![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | 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 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
When massive changes are made to the page while multiple users are editing, we step on each others' toes a 'lot' and revert many needed corrections. Please edit one section at a time to minimize reverting others' edits, and check the history page after saving changes to see what other changes might have beed made while editing. Cilencia 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for local edit @ 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC). It did not even interfere with my edit of that same section just 5 min. prior. If you are editing a large section, it is perfectly fine to edit larger sections of the page, but a good rule of thumb is to edit just the part of the page being revised and to check the history after edits to see if others' edits might have been jepordised. And I'll try to comment my edits better, too. Cilencia 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Area appearance is about graphics, so it should have a type 3 header, so it comes under the graphics section! - • The Giant Puffin • 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is pretty much done in terms of a clean-up - • The Giant Puffin • 17:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed ip editbut way easier to use. Just a little too pov.-- Dakota ~ ° 19:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The monster section of the main page is huge—10 monsters are featured. I think we should summarize the variety and behavior of monsters on the main page and move what we currently have to a separate page altogether. What do the rest of you think? Cilencia 07:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion people who cheat in multiplayer games are nothing short of scum. The cheating information that has been added (and deleted) a few times should NOT be there in my opinion. I am not sure if there is any wikipedia rule about it, but unless there is a rule stating that information like this is allowed, I would say it is just wrong. Thoughts please? Clq 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Something off topic. i think information should be judge by "is it encyclopedic?" rather than "is that right or wrong?"...
GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 10:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the Scamming section was really well written and fits well. Cilencia 07:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that a major player in the Runescape world, RunescapeRealm.com is absent fromt he fansite list. While I completly agree with your reasoning to not have dozens of small, corrupt, and badly managed sites listed, this site is one of the biggest Runescape Communities out there. Google 'runescape', it is the 2nd fansite listed. Comparing forum statistics, is is also one of the biggest, often with the same or greater number of users than other sites previously listed.
Nmknhdragon : Runescaperealm is a awesome communtity and provides good information on just about everything related to Runescape so it just has to be added
Phoenix1300 - I believe Runescaperealm shoild be added in as it provides the best guide, and every guide is well thought out and proof read. The members there are also really nice. Runesscaperealm contains numerous amounts of members, thus I believe it should be added.
Nmknhdragon - pff you really think you are something judging people by their first edit, And what if they asked us?
Some_One_1_1 - Runescape Realm is a massive community, with nearly 80,000 threads and 850,000 posts, and 12,000 members... It has more posts per member than most other Runescape forums, is growing amazingly fast, and has many high quality guides. It has helpful and kind members, and active mods and admins. It has guides to answer most questions about Runescape, and members will answer any more, and contains a monster database, so it must be added.
Nmknhdragon - Finally someone with a usefull opinion :) but you might be right that those sites are bigger but if it comes to my Opinion then i would say that RunescapeRealm is a nicer community with nicer members and being almost a 2 yeared member there i think i should know :)
Yup i'm right. These people were aked on the forums. Here is the evidence.
