Portal talk:RuneScape/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Toplists?

The Current toplist (as of timer of writing) I feel doesn't help the article. In that list, Tip.it is 7th, and some clans get higher. We'll need a general concensus on this, as I hardly feel the current toplist is any good. J.J.Sagnella 17:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

By default, a site gets bumped to the top of the list if you vote for it. You can also organize the toplist however you want, such as rating, most votes in, etc. You can also choose to see only the fansites or only the clansites. Dtm142 18:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but how does the amount of people voting for a website on one site show how important each website is? J.J.Sagnella 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Important is open to interpretation. That's why we can rearrange the toplist. Anyway, I think that we should include at least one toplist (possibly that one). I was hoping that we could avoid this whole fansite debate over again, but I guess I was disappointed... Dtm142 19:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping as well. But please bear in mind that more people were in favour of my plan in the debate than not. If we start to slip here, It might lead to a slip in the article itself. J.J.Sagnella 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


I know that. I think that we should just keep the official affiliates and toplists here and see how it goes. This is the portal. However, your plan is only in effect for the article, not the portal. Dtm142 15:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, what is wrong with how it is now? J.J.Sagnella 20:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Nothing. It's called improvement.Dtm142 21:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
And how will it improve? Practically all the information found in minor/moderate websites can be found in major websites (eg. tip.it, runehq) J.J.Sagnella 22:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Practically all the information found in these articles can be found in major websites (eg. tip.it, runehq) Dtm142 22:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You're diverting from the point. Links and articles are treated difefrently on Wikipedia. J.J.Sagnella 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The WikiSpam thingy says that things like toplists and directories are a good solution.Dtm142 23:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Other RuneScape Wiki

[1]. Someone might want to ask the owner of that if they were to abandon that and start work on this one. J.J.Sagnella 18:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[2]. And this one. J.J.Sagnella 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Lol. Shadowdancer, who happens to be the creator of BHE and the wiki, has already been here in the past...Dtm142 18:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I know about that all too well. J.J.Sagnella 18:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More detail?

Now that we have a portal, is it ok to make more detailed articles like the Dragon weapon sets or a certain item or place? Many other portals go into such detail. Also, if we can go into such detail, maybe there should be a stubs box on the portal page? That way we could build up a larger group of pages - • The Giant Puffin • T | C 18:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maintainers

I have added this portal to the Portal directory, and have put down Dtm142 as the only maintainer, as he created it. But I was wondering are there any set maintainers as of yet? Im asking so the directory entry is more accurate, and I hope I could become one too - • The Giant Puffin • T | C 19:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It's still early days (first week in fact). I would be very intrested in being a maintainer. As for set maintainers there are none yet. J.J.Sagnella 19:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You guys can put your names down as well, I don't mind. I already put the portal under the directory when I created it, so I removed one of the two links.Dtm142 21:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What does a maintainer do for the portal? If it's not too hard I can maintain. I know plenty about the game and am familiar with two of the fansites. --Infobacker 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) *ahem* forgot to add my signature...
  • One large Problem is Is you can't fit any more than 3 on the maintainers list. And I don't know how it works either. J.J.Sagnella 21:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe we'll need to create a RuneScape Project to go with the portal...Dtm142 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeh, that could work. But I dont think we need it until we expand the portal a lot more (more pages, etc) - • The Giant Puffin • 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

I have created both Template:RuneScape-stub and Category:RuneScape stubs, and have used both on Chaos Elemental. I suggest:

  • When we get more sub-articles (e.g: Saradomin can count as a sub-article to RuneScape gods), we edit the series template to link to categories, as apposed to the main article
  • We do a contents in this portal, with the main article in bold and a list of the sub articles next to it

These suggestions may need expanding, and are just a bit of forward thinking, although they should be seriously considered if we are to make this Portal a successful one - • The Giant Puffin • 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested contents

