links): 203,356
RuneCrypt.com: 165,666
I feel no reason why there should be no limit to external links as to which sites stay on and off. Why should one site be left out which is growing while one site is left in which is declining (not zybez though)? Now I am biased as you can tell towards RuneCrypt, but if someone were to go to that site, you can tell that it is BY FAR not a small and inexperienced site. The current list does not equally allow sites that are large with a good activity rate to be shown. Why should sites which are already so incredibly large be shown, while some thats not nearly as large, but has MUCH of the same content be denied from showing?
Now if this is relating to the keyloggers and etc, it is not our site that is responsible. Tip.it and RuneHQ are notorious for these, yet these are listed there. So this really isn't the issue.
Please answer as to limits and etc. on this issue. Either the limits should be extended, more clarity given, or ALL taken off. It's the only reasonable solution. Thanks. Onejsin (aka The Arrowz/Arrowz on rc).
However, I would be very intrested to here what you call "...the limits should be extended...". And I will consider it. As for more clarity given, a giant warning above the 5 links, I think is enough warning. J.J.Sagnella 08:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As to limits, I worded that wrong. I meant that the amount of sites listed should be increased. The current sites listed is not a good representation of the good fansites out there. Whether or not I am biased (or anyone else towards what site should be there or what site they are a part of), there is no definite reason as to why those particular five are listed while others are not. Onejsin.
Now I can share the frustration of seeing dozens upon dozens of fansites which are quite useless, but you need to take a look at the others out there. It is obvious one of the external link's site is in major decline, yet it is obvious there are sites out there for Runescape that are growing. So, I just want to know your justification on this, because based on what I read in Archive 3, it really isn't such a strong support/arguement. Onejsin
B. So, it's quite obvious that you dislike the current layout. I can see you clearly have cleverly thought out a better idea, and I am very intrested in hearing it. So now please tell me how you would set the Fansite Section out, if it was up to you and maybe, if it's good it will get chnaged. J.J.Sagnella 18:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ive said it beofre and i'll say it again, if we have to many links then it looks messy, and also it would be pointless. Much of the stuff on the websites is just repeated over and over again. Also the high traffic sites have obviously done more work to get to where they are, so its only fair that they are the ones to be linked. Dracion 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously no ones seen the site I'm talking about. But I'm curious, no one gave you, J.J.Sagnella, authority in ruling this page; I don't see it in your profile, discussion, etc. How come you get to say what goes on here? Afterall, having 1000+ edits doesn't make you leader of an article you didn't create (or mention on your profile on wikipedia as a "Page I have made significent help in creating:". And if (just if) you think you have more authority than anyone else does because of a level on RuneScape, wake up. This isn't runescape.
Similarly, I was looking over archive three; this user named Dussst; why should you and him be ones to decide. Haha look at him; he's Banned from editing Wikiepdia indefinetely. Check his wikipedia page. And back to Article three, once again; take a look at RuneCrypt. It is not a low traffic site; one reasons there are adverts is because of the huge growth of users and the increasing hardness of being able to pay for it (yes it has a .com domain BTW). And obviously you are a Rune HQ user; you know for yourself FIRST hand that they had financial problems before and even publically announced the idea of shutting down. You should take a look at sites other than the top five and I'm positive you'll find at least one that is not "immature" or "low traffic" or "unexperienced" or "not commited. " onejsin 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think a new section listing helpful players or players telling about themselves or: a new section having links to runescape players user talk should be created. Either way the should be a new section.-- Hilotsunami 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, i wonder if it is ok if i can put this site on the RuneScape page, it is of good quality and has its own forum.
http://runescape.rulers.googlepages.com/home
Why not, what does it need to be classes as a 'good' website
Yes i guess that would be true but I know there is a section on wikipedians who play Runescape mabye there should be a link from the Runescape article to that?-- Hilotsunami 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there already a page about that?-- Hilotsunami 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh duh sorry I wasn't reading it correctly-- Hilotsunami 21:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the link
I still think its to hard to find-- Hilotsunami 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
why not put the link to wikipedians who play runescape directly on the runscape page?-- Hilotsunami 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What if there just intrested in seeing which wikipedians play runescape?-- Hilotsunami 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok I give up I just thought it would be nice to have users actually look at user talks and be able to talk to each other.-- Hilotsunami 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)-- Hilotsunami 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You would have to be really set on finding other runescape users to do find it!!!! (laugh)nice discussing this with you-- Hilotsunami 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Anything specific that needs to be cleaned up? Or do we need to clean up pretty much everything? - • The Giant Puffin • 21:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
"RuneScape is an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role-playing game)" - Found in the lead
"As with most massive multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMORPG)" - Found in the first paragraph
MMORPG is linkd to both times, we can try to cut down on duplicate links too as well as more information that is stated in main articles removed.
Also, there are NO references, citations, or inline citations at all. I'm sure we could get a couple of game guides or somethings as references but that is a major flaw. SandBoxer 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
is it posible to shrten the contents and add a small list before each topic? ( 208.178.240.143 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
I was considering rephrasing all the sentences which contain "you" ( ?), but I think an experienced player would do a better job at that than me. -- HeteroZellous 02:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been going through the RS series, creating sub pages - enabling me to summarise the series pages. So far I have worked on the RuneScape items page. As each of the RS series pages are shortened, we can summarise this main page. As for the "you" thing, that need to be changed to "players" or something similar - • The Giant Puffin • 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need these sections? Having a miscellaneous section means heaps of writing because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of miscellaneous items in RuneScape. This also applies to useless items. There are loads of items that are useless for one reason or another. I was going to remove these sections, but I would atleat consult people on this page (seeing as more people look here than the RS items talk page) before doing so. I propose their removal because:
I'm for a "RuneScape quest items" page, as long as there is a lot of information about the items - and that only important items are listed - • The Giant Puffin • 20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have now removed the lists - • The Giant Puffin • 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)