[1]
J.J.Sagnella
16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Nmknhdragon - Duke asked us if we wanted to we have the choice to do so your just a Tipit or RSC user who doesnt want RSR up there so dont complain
Nmknhdragon - looking through Archive 3 i have not found any thing what so ever that says why RSR was removed in the first place
Duke probably didn't know that it isn't suppose to be like this, if he had known it probably wouldn't have ended like this. He is a reasonable admin. Anyway, I think RSR should be added because it is a growing community with several other links to forums created b Duke. If we get members at that forum, surely we will get some members to RSR. Tip.It and RSC might have the better and larger community, but there members and mods aren't really nice. I was a memeber at RSC for 4 minutes before I got banned... And I didn't even do anything. :P Anyway, the final decisions are up to Wiki, but I do believe and always will that it is a worthy site. -Phoenxix1300
Where do you find the RuneScape links currently? :$ I will try my best to make constructive arguments. :)
Since Duke closed the topic, I guess we can all forget about this. Thanks for all your time. :)
Nmknhdragon - Some comments on the current fansites up
* Rune HQ - Great site great content should stay * Sal's Realm of RuneScape - Reasonable site though not sure if itshould stay * RuneVillage - Very inactive dont think it should stay * Rune Tips - First ver fansite + Great content + Forums lidded with Flames and spam = reasonable but should stay for content * Zybez - Great content Linked to Swiftswitch (AkA a VERY good worldswitcher for Rs) should stay
so in my eyes RSR could replace RuneVillage EDIT: Btw i maybe a small against from me is that not everything is up to date(meaning the guides
nmknhdragon - Well in content RSR and RV might be the weakest of those(in my eyes) but RSR (in my eyes)Has the best forum off all of those
Correct, if RSR was to replaced RV, it would be the most useless up there, nevertheless, RSR is striving to be the best. RSR has created several forums, guides, and HoL's. RSR has added more guides, and have some guides even other forums don't have, it is completely unique. RSR also added a lot of different forums yesterday and the day before, including Sports, Tunes, Movies, etc. RSR has grown, and the reason there are so few members is because Duke deleted 10K of unactive members, that might be the case of your concern. Anyhow, RSR will continue to grow, and maybe at times be the most useful upon there. So definately, RSR should replace RV. - Phoenix1300
Ay, it is very confusing as both are RuneScapeRealm. :P Thanks, I'm glad you are in favor of our RSR. We may not have much quantity, but we have quality. :) I guess Duke should never have deleted those members.
Perhaps we should drop to three fansites, removing Sal's Realm and RV, and just keep HQ, Tips, and Zybez. Three is about as round as five, and perhaps we'd get fewer questions about how we decided how many to use. Four and six aren't really options, because they'd really invite that question. (sorry RSR people—I checked out your site, and it doesn't seem terribly specail to me, but Sal's & RV don't impress me much either.) Cilencia 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I would have been happier if RSR was one of them. :| It is up to you guys really, so I guess you guys make the decisions.
For those from RuneScape Realm, let me remind you that
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a petition. Also, sign your posts with ~~~~ to show your name and a timestamp, like this:
Rory
0
96
22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
As for my opinion, we did decide that 5 was a reasonable number of sites to have. Yes, it's completely arbitrary, but that's what we decided. I wouldn't be opposed to removing RV, but I'm not sure about including this new website. Where are the Fletching and Magic guides? The Thieving guide exists, but only as a forum post. While it may be growing, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently large as of yet. Maybe in a few months, if it's bigger. --
Rory
0
96
22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)~ Did someone delete some part of the edits? Anyway, I believe we do have the guides, and the reason the guide is in a 'post' form is because since we switched to the different server, we need to transfer the things, and we also need to proof read, and add more additions. The magic & the ranging guides are the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix1300 ( talk • contribs)
Ah again this same topic. I also agree with some of the people up there, sites such as RuneVillage are obviously more inactive than sites not up there. Additionally, an older site will have more traffic as it has been in existance longer. Seriously, think about it; it may at once have flourished but go check, RV is becoming less and less active (no offense but it has resorted to selling mugs...) and only has more traffic because it has been on the internet longer. Once again, it seems you (JJ Sagnella) have checked out RunescapeRealm. Have you checked Runecrypt.com? I can guarantee that the guides you're saying aren't on the other site is on ours. -- Onejsin 02:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Another reason that Runescape Realm has less members is that it allows guests to view the forums, which neither RuneHQ and Rune Tips do - I'm not sure whether the others do... We are the "mother-site" on a up-and-coming network of sites, too... Some One 1 1 07:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
you do know that there are several voting sites and most of them have different top 5 sites. Rdunn
Just a quick add to the "hiding forum" idea; Zybez is up there. RunescapeCommunity is completely open in its forums (just to remind you). -- Onejsin 13:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
why dont we decide OUR OWN top 5 sites Rdunn 16:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