When the time comes, we will need a new contents. I have so far made the one below. Modifications will probably be needed when we actually need it:

RuneScape series
RuneScape - Portal

Skills - Combat - Cooking - Fishing - Mining - Runecrafting - Smithing
Locations - Karamja - Wilderness - sub page
Dungeons - TzHaar Fight Cave - sub page - sub page
Quests - sub page - sub page - sub page
Runes - sub page - sub page - sub page
Economy - sub page - sub page - sub page
Items - Weaponry - Armour - Holiday items - Rare items
Gods - sub page - sub page - sub page
Random events - sub page - sub page - sub page
Mini-games - Castle Wars - sub page - sub page
Monsters - KQ - Dagannoth - Chaos Elemental - KBD
  • Very good idea as 3 RuneScape articles are in Wikipedia's list of the 1000 biggest articles. Some of them need to get split up. J.J.Sagnella 07:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What particular RuneScape articles are in the top 1000? - • The Giant Puffin • 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It might be a good idea to make separate templates for the "main" articles which you have highlighted. For example:
Skills of RuneScape

Skills - Combat - Cooking - Fishing - Mining - Runecrafting - Smithing - sub page - sub page

Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

      • RuneScape items. It is as tiem of writing Wikipedia's 364th largest article. That needs to be split up quickly.
      • RuneScape skills and RuneScape are in the top 1000. J.J.Sagnella 23:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok. I'll start making some subpages for the items and skills. Then we can summarise each section, and just put a "main article" link. As we do more subpages, and do a "main article" thing, the RS article should get shorter. Although having the main page longer than any other page is not a major concern compared to the items one being in the top 400 - • The Giant Puffin • 15:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I have made RuneScape weaponry, and I'll move onto RuneScape armour soon. I have put weaponry into the template above - • The Giant Puffin • 18:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I think RuneScape runes should become a subpage of RuneScape items. Currently, the runes section in RuneScape items is way too long and not pointing to the runes page at all. SandBoxer 21:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
          • RuneScape runes already exists, and the Runes section in RuneScape items isnt long at all. I am planning to make individual pages for the most important runes some time in the future, so the RuneScape runes page should get a lot shorter - • The Giant Puffin • 21:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Created RuneScape armour. I'll move onto the rest of the RuneScape items page. So far I have got it down from 83kb to 39kb in length - • The Giant Puffin • 15:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merges/Renames and Consistency

I originally posted this in the Talk of the main RuneScape article as I could not find this. I have removed it from there now and am posting it here.

I recently noticed two articles on the Chaos Elemental. One with "Elemental" in lowercase, one capitalized. Both had very poor grammar, I decided to just go with it and redirected the lowercase one, and then reworked it. I know my version is still not perfect (almost 24 hours without sleep so far) so can someone look over it? Also, I think that this having its own seperate article is a bit unnecessary yet I knew merging a couple required lots of work which I cannot do at this moment. I think we should make a RuneScape Monsters article and take some information out of the main RuneScape article, some out of the combat section of the RuneScape skills article, and merge Kalphite Queen, Dagannoth, TzHaar Fight Cave, as well as Chaos Elemental in it. I think then information about the King Black Dragon should go in as it was originally the "boss" of RuneScape. Also, I think RuneScape runes is unnecessary and should be merged with an article as we do not need a list of all the runes just like we do not need a list of all the monsters. A sentence or two on Runes can go in the Magic section of RuneScape Skills and here as well as a sentence or two of Combination Runes in the Runecraft section of the Magic section. Also, the picture in the article is a bit inappropriate, a better picture would just be an actual picture of some of the runes in-game.

In the Chaos Elemental article, someone added the same categories the main RuneScape article (minus the cleanup) is in while all the other RuneScape pages only have RuneScape as their category. Which is it? I am going to remove the other categories from the Chaos Elemental page as I do not think they belong but someone please clarify this. Lastly, can someone get a screenshot of the Chaos Elemental?

