Talk:RuneScape weaponry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 23/10/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Quick guide to Fancruft on RuneScape subpages. Remember: Wikipedia is not a game guide, all content must be of a neutral point of view, all content must be verifiable. In these subpages, we are not writing for RuneScape players, we are writing for everybody in the world. Very few of people need to know things like "abby whips cost 3mil" or "zammy prayerbooks are a reward from horror from the deep quest". This is 'Fancruft', in that it only appeals or means anything to players and fans of RuneScape, and will "bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole". It makes a poor article to be filled with fancruft. Instead, a more basic explanation is more often required, as readers may not know as much as you do! In short, fancruft includes things like: Pricing information How to complete quests and what the rewards are. Instructions for how to use and perform a skill, for example "to make bronze bars you need 1 tin ore and 1 copper ore" Lengthy, detailed descriptions of items. Avoiding Fancruft Instead of giving a specific price (which is subject to change anyway), state, for example, "Runite armour often fetches significant sums of money in RuneScape's marketplaces" Do not give game guide type information for quests. Limit mentioning the different types of equipment or raw material used for a skill Never describe an item in intricate detail, for example, the "Abyssal Whip", readers do not need to know that "the abyssal whip comes from abyssal demons which require 85 slayer to kill" Instead, use inline citations, linking to the relevant RuneScape knowledge base article. Wikipedia is not the place to guide people through every detail of playing RuneScape, as such a level of detail is inappropriate. It is appropriate at the RuneScape Wiki, a version of Wikipedia intended for players. Furthermore, read Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Then read it again. You may also wish to read the Wikipedia Introduction in full. Make it easier on your fellow contributors before you click the Save button; click the Preview button, Wikilink to other articles (for example, Wikilink to Sword), make sure your spelling and grammar is absolutely immaculate, don't ask readers to message you ingame, and don't ever use shorthand! Ur nt in rs anymore, you are writing an Encyclopedia!

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Expansion 2 Whip 3 Images 4 The Image Template 5 My image gallery. 6 Boneclub 7 A few images that may or may not be added to the articles for June 21, 2006. 8 Daggers 9 Introduction 10 Pure fancruft 11 Incorrect Statement 12 Pick Axes 13 Article being merged with armour 14 Special Attacks section

[edit] Expansion

Boneclub needs to be expanded, at the moment its just a single sentence - • The Giant Puffin • 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whip

If someone can find out when the whip graphics screwed up, it should be added. It must be 3 months now -.-

For those who may say "the graphics aren't screwed" read the bug list on RuneScape. It's listed, along with the Rubber Chicken and, I think, Verac's Fail. Vimescarrot 20:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This article has an excessive amount of images. Anyone who can help pair down the ones that are least relevant or least beneficial would be greatly appreciated. --Hetar 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Every single one of those images in this article appropriately fit its subject, displaying how each of them is demonstrated in-game. Tarikochi 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's nice that they appropriately fit their subject. Unfortunately, this article has over 20 images. I think most people can agree with me on the fact that we don't need an image to represent every single type of weapon listed here. Furthermore, a use of such a large number of images licensed under fair use specifically violates Wikipedia policy as well as copyright laws. For more information please see Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. --Hetar 07:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

These images are not on the main article, but rather on an article where all the images qualify for such positions. Also, I believe you have misread that policy, as it mentions copyright laws, which while I have recorded these clips and images inside the actual game itself, they were not created nor copied straight from JaGeX.

Also, I have read the link you have provided, and I have yet to see how having many relevant images in a single article would be violating a policy.

In fact, mentioning that most people would agree would be violating the Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is_Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy policy.

Tarikochi 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you used to capture the images, they still come from the game, and are still copyrighted. Stating that most users would agree that there are an excessive number of images is not an attempt to indicate that Wikipedia is a democracy, but rather that the number of images here are clearly out of bounds for a fair use rational. --Hetar 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is no need to mention other users that agree, then there is no need to mention it. And regardless, none of these images were taken in such a manner as "Google." Tarikochi 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion: I'm afraid the images should definitely go. They're an impressive piece of work, but RuneScape is a copyrighted game, and they can't really be claimed under fair use - note point eight, namely "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.", they could be replaced - and indeed, many of them already have - a textual description in the article itself. --Scott Wilson 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the amount of images in the main RuneScape article was all right, but I will have to agree that there are too many images in this one. --Ixfd64 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Now there are no more images in the article! What did you guys do to all of them? --BorisFromStockdale 14:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tarikochi decided that the third opinion meant they all had to go. I had originally though we could have one image for the melee, magic, and ranger types for a total of 3 images, but I'm not going to push the issue. --Hetar 07:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can contribute an appropriate image, this article DOES need a representative image for each type of weapon, or maybe a slow (2 seconds per frame) animation with a frame for each melee weapon, on a character standing in the same spot... I might try that, as it would sum up the available standard weapons without taking masses of space. Ace of Risk 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, as according to the third opinion, the current decisioning, and Hetar, the issue is there are too many images, not too little space. I basically already did what you were thinking, and it was removed ruthlessly. Tarikochi 17:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much an issue of article space, more copyright violation. I think you'd struggle to find images that were compatible with fair use. Most people are aware of what a sword looks like; anything much more specific starts to impinge on RuneScape copyright. --Scott Wilson 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hetar's issue, as this section of this Talk Page and an issue on another Talk Page, was of an excessive of images, not of copyright violations. Tarikochi 22:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but my third opinion (and one of the issues raised by Hetar was your interpretation of it) was on fair use and copyright violation. I just thought I'd clarify. --Scott Wilson 22:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, action has already been taken, and over half of the RuneScape images in all the articles have been removed/deleted to Hetar's and the third opinion's satisfactions. Tarikochi 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