RuneVillage is still active, just less so, this may be due to the fact that they make updates in batches so it may seem less active at some times and more active at other times. Sal's Realm has some of the best quest guides IMO and has a decent linking to as shown by Google. I don't think RSR is ready yet especially as it just went through a server change and many major skill guides are still not up. I would just wait a couple of months and reevaluate and see if RV has gotten less active and RSR better and then discuss what should be added or removed. SandBoxer 19:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
we should decied amungst ourselfes what the top sites are Rdunn 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There are other sites that have the major guides up. Take a look (once again...) at http://www.runecrypt.com There you'll find the major guides up and plenty of other guides plus an active forum. In archive 3 we didn't finalize what topsites belong up there; you only said it was based on Alexa; which, while a good source, doesn't take into account the time a specific site has been up and therefore an older site will obviously have more traffic than a site which might be only a year or two newer. -- Onejsin 04:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
but ye still cant agree what goes where Rdunn 17:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, this section is here because a group from RuneScape Realm [2] (RSR) wanted their site added to the fansite list. While the site has good forums, it was decided that the site is only about as good as RuneVillage. Many ideas were proposed as various contenders brainstormed solutions, the most valid of which were the default (no change), the reduction in the number of fansites listed to three, or the removal of the section altogether.
Since the discussion has been inactive for about 2 weeks, I suppose the surviving consensus is to leave the section unchanged. If that is the case, then this, the RSR chapter of the seemingly endless debate over which sites should be included in the fansite section should be considered closed. If it isn't, then perhaps the pool of participants has been reduced, and we can readily come to a decision. Either way, the section's been left open-ended, and could use closure. Cilencia 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it should not be changed at this current time, however I do feel that it will have to be edited at some point. RSR has 885,132 posts in our forums, comparing to HQ's 565,528. HQ's strong point is obvisouly its guides, RSR's strong point is its forums. How come one is allowed, yet the other is not. Its not being consistent. Out of the 1711 boards indexed on big-boards.com, RSR comes in 101. This isn't just RS boards, this is a wide variety of boards. I see no reason why RSR shouldn't be added. I also notice that RS has a wikibook. Perhaps we could come to some agreement, if, for example, you add us to the list, we could be able to help expand your wikibook on the subject. Handmedown
I don't want to bribe you at all. I am not even an administrator/staff of this site. I was merely suggesting a possibility, which obvisouly, neither party wants to enter into. Look, this is really pointless now. We have established the fact that RSR and Runevillage are equal. So either take down RV or put RSR up. Its not being consistent.-- Handmedown 09:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
For the point of arguing, if RSR gets 20,000 more members and 2 million more posts, more guides, it would make no changes to its chances of getting in the links? -- Handmedown 10:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop deleting the autoing section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.119.148 ( talk • contribs)
At the very least, make sure they are aware. Almost all runescape players will end up searching for runescape cheats on google someday, and when they do; Bam! A keylogger, there runescape account gets stolen, and any other personal information as well. There are very few clean websites, and they are not always easy to find.-- 65.93.119.148 03:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Could the problems encountered in the mining skill be addressed in the article?
Often ive found that it only takes one vulture with a rune pickaxe in a location to hog all the ore and ruin any chance anyone else has to gain anything and level up at all.
Ive tried to contact Jagex and perhaps prompt them to put more than one ore sample in each rock (like fishing or woodcutting where everyone gets a chance until the resource fades) but all I ever get is the robot rubber stamp response back. Arwengoenitz 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Granted theres challenge...and then theres taking it too far. They tried so hard to avoid exploitation that they made the skill near impossible to level up due to the amount you have to do plus the mad rush by all players to do it. The result is endless demand with little to no supply. It wouldnt be much of a change, perhaps two to three piles of ore in each rock before it turns grey. Theres mention of other crticisms in the article so why not mention one of the worst? And example being "Efforts to make skills less repetitive have been criticised for making the process of leveling, especially in the farming skill, too complicated". Vulture was just a thowaway term and not really worth such indepth disection...how about Kleptomaniac instead? Arwengoenitz 02:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If supplies went up, prices would go down. This is not a problem, but rather an aspect of the game. Clq 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a problem for lower level players as when trying to level up their mining skill, higer level players take take take everything in sight. Cant anyone see what a catch-22 (logic) this creates? You have to mine ore to level up - Cant mine ore because higher level players are camped out over the ore taking it quicker than you can - If you cant level up you can never beat them.