PS. I noticed many of the RuneScape pages are missing redirects from pages that may have Scape and Skills capitalized so I am going to add them. Can someone go over and see if there are any I missed once I'm done? Thanks. SandBoxer 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Because of this new portal, we can now go into more detail, which mean we are able to make pages like King Black Dragon and Chaos Elemental. RuneScape runes is completely necessary and contains a lot of info. I am planning to make pages about the main runes in the game. RuneScape monsters page is a good idea, and can provide a overview of the main monsters in RuneScape, as well as the different types of monsters - • The Giant Puffin • 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
One another thing I noticed is the difference between "two handed" "two hander" "two-handed" These are all used in the RuneScape articles, can we get a general consensus on the right thing to use? I do not own one in game and cannot check on its official name. SandBoxer 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
My friend lent me his iron 2h and i can tell you the examine of it is " a two handed sword" Two hander is just a very common piece of slang for it. J.J.Sagnella 20:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I even notice 2H being used in some places, anyone want to help me change these: 2H, 2 handed, 2 hander, two-handed, two-hander, two hander, so it says "two handed"? Along with this, make sure they're not capitalized, and help me change: RuneScape, RuneScape2, RuneScape 2, RuneScape2, and RuneScape 2, so it just says RuneScape? RuneScape 1 and it's variations have to be changed into RuneScape Classic but I have not seen that yet. SandBoxer 02:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll try. J.J.Sagnella 07:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Remember every use of "RuneScape" or "RuneScape Classic" need to be in italic, and there needs to be a capital "s" in RuneScape, and a capital "c" in Classic - • The Giant Puffin • 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed through-out the articles some names are italicized and oters are not, especially all of the names of those in the TzHarr fight caves. Should all be itzlicized or not be italicized? - Koolaidman
Italic the words which are the same as the title eg. if the article is about the King Black Dragon italic King Black Dragon every time you see it.J.J.Sagnella 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News

Seeing as pretty much every update on the RuneScape website is rather long, and the fact that the news section is a thin column, I thought I would start a new system of just doing bullet points of the updates. This makes it easier for viewers to read, as all updates are seperated, and summarised. It also saves space so the portal page isnt as cramped. I have also created RuneScape news. Everytime a new update is posted on the official website, we can now update RuneScape news, and keep the same link "See here" at the bottom of the Portal/RuneScape news page. - • The Giant Puffin • 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I commented on the news discussion page, but no-one replied so I'll just say it here: I think we should have some sort of list of headlines of previous updates (3-5 of them) so minor updates don't cover the major ones. // Nathan M

[edit] Deletion

This portal is nominated for deletion HERE and I suggest you all put forward good arguments to keep this portal. We have created an extensive portal full of good information. It has lead to the clean-up of the vast majority of the RuneScape pages. This portal does not deserve to go, and I urge you to go and win that discussion! - • The Giant Puffin • 20:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Portal was kept, for now - • The Giant Puffin • 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikibooks guide has moved...

Just a heads-up, due to policy changes the Wikibooks guide is now at StrategyWiki. I won't attempt to fix it myself as the subpage says Wikimedia, which StrategyWiki certainly isn't. GarrettTalk 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fansite Links (Again)