again regardless... there are too many images... i'm using highspeed internet and it took 37 seconds to load the whole page... now what are people with dial-up suposed to do??? there should be no more than 5 images--Acethebunny 09:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, currently there are 6 images, and for an article of this length that's pretty sparse placement. As far as the loading time goes, except for the first image, if someone were to read through the article, by the time they encountered another image, it would have long since loaded. Hyenaste ^(tell) 09:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Image Template

I find the "Image Template" at the top very ironic. Didn't the third opinion and current interests state that there were too many images and had to be removed? Tarikochi 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

no i dont think so, maybe there was too many but there is no images now. anyway something more ironic, if i would say so, is from the existence of this template:User nopixuseless from the image exclusionlist GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The opinion in the RuneScape Talk Page still says that no images is better than too many images. Wanting images back seems very fickle. Tarikochi 16:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not like Hetar himself put the image request up. The template just shows that the idea of purging the article of images was not a solution to whatever problem required adjusting images. Hyenaste 05:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Which disagrees with Hetar's intentions if against the idea of purging the article of images. This disagreement was not shown much at all in the arguments before action has taken place. Tarikochi 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Since now we have a viewpoint that supports the inclusion of pictures, can we now discuss the introduction of new images? I wasn't involved with the discussion of images earlier, but now that we have next to none, I agree we should have more. Sure, we may not need to fill the main RuneScape article with images, but there are about 30 articles, many of which are lacking in pictures. Hyenaste 02:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If I re-add the images I had, the third opinion and Hetar would just end up making sure they get removed again. The reason why 30 articles are lacking in pictures were due to me deleting all of my images by the wishes of Hetar and the third opinion. Tarikochi 04:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My image gallery.

Today, I have reintroduced my deleted images (along with a few new ones) with a new feature.

I have finally worked on my user page. In it includes a RuneScape gallery of nothing but my own images. Since these images are inside my user page, they are not orphaned (something templates couldn't do) and will not be deleted if I know my orphan rules. Be warned though: my user page has a huge amount of images in it, so it will take a while to load for slow computers.

I have decided to do this instead of putting images in the articles myself, as apparently Hetar, the third opinion, and the opinions in the talk pages have deemed the articles overly excessive and conveniently all place the blame on me

From what I've seen now though, people are now moaning that there are too little images.

So instead, my gallery is up for access to anyone, so feel free to put the images in the articles yourselves. I would not want to take responsibility for any further arguments on the usage of my images in articles.

If I have any new images, I will add them to the gallery with an update on the RuneScape Talk Page.

Feel free to discuss about this idea.

Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 22:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the images, Tarikochi. The page looks great with the new additions. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boneclub

Does it really need to have the "Low level members often equip them."? I dont see them in-game very often. Rdunn 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, i see them quite a lot, just look at the places where lower level members are, like the area's that are also available for non members on their servers. You will see quite some of them. Elanthiel 08:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few images that may or may not be added to the articles for June 21, 2006.

Seeing as how I do not have many images to upload today and that the Talk Page of the RuneScape article is cluttered, I decided to go specific for now and place this information here.

I have uploaded new Special Attack animations for use when necessary. They are the following:

Image:Runescape_weapons_specialattacks_bonedagger-backstab.gif Image:Runescape_weapons_specialattacks_dorgeshuuncrossbow-snipe_TEMPORARY.gif

There's a reason why the Dorgeshuun Crossbow is only on temporary rather than permanent. The outfit worn while creating that one is different than the usual and inconsistent, but the reason for such an outfit is due to a graphics-related bug shown in the following clip:

Image:Runescape_bugs_graphics_combat_weapons_dorgeshuuncrossbow-snipe.gif

Besides, there may be some that may feel like it's a treat that the same outfit isn't used for this Special Attack.

I do not consider these clips very important for display, but if anyone feels it necessary to place them in the articles, then feel free to do so.

Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 02:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is merely an opinion, and in no way intended as criticism, but every time I see one of your animations on an RS page, the same three thoughts pop up

• "Hey, crackerjack",
• "It's amazing such a fluid animation can be compressed into such a small file, and a good job".
• "Same character model, again".

Considering how your attention is drawn to the player character in each shot and that two animations can be viewed on one page at the same time, they can be look a little uniform, if you see what I mean. Coupled with the RS fashion buzz and the ability to completely alter character models forward and back at the makeover mage (eg. a dark skinned male chara), I can't help feeling it's an opportunity lost. Like I say, gotta lot of respect for your work and would hate to come across as anything other than appreciative of it, but it's something I'd just like get out there. Nice job on the bone crossbow shot BTW. QuagmireDog 11:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daggers

The statement "Daggers are the fastest attacking weapons in "Runescape." is in conflict with a RuneScape login message that stated something to the effect of "Darts and Knives are the fastest weapon". The ingame message changes weekly. Tried finding an archive of the messages but nothing came up in google.Christn 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Daggers are the fastest melee weapon. Darts and knives are the fastest overall. Pyrospirit 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The introduction is bad. It immediately dwelves into the "material", before even clarifying what this article is about. It doesn't even say that it's about the game RuneScape. Please rectify this. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This article, as it stands, is just a list stuffed with excessive information that doesn't need to be there in the first place. I intend to merge the article into RuneScape combat soon anyway, so don't worry about the intro. QuagmireDog 11:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say instead merge with RuneScape armor. Then there can be a single section on equipment, including non-combat items that can be equipped. Maybe even have an Items section. Pyrospirit 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Armour is being merged into combat aswell. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pure fancruft

This article should be cutdown and merged. We dont need to know that a steel dagger does 1.5X damage! Its like a gameguide, something Wikipedia is not. Koolsen0 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what's happening, it's being merged with armour (albeit slowly). Should that prove insufficient relevant info for an article then we can look again, but this pile of non-notable info is going. QuagmireDog 03:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Statement

It said in the article the strength bonus of the Dragon Halberd is higher than the Dragon 2h sword. I changed it, because the strength bonus of the halberd is +89, while the strength bonus of the Dragon 2h is +92.

[edit] Pick Axes

If i am not mistaken, can't pickaxes also be used as a weapon? Shouldn't a section be added?

The whole section detailing each individual type of weapon is fancruft anyway. It'll probably get cut out when we merge this page with either the combat page or the armor page. Pyrospirit 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article being merged with armour

As part of the above process, the article is being pared down to remove fancruft (see fancruft notice on top of this page). After this has happened, the weapon page can be merged into armour to form a new 'equipment' article. Please consider the following before contributing to the weapons article:

• The object of the article(s) is to discuss the many kinds of equipment available to the three combat classes and demonstrate how this affects gameplay, not to list every kind of weapon and armour available.
• Whether a dragon version exists of a particular piece of equipment or not, there is no need to mention this unless a dragon weapon is actually being discussed. Our readers will not know why the existence of dragon 'insert weapon here' or not is of any relevance. Dragon is just another level of equipment.
• Types of weapon are better to discuss than individual weapons, with the exception of the more commonly used and powerful weapons and armour in-game. These can be used as a practical demonstration of the abilities of more powerful weapons and illustrate the different effects attainable via special attacks - interesting!
• Provision has been made to illustrate the more curious examples of 'weapons' available, in the armour article. Please tweak this paragraph instead of adding new sections on pickaxes/rubber chicken/hatchets/flowers etc. The point to be made is that RS isn't just swords and shields, nor always deadly serious, this can be effectively demonstrated in a single paragraph, multiple headings are not necessary. QuagmireDog 22:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, that isn't my place to say. Please contribute to the merger suggestion, hopefully we can make a nice article out of these two. QuagmireDog 13:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special Attacks section

The special attacks section in Weapons is pure fancruft. Only a player would have any use whatsoever for that information. I suggest removing the entire special attacks section and replacing it with a short paragraph on special attacks in general. Pyrospirit 17:01, 06 November 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects before 5:00 11/11/06 (UTC), I will delete all of what I believe to be fancruft in the Special Attacks section and reword the initial paragraph to provide a summary. If you disagree, you can revert it, but most of this section is simply a table of technical data. If anyone wishes to get this information, they clearly play the game and would be better off looking on www.runescape.com anyway. Pyrospirit 15:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Slight correction, make that 17:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC). Forgot to convert to 24 hour. Pyrospirit 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm currently in the process of shortening and rewriting the special attacks section. Pyrospirit 17:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just finished rewriting the special attacks section. If anyone objects, they may look at what was there before the edit and propose to bring it back; however, I believe that it was clearly fancruft. Pyrospirit 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)