Putting more ore in each rock would at least relieve some of the problem. Arwengoenitz 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with 66.108.126.56's comments on 24 March. Pictures can add a lot to the page, especially some of the nice animation that Tarikochi has provided, but they are somewhat overused, and should have more variety. Screenshots should be more directly related to sections that include them, the main page should not have so many screenshots with the same setting, and the character ChikoritaPro is somewhat overrepresented. Cilencia 08:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I might not have a better alternative available, but the illustration of the main page could be much better. Consider the Dagger specail attack: the caption A player fighting with a Super-Poisoned Dragon Dagger, a weapon frequently used in the Wilderness somehow ties it into the pures section. If anything, it would belong in the wilderness section, but that section already has an illustration, and an illustration using the dagger in the wilderness would be more appropriate to the caption. Consider the Mace: the caption The Dragon Mace, a potential reward-to-purchase after finishing the quest "Heroes Quest." links it to the Quest section, but wouldn't a scene from a quest like the one we had from the Recipe for Disaster quest be more appropriate to that section? A player using the Special Attack "Weaken" from the weapon "Darklight," showing the graphical potentiality of RuneScape does not illustrate the graphics of RuneScape any better than any other animation on the page, and wouldn't one of the emotes better illustrate character animations? The purpose of the main page is to give an overview of RuneScape, and the more variety in the pictures—and the more directly related to the sections they illustrate—the better the overview. Cilencia 09:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It can be assumed by the fact that Wikipedia constantly deletes images and articles, whether they be irrelevant or underused, or as you may have seen before, "too much related content," that they must have some issue regarding space.
The entire section of pures have been removed in itself along with the image, so that should satisfy the condition of removing the image.
It's also pretty ironic that space (said as load-time) suddenly became an issue in the other arguments related to this matter.
And isn't the image in question do relate to the article, as the word "relate" doesn't give a determination of magnitude?
Tarikochi 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd remind everyone that Wikibooks has a RuneScape article. Now, the article isn't just "blah blah blah RuneScape is a game blah blah blah". No, it certainly is not. It also isn't really a book.
Wikibook's RuneScape article contains guides, quest walkthroughs, and skill guides. Things are continually being added. The article has been revamped totally. However, there is still much that other players can do.
We (Wikibook's RuneScape article) have been recieving much traffic recently, mainly because of the new articles. There's a new price guide that any player and edit and add prices. There's a rare items guide. Many of the member's quest walkthroughs can be fixed up greatly, new ones can be made, and the good ones can be expanded and fixed to make them look nice.
The skill guides are coming along good, though there is always room for improvement. Much info is still missing, and contributions are welcome.
So please, check out RuneScape on Wikibooks, and go ahead and add stuff! The price guide is missing many many member items, so why not start there?
Also, there are too many pictures on Wikipedia's RuneScape article. Richard x 02:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Please, excuse my inmense ignorance, but I'd like to ask; if there is a official policy stating that
Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.
...How come that there are articles such as
Combat and
Skills? Shouldn't they be better at WikiBooks?
I'm picturing every single famous MMORPG suddenly having FAQ's and Guides all over the place. It's not my intention to throw down all the hard work, but I think Wikipedia is not the right place for it.
hello I have a runescape fansite, and someone said I had to get permission here to add it to the list, so, do I have permission?