I realise that the fansite debacle has been resolved on the main encyclopedic page, but it's time for you to expand on this. Since we don't have to limit the links that are found on the portal, perhaps you should expand this list to ALL fansites, if you're going to do one. Makoto 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Waaay too large a list that would be. Sticking to 5 here is the sensiblist idea. J.J.Sagnella 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not thinking ALL of them, I'm thinking more like ten. No more than ten. Makoto 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Why 10? Where do you draw the line? It is nicely settled at 5 and in my mind, a good idea to stay at that. J.J.Sagnella 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For the purpose of WP:NPOV, I've decided to edit the link list in the Portal. I know I may have stepped on a few toes here, but I feel it's for the best. I'm not making any decisions based on community, I'm making them SOLELY based on content/extra features. For instance, Tip.it and RuneHQ both offer beastiaries. RuneVillage offers one as well, but in a lesser sense. RS Bits and Bytes, RuneHQ, RuneWeb, Zybez and Tip.it offer signatures and dynamic calculators with which to show off your stats/calculate your next level. (I don't believe that Tip.it or Zybez offers a signature, but correct me if I'm wrong.) All sites listed there have fantastic quest guides, and they're kept up to date and published within 24-48 hours of the release of a new quest. I've searched around on Sal's Realm, and sadly I could not find any sort of extra feature that sets it apart from the standard blog of Fansites.

I'm not advocating that a fansite should be advertised on Wikipedia. In fact, I'm whole-heartedly against such advertisement ploys. (If they site admins really wanted their name known, they'd offer something popular; the list in the Portal now reflects the most popular or well-known sites.) Wikipedia is NOT anyone's advertising tool, not under any circumstances.

Again, the decision I've made reflects WP:NPOV. If you wish to discuss it, go ahead and discuss it here. Makoto 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And What makes Runeweb better than Sal's Realm? And The links are put there for further reading, not links for advanced players. J.J.Sagnella 08:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
And what makes Sal's Realm better than RuneWeb as far as content goes? I said before I'm NOT making these decisions based on forums/community, I'm making them based on content and familiarity. I went to three different clan sites, asked them to rattle off the most common sites they know, and you know what? Not once did I hear Sal's Realm. I've not made these links to advertise or anything like that, but I think that you might have. Sal's Realm as far as extra content goes has NOTHING. You can ask any player ingame or on any forum if they've heard of Sal's Realm, and they'll return a blank, whereas Runeweb is rather well known on major boards/clan sites. No one said you had absolute authority when it came to making this link page, and since I said that I was honestly making the judgment based on contents of the site, you might be stepping out of your boundaries. Makoto 15:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok first off, until you can get to an agreement with me, I'm going to leave the faniste section alone so as to not get into an edit war. First off, you have not answered my Question. I would like you to answer this question, Makoto. The question is:
  • What makes Runeweb better than any of the 5 websites?

Secondly, Please remember why fansites are on Wikipedia. They are there for the reader to go to if they want more detailed,specific information. Not for signatures.

Thridly, as you are picking on salomoneus (and runevillage is worse, guide wise and traffic-wise) and many people pick on salmoneus and runevillage, using them as an excuse to get their link on, I would like your opinion on taking the links down to 3-zybez, tip.it and runehq. I would like your opinion on that proposal and answer to that question. Hoping to reach an agreement peacefully,J.J.Sagnella 16:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, Runeweb can't really compare to the major sites such as RuneHQ, Tip.it or Zybez (as far as membership goes). But they provide something fun that everyone can enjoy, namely the signatures. It's like a breath of fresh air from the humdrum monotony of other fansites, in my opinion. I realise why fansites are on Wikipedia, but do they really need to be here? This isn't supposed to be a place that fansites get credited for their work, since anyone could walk up and create a Wiki for a RuneScape fansite. Thirdly, I'm not picking on Salmoneus. In fact, he remembers the older version of RuneWeb, and is rather well-known and respected by the members of the RuneWeb community. I'll leave it at this — if you want to put a link in there, it might be best to put a RS link in the Portal since fansites give malinformation in the place of the actual RuneScape site. As far as links NOW, I'll revert it to just the major three. Makoto 16:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the links to fansites should either be removed entirely or stay all five original links on the main page should stay the same. When searching for Alexa ratings, I couldn't find one for www.zybez.com, and www.zybez.net, as well as www.runescapecommunity.com (both at 45,814), has a worse rating when compared to runescape.salmoneus.net (13,366). Runeweb's site at www.runeweb.net (Alexa rating of 379,786) isn't even in the same league as the others. So, all other things aside, just based on traffic, Sal's Realm deserves its link on the portal if any should be included. Dissentor 20:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps a straw poll on the matter would solve things? People could vote for their top 5, and the winning sites would go on the fansite section - • The Giant Puffin • 17:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There already was a straw poll taken to decide the fate of these links. Can't we just give it up? Makoto 03:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That was the main page, which has more traffic and is less specific for RuneScape than a Portal. Here on a Portal, there is no reason to not include a small section of links. J.J.Sagnella 07:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd happily give up if people didnt stop whining about the fansites being there - • The Giant Puffin • 12:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
i am thinking of aggreeing to Makoto's earlier statement, stick with ten, it is just a blank page without the links (has only seen it recently) is information about the links provided? if info is provided then i say stick with severn, seven of the most widely used, most kept update, most popular fansites, and if not then i say just delete the fansite page because whats the point if you stick with the favourites of the editors of this page instead of the favourites of all the people felinoel 17:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Compression of Fansites

As so many people are saying things like "if not this one, then none", I have done my research and found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Occasionally_acceptable_links this. It states linking to the largest site is acceptable. As this is Wikipedia's rules, I suggest we have a lengthy discussion on which Link, (yes link is meant to be singular) should stay. This Idea is enforced by Wikipedia's rules and will be able to bring a fansite back to the main page. If anyone agrees with this, say here and I will bring the idea to the main article's Talk Page. J.J.Sagnella 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

actually i say we go with the second half of that rule "a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link" instead of only choosing one, because this is acceptable as well and it does not cause a big arguement and a fight felinoel 17:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Compression of Fansites (Idea 2)

Or for a second suggestion, Zybez could be removed as well leaving us with 2 sites. 2 sites are needed as on their own, neither site is complete. However with those 2 sites, virtually all information is there. There is reason to bend Wikipedia's rules slightly as RuneScape is the most edited Game on Wikipedia and due to it sheer popularity, 2 wouldn't be too much of a stretch. If anyone agrees with this idea, just post below and like the first one, I will bring to the main article's talk page. J.J.Sagnella 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking "largest" based on amount of people and traffic, then I must say, from an objective point of view, RuneHQ is the "largest" RuneScape fansite around. The facts and evidence support this. However, if we're talking about which page is the second "largest", then there's a little room for debate. I'd say the two probably contenders (based on Alexa ratings, number of guides, content of guides, etc) would be Tip it and Sal's Realm. What if we were to include, say, the top three? Because, based on what you said about "on their own, neither site is complete", Sal's Realm arguably does have a number of guides that neither of the other two have. Feel free to comment on what I have just said. Dissentor 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
A quick alexaholic search should tell you traffic wise, which two should stay. Content wise, in my opinion they should stay. And if salomoneus has a guide for something the other two don't, then just link to it as is done on the Dagganoth Page. I couldn't say there's anymore than one or two useful guides,which is not reason to link to it. I'll also move this discussion to the main page.J.J.Sagnella 21:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

http://runevillage.com/ This fan site is very good. The guides are updated very frequently. Also the forums are popular. I think this would be in the top 3, considering 67k members of the forum . . .

With an Alexa rating of 91,004, I don't know if Rune Village should even be considered. Actually, to state my views frankly, I don't think any fansites should be included in either the portal or the main page. To quote someone else:
As for the link on the RS page: there used to be like 10-15 of them on the RuneScape page including smaller sites too, but all of them were removed for some reason (except for the top 5, which included this site and the other main ones). Even though we were listed, I felt that was completely wrong to do, it's just a way of keeping the popular sites popular ("they're listed on wikipedia, they must be good") and the smaller sites smaller. If you're going to have links to fansites, have links to ALL of them. Otherwise, remove them ALL.
Just my two centavos, I'll participate in the discussion on the main page if that's where it's heading. Dissentor 21:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have at least Rune HQ and Tip.it based on their overall quality and ratings. Any third and/or fourth websites would be, in my opinion, extra(s) - • The Giant Puffin • 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My proposal for fansite links.