Well, if you read the discussion about adding runescaperealm here, you'll find that you probably have no chance of getting your fansite on in the links. -- Handmedown 20:49, 3 April 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | 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 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
When massive changes are made to the page while multiple users are editing, we step on each others' toes a 'lot' and revert many needed corrections. Please edit one section at a time to minimize reverting others' edits, and check the history page after saving changes to see what other changes might have beed made while editing. Cilencia 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for local edit @ 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC). It did not even interfere with my edit of that same section just 5 min. prior. If you are editing a large section, it is perfectly fine to edit larger sections of the page, but a good rule of thumb is to edit just the part of the page being revised and to check the history after edits to see if others' edits might have been jepordised. And I'll try to comment my edits better, too. Cilencia 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Area appearance is about graphics, so it should have a type 3 header, so it comes under the graphics section! - • The Giant Puffin • 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is pretty much done in terms of a clean-up - • The Giant Puffin • 17:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed ip editbut way easier to use. Just a little too pov.-- Dakota ~ ° 19:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The monster section of the main page is huge—10 monsters are featured. I think we should summarize the variety and behavior of monsters on the main page and move what we currently have to a separate page altogether. What do the rest of you think? Cilencia 07:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion people who cheat in multiplayer games are nothing short of scum. The cheating information that has been added (and deleted) a few times should NOT be there in my opinion. I am not sure if there is any wikipedia rule about it, but unless there is a rule stating that information like this is allowed, I would say it is just wrong. Thoughts please? Clq 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Something off topic. i think information should be judge by "is it encyclopedic?" rather than "is that right or wrong?"...
GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 10:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the Scamming section was really well written and fits well. Cilencia 07:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that a major player in the Runescape world, RunescapeRealm.com is absent fromt he fansite list. While I completly agree with your reasoning to not have dozens of small, corrupt, and badly managed sites listed, this site is one of the biggest Runescape Communities out there. Google 'runescape', it is the 2nd fansite listed. Comparing forum statistics, is is also one of the biggest, often with the same or greater number of users than other sites previously listed.
Nmknhdragon : Runescaperealm is a awesome communtity and provides good information on just about everything related to Runescape so it just has to be added
Phoenix1300 - I believe Runescaperealm shoild be added in as it provides the best guide, and every guide is well thought out and proof read. The members there are also really nice. Runesscaperealm contains numerous amounts of members, thus I believe it should be added.
Nmknhdragon - pff you really think you are something judging people by their first edit, And what if they asked us?
Some_One_1_1 - Runescape Realm is a massive community, with nearly 80,000 threads and 850,000 posts, and 12,000 members... It has more posts per member than most other Runescape forums, is growing amazingly fast, and has many high quality guides. It has helpful and kind members, and active mods and admins. It has guides to answer most questions about Runescape, and members will answer any more, and contains a monster database, so it must be added.
Nmknhdragon - Finally someone with a usefull opinion :) but you might be right that those sites are bigger but if it comes to my Opinion then i would say that RunescapeRealm is a nicer community with nicer members and being almost a 2 yeared member there i think i should know :)
Yup i'm right. These people were aked on the forums. Here is the evidence.