Here is my proposal:

For the main portal page and the main article, we will either have no fansites, or simply links to directories and toplists. This is a good solution, because we can't simply choose one fansite. It would be biased, and it would seem like we're endorsing that fansite, rather than having a neutral point of view like Wikipedia is meant to be. There is no official fansite, besides the RuneScape Knowledge Base.

For the other articles, we'll only have one link to the best COMPLETE guide that is related to the subject. The official Knowledge Base article is always preferred. Another special report that isn't a guide can also be included. A good example of this is at RuneScape holiday items.

Feel free to debate and discuss this with me. Dtm142 20:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


We just got over an argument about having a fansite - let's not bring it up again, just link to the KB. A toplist for other things, however, may be appropriate if it fair and unbiased (eg. if a list was operated by "person A", it's obvious that their site would recieve the highest rank). A topsite idea was mentioned on Talk:RuneScape, but was shaken off without much discussion. However, we are allowed to use a topsite (see rule 3 in that section, I assume it's where you got the idea). If we can come to a decision of what site(s) to use as a toplist, I'm for it as it's not as biased as linking to directly to a site. If it becomes problematic like the original external link discussions, I'll disagree. Agentscott00 02:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we should go with the knowledge base. Its the official guide - • The Giant Puffin • 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Good idea for the main article, but we need to find an agreement about the portal links. Dtm142 14:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not make a seperate page for Runescape fansites and link all of them there? --pevarnj (t/c/@) 20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Surely the same arguments apply to portal links as dis to the article. Does the exact same ground have to be covered again? Cain Mosni 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose so, if I can get away with removing the list. And no, Wikipedia isn't a link farm. The RuneScape Fansites page would get deleted. Dtm142 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Even though, the decision was for the main page and this is more specific for RuneScape. There are strong claims to keep the links and in my opinion you have actually turned a blind eye to The Giant Puffin. J.J.Sagnella 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
He said that we should just go with the RuneScape Knowledge Base. In my opinion, it's you who has turned a blind eye on him. So far, that's what's been decided. Dtm142 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm okay then, if The Giant Puffin states that he/she agrees with the decision, then it is a good idea to take them down for good and I will step down as well. If he/she doesn't agree, then this will have to be taken to miscellany for deletion. J.J.Sagnella 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What about RuneVillage? Those are the 3 TOP sites. I have been playing RS since Classic and Have been on RV for over 2 years and never have heard of Zybez. I'm editing Runevillage back in. The main site is NOT the main focus, if you checked out the Forums then you will see why it needs to be on there.
~Nibel (Chat moderator of Runevillage)
That is a perfect example of what I mean. This has caused too many arguments about what the top sites are, and needs to stop. Dtm142 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Now if you don't mind, I'll remove the section. Dtm142 21:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a good way to choose a fansite; completeness, usefulness, and Alexa rating. It's been done before. --InShaneee 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. J.J.Sagnella 11:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it was too hard for us to come to one agreement lately, and most of us just wanted them removed in the last few decisions. Agentscott00 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Too hard? It would be a simple decision, harder decisions have been made on Wikipedia. J.J.Sagnella 11:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The external links guideline states that it's sometimes acceptable to include one fansite. But if that doesn't work out (which is hasn't been working out for the portal), we can include a directory instead. I think that we should stick to that. What Nibel did is a perfect example of why linking to a fansite is a bad idea. Dtm142 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That is because it was at the current state of 3. If we were to link to one it would definitely not be runevillage or zybez or any others but be a choice between runehq and tip.it. And how do we know it hasn't been working for the portal? We haven't tested it out with one fansite... I got a feeling it really could work. J.J.Sagnella 21:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
There should be a mention of the RuneScape Wiki as anybody can contribute to it, plus it's got a very small group of contributors at the moment. --Richard x 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a good idea. Wikipedia never was and never will be advertising space or recruitment space. Content-wise it is terrible. Hardly even 10 Members Quests.... J.J.Sagnella 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Duh... Why'd I say it's got a very small group of contributers -.- --24.109.206.88 22:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait... Didn't we just get over this? We voted on this once before, and it was decided that the fansites were not to be put back in (and I strongly opposed to that but somehow it violated the Wikipedia rules). Why was this discussion even opened again? WIKIPEEDIO 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Because J.J.Sagnella was convinced that it was only for the main article. Besides, I wanted to make a proposal for all of the pages in the series.