[1]
J.J.Sagnella
16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Nmknhdragon - Duke asked us if we wanted to we have the choice to do so your just a Tipit or RSC user who doesnt want RSR up there so dont complain
Nmknhdragon - looking through Archive 3 i have not found any thing what so ever that says why RSR was removed in the first place
Duke probably didn't know that it isn't suppose to be like this, if he had known it probably wouldn't have ended like this. He is a reasonable admin. Anyway, I think RSR should be added because it is a growing community with several other links to forums created b Duke. If we get members at that forum, surely we will get some members to RSR. Tip.It and RSC might have the better and larger community, but there members and mods aren't really nice. I was a memeber at RSC for 4 minutes before I got banned... And I didn't even do anything. :P Anyway, the final decisions are up to Wiki, but I do believe and always will that it is a worthy site. -Phoenxix1300
Where do you find the RuneScape links currently? :$ I will try my best to make constructive arguments. :)
Since Duke closed the topic, I guess we can all forget about this. Thanks for all your time. :)
Nmknhdragon - Some comments on the current fansites up
* Rune HQ - Great site great content should stay * Sal's Realm of RuneScape - Reasonable site though not sure if itshould stay * RuneVillage - Very inactive dont think it should stay * Rune Tips - First ver fansite + Great content + Forums lidded with Flames and spam = reasonable but should stay for content * Zybez - Great content Linked to Swiftswitch (AkA a VERY good worldswitcher for Rs) should stay
so in my eyes RSR could replace RuneVillage EDIT: Btw i maybe a small against from me is that not everything is up to date(meaning the guides
nmknhdragon - Well in content RSR and RV might be the weakest of those(in my eyes) but RSR (in my eyes)Has the best forum off all of those
Correct, if RSR was to replaced RV, it would be the most useless up there, nevertheless, RSR is striving to be the best. RSR has created several forums, guides, and HoL's. RSR has added more guides, and have some guides even other forums don't have, it is completely unique. RSR also added a lot of different forums yesterday and the day before, including Sports, Tunes, Movies, etc. RSR has grown, and the reason there are so few members is because Duke deleted 10K of unactive members, that might be the case of your concern. Anyhow, RSR will continue to grow, and maybe at times be the most useful upon there. So definately, RSR should replace RV. - Phoenix1300
Ay, it is very confusing as both are RuneScapeRealm. :P Thanks, I'm glad you are in favor of our RSR. We may not have much quantity, but we have quality. :) I guess Duke should never have deleted those members.
Perhaps we should drop to three fansites, removing Sal's Realm and RV, and just keep HQ, Tips, and Zybez. Three is about as round as five, and perhaps we'd get fewer questions about how we decided how many to use. Four and six aren't really options, because they'd really invite that question. (sorry RSR people—I checked out your site, and it doesn't seem terribly specail to me, but Sal's & RV don't impress me much either.) Cilencia 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I would have been happier if RSR was one of them. :| It is up to you guys really, so I guess you guys make the decisions.
For those from RuneScape Realm, let me remind you that
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a petition. Also, sign your posts with ~~~~ to show your name and a timestamp, like this:
Rory
0
96
22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
As for my opinion, we did decide that 5 was a reasonable number of sites to have. Yes, it's completely arbitrary, but that's what we decided. I wouldn't be opposed to removing RV, but I'm not sure about including this new website. Where are the Fletching and Magic guides? The Thieving guide exists, but only as a forum post. While it may be growing, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently large as of yet. Maybe in a few months, if it's bigger. --
Rory
0
96
22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)~ Did someone delete some part of the edits? Anyway, I believe we do have the guides, and the reason the guide is in a 'post' form is because since we switched to the different server, we need to transfer the things, and we also need to proof read, and add more additions. The magic & the ranging guides are the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix1300 ( talk • contribs)
Ah again this same topic. I also agree with some of the people up there, sites such as RuneVillage are obviously more inactive than sites not up there. Additionally, an older site will have more traffic as it has been in existance longer. Seriously, think about it; it may at once have flourished but go check, RV is becoming less and less active (no offense but it has resorted to selling mugs...) and only has more traffic because it has been on the internet longer. Once again, it seems you (JJ Sagnella) have checked out RunescapeRealm. Have you checked Runecrypt.com? I can guarantee that the guides you're saying aren't on the other site is on ours. -- Onejsin 02:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Another reason that Runescape Realm has less members is that it allows guests to view the forums, which neither RuneHQ and Rune Tips do - I'm not sure whether the others do... We are the "mother-site" on a up-and-coming network of sites, too... Some One 1 1 07:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
you do know that there are several voting sites and most of them have different top 5 sites. Rdunn
Just a quick add to the "hiding forum" idea; Zybez is up there. RunescapeCommunity is completely open in its forums (just to remind you). -- Onejsin 13:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
why dont we decide OUR OWN top 5 sites Rdunn 16:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