As for choosing one fansite, have we tried it with none yet? Having the Major Fansites box is a big target for vandalism, as we all know. Plus, it seems biased only linking to one, especially since:

1. They are both unofficial. 2. They both either have a keylogger or other security threat, or get in big trouble with Jagex every few months.

Everything that we would need to link to is in the Knowledge Base, or a fansite's respective guide. Dtm142 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Official policy says there can be one, so the simplest solution is either have none, or put up the statistically largest (non-copyvio non-BBS) site. --InShaneee 01:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
And In My opinion, having none would look silly and empty. Statistically wise- and this can be proven using alexaholic- is RuneHQ. Not only that, it has an item, npc and monster glossary suitable for the portal. Also, even though it says it is "suitable to have a link" and you ignore that rule, what's to say you ignore all the other rules???? J.J.Sagnella 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it's not a policy, it's a style guide. Second of all, in this case, it would obviously be better to have directories rather than a site. It also states that fansites are occasionally acceptable links. It's hard to call that a rule. If RuneHq has monster and item guides, we can link to them from RuneScape items and RuneScape monsters. Dtm142 16:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Except RuneScape items got deleted... Dtm142 16:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Why would it be "obviously be better to have directories"? I can not see one way in which any fansite is better than RuneHQ for the purpose Wikipedia has links. And because of that, RuneHQ is the definitive major link. And Dtm, we've already voted against directories. By the way, this is not my Point of View, I am a member of many fansites, but currently have no personal preference and always ulook through guides from many sites before using one. J.J.Sagnella 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It will still be a target of vandalism, it will still seem biased, and it's already been outvoted. Dtm142 18:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
WP is not a democracy. President Bush's article is a target for vandalism, but that doesn't mean that we're going to remove it anytime soon. Regardless of how it seems, if it can be shown to be the largest fansite and to have a lot of good information, it should be the one fansite. --InShaneee 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
We actually need a President Bush article. Most of us think that we don't actually need links to fansites. Although the President Bush article is a vandalism magnet, it is actually necessary. Dtm142 21:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
And so may be a fansite so long as it provides useful information that would not normally be acceptable here (such as a list of Runescape items), as per guidelines. --InShaneee 21:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
InShaneee, the link I would like to bring forward to you as the largest fansite is RuneHQ. I feel it is the best content wise as it has a Monster Bestiary, a NPC list and a huge item list. But this is my POV. I can show using stats and figures and Alexaholic (Alexa weirdly doesn't work on mmy computer, no idea why...) that RuneHq is the best fansite, so far as all 3 of Alexaholic's searches go. J.J.Sagnella 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I don't mind linking to the fansite's respective guides in a relevent article. Dtm142 22:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
So what's relevant on the main page and portal? The main faniste. J.J.Sagnella 22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The official Knowledge Base article is always preferred. Dtm142 22:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Regradless, empty isn't a style Wikipedia accepts. Name one other article which has no links. J.J.Sagnella 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
No links?!?!?!?!? What about the official site and stuff? Don't those count? It certainly doesn't look empty. Dtm142 18:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You knew what I meant.... J.J.Sagnella 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The Idea of having no fansites is not supported anywhere on any of Wikipedia's better article for MMORPGs. In all of them they linked to at least one fansite, usually an ebelished wiki.If you would like to search through these feel free to at List of MMORPGs J.J.Sagnella 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Having a link to one fansite is occasionally acceptable per the style guide. It may very well be acceptable on those articles. And it doesn't look empty if we link to the official sites. Dtm142 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The Point is having no fansite links will look extremely out of place, like the article hasn't been finished. J.J.Sagnella 08:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No article is ever "finished". It doesn't look incomplete at all to me, and one more link/link section isn't going to make much of a difference. Dtm142 14:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's The Minor Edits that make the difference. It will look out of place to the other articles. J.J.Sagnella 10:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