RuneVillage is still active, just less so, this may be due to the fact that they make updates in batches so it may seem less active at some times and more active at other times. Sal's Realm has some of the best quest guides IMO and has a decent linking to as shown by Google. I don't think RSR is ready yet especially as it just went through a server change and many major skill guides are still not up. I would just wait a couple of months and reevaluate and see if RV has gotten less active and RSR better and then discuss what should be added or removed. SandBoxer 19:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
we should decied amungst ourselfes what the top sites are Rdunn 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There are other sites that have the major guides up. Take a look (once again...) at http://www.runecrypt.com There you'll find the major guides up and plenty of other guides plus an active forum. In archive 3 we didn't finalize what topsites belong up there; you only said it was based on Alexa; which, while a good source, doesn't take into account the time a specific site has been up and therefore an older site will obviously have more traffic than a site which might be only a year or two newer. -- Onejsin 04:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
but ye still cant agree what goes where Rdunn 17:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, this section is here because a group from RuneScape Realm [2] (RSR) wanted their site added to the fansite list. While the site has good forums, it was decided that the site is only about as good as RuneVillage. Many ideas were proposed as various contenders brainstormed solutions, the most valid of which were the default (no change), the reduction in the number of fansites listed to three, or the removal of the section altogether.
Since the discussion has been inactive for about 2 weeks, I suppose the surviving consensus is to leave the section unchanged. If that is the case, then this, the RSR chapter of the seemingly endless debate over which sites should be included in the fansite section should be considered closed. If it isn't, then perhaps the pool of participants has been reduced, and we can readily come to a decision. Either way, the section's been left open-ended, and could use closure. Cilencia 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it should not be changed at this current time, however I do feel that it will have to be edited at some point. RSR has 885,132 posts in our forums, comparing to HQ's 565,528. HQ's strong point is obvisouly its guides, RSR's strong point is its forums. How come one is allowed, yet the other is not. Its not being consistent. Out of the 1711 boards indexed on big-boards.com, RSR comes in 101. This isn't just RS boards, this is a wide variety of boards. I see no reason why RSR shouldn't be added. I also notice that RS has a wikibook. Perhaps we could come to some agreement, if, for example, you add us to the list, we could be able to help expand your wikibook on the subject. Handmedown
I don't want to bribe you at all. I am not even an administrator/staff of this site. I was merely suggesting a possibility, which obvisouly, neither party wants to enter into. Look, this is really pointless now. We have established the fact that RSR and Runevillage are equal. So either take down RV or put RSR up. Its not being consistent.-- Handmedown 09:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
For the point of arguing, if RSR gets 20,000 more members and 2 million more posts, more guides, it would make no changes to its chances of getting in the links? -- Handmedown 10:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop deleting the autoing section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.119.148 ( talk • contribs)
At the very least, make sure they are aware. Almost all runescape players will end up searching for runescape cheats on google someday, and when they do; Bam! A keylogger, there runescape account gets stolen, and any other personal information as well. There are very few clean websites, and they are not always easy to find.-- 65.93.119.148 03:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Could the problems encountered in the mining skill be addressed in the article?
Often ive found that it only takes one vulture with a rune pickaxe in a location to hog all the ore and ruin any chance anyone else has to gain anything and level up at all.
Ive tried to contact Jagex and perhaps prompt them to put more than one ore sample in each rock (like fishing or woodcutting where everyone gets a chance until the resource fades) but all I ever get is the robot rubber stamp response back. Arwengoenitz 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Granted theres challenge...and then theres taking it too far. They tried so hard to avoid exploitation that they made the skill near impossible to level up due to the amount you have to do plus the mad rush by all players to do it. The result is endless demand with little to no supply. It wouldnt be much of a change, perhaps two to three piles of ore in each rock before it turns grey. Theres mention of other crticisms in the article so why not mention one of the worst? And example being "Efforts to make skills less repetitive have been criticised for making the process of leveling, especially in the farming skill, too complicated". Vulture was just a thowaway term and not really worth such indepth disection...how about Kleptomaniac instead? Arwengoenitz 02:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If supplies went up, prices would go down. This is not a problem, but rather an aspect of the game. Clq 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a problem for lower level players as when trying to level up their mining skill, higer level players take take take everything in sight. Cant anyone see what a catch-22 (logic) this creates? You have to mine ore to level up - Cant mine ore because higher level players are camped out over the ore taking it quicker than you can - If you cant level up you can never beat them.
Putting more ore in each rock would at least relieve some of the problem. Arwengoenitz 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with 66.108.126.56's comments on 24 March. Pictures can add a lot to the page, especially some of the nice animation that Tarikochi has provided, but they are somewhat overused, and should have more variety. Screenshots should be more directly related to sections that include them, the main page should not have so many screenshots with the same setting, and the character ChikoritaPro is somewhat overrepresented. Cilencia 08:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I might not have a better alternative available, but the illustration of the main page could be much better. Consider the Dagger specail attack: the caption A player fighting with a Super-Poisoned Dragon Dagger, a weapon frequently used in the Wilderness somehow ties it into the pures section. If anything, it would belong in the wilderness section, but that section already has an illustration, and an illustration using the dagger in the wilderness would be more appropriate to the caption. Consider the Mace: the caption The Dragon Mace, a potential reward-to-purchase after finishing the quest "Heroes Quest." links it to the Quest section, but wouldn't a scene from a quest like the one we had from the Recipe for Disaster quest be more appropriate to that section? A player using the Special Attack "Weaken" from the weapon "Darklight," showing the graphical potentiality of RuneScape does not illustrate the graphics of RuneScape any better than any other animation on the page, and wouldn't one of the emotes better illustrate character animations? The purpose of the main page is to give an overview of RuneScape, and the more variety in the pictures—and the more directly related to the sections they illustrate—the better the overview. Cilencia 09:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It can be assumed by the fact that Wikipedia constantly deletes images and articles, whether they be irrelevant or underused, or as you may have seen before, "too much related content," that they must have some issue regarding space.
The entire section of pures have been removed in itself along with the image, so that should satisfy the condition of removing the image.
It's also pretty ironic that space (said as load-time) suddenly became an issue in the other arguments related to this matter.
And isn't the image in question do relate to the article, as the word "relate" doesn't give a determination of magnitude?
Tarikochi 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd remind everyone that Wikibooks has a RuneScape article. Now, the article isn't just "blah blah blah RuneScape is a game blah blah blah". No, it certainly is not. It also isn't really a book.
Wikibook's RuneScape article contains guides, quest walkthroughs, and skill guides. Things are continually being added. The article has been revamped totally. However, there is still much that other players can do.
We (Wikibook's RuneScape article) have been recieving much traffic recently, mainly because of the new articles. There's a new price guide that any player and edit and add prices. There's a rare items guide. Many of the member's quest walkthroughs can be fixed up greatly, new ones can be made, and the good ones can be expanded and fixed to make them look nice.
The skill guides are coming along good, though there is always room for improvement. Much info is still missing, and contributions are welcome.
So please, check out RuneScape on Wikibooks, and go ahead and add stuff! The price guide is missing many many member items, so why not start there?
Also, there are too many pictures on Wikipedia's RuneScape article. Richard x 02:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Please, excuse my inmense ignorance, but I'd like to ask; if there is a official policy stating that
Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.
...How come that there are articles such as
Combat and
Skills? Shouldn't they be better at WikiBooks?
I'm picturing every single famous MMORPG suddenly having FAQ's and Guides all over the place. It's not my intention to throw down all the hard work, but I think Wikipedia is not the right place for it.
hello I have a runescape fansite, and someone said I had to get permission here to add it to the list, so, do I have permission?
Well, if you read the discussion about adding runescaperealm here, you'll find that you probably have no chance of getting your fansite on in the links. -- Handmedown 20:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)