apparently the rule saying this was never fully read the second half of that rule states that "a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this [one fansite] link" instead of only choosing one, because this does not cause a big arguement and a fight, and due to the lack of fighting and arguementing that would come from this, i say we go with it felinoel 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It can't cause an argument, or be stated as POV. RuneHQ is the top fansite, (in my opinion on content) and (on NPOV by alexa). Regardless we have voted against toplists like these. See the top of page. J.J.Sagnella 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, we've also already voted against bringing back a fansite... Dtm142 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to remind you of what the adminstrator InShaneee said "WP is not a democracy. President Bush's article is a target for vandalism, but that doesn't mean that we're going to remove it anytime soon. Regardless of how it seems, if it can be shown to be the largest fansite and to have a lot of good information, it should be the one fansite. --InShaneee 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC) " What do you have to say to that? J.J.Sagnella 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, a President Bush article is actually necessary. Linking to the largest fansite is not. Dtm142 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So tell me then dtm142, If you are saying George Bush is neccessary but links are not, you obviously are drawing the line somewhere. Care to tell me where you have drawn it? J.J.Sagnella 21:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Articles and external links are treated differently on Wikipedia. A link to a fansite is sometimes acceptable per the style guide. However, it is necessary to have a biography of a notable person. Dtm142 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. If a sign says "It is sometimes a good idea to avoid burning buildings" do you follow it to the word? Or do you take it to the letter and occasionly enter a burning building crashing down, to be incinerated to your painful doom? And How can external links and articles be treated differently? Links are part of the article. You make no sense. J.J.Sagnella 15:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Actual content is more important than external links. Internal links are favoured over external links, and it's always best to link to the main site. And it's common sense to avoid burning buildings. If it wasn't, then the sign would be wrong and it would be necessary to have it, and it would be necessary for it to say "Avoid burning buildings". Whether to link to a fansite or not is up to the editors of the article/portal, and isn't common sense, or official policy. Dtm142 15:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Human beings are adapted to be very conscious and understand but most importantly interpret signs. Also, do you not listen to what adminstrators say? InShaneee clearly stated "WP is not a democracy" before continuing on to say: "if it can be shown to be the largest fansite and to have a lot of good information, it should be the one fansite." J.J.Sagnella 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if he's an administrator or not. Every registered user is treated the same on Wikipedia, from the newest user to the most experienced administrator. I know that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. But linking to fansites is a target to vandalism, and it may seem like we're endorsing the fansite, even if we aren't. It often seems like that to unregistered users. This page and the main article haven't been vandalised once since we got rid of the fansites. Dtm142 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It has been vandalised since the decision, in fact virtually the same amount since the time we took the links to a template to remove vandalism. And let me put a different scenario for you dtm142, suppose a newpage patroller was patrolling and found a newpage describing a NN band and then suppose he listed it for afd. Does that mean he has POV? No. Likewise with links, Runehq is the top fansite and you still haven't told me why it isn't. Even though linking to one fansite could be descibed as optional, It is very sensible as virtually all detailed information can be found on RuneHQ. The second option or route the article could go down is Linking to a directory, but this could really only be of use when there isn't a fansite which is clearly out and out the best. (Content and alexa-wise). The third route the site could go down, is nothing, which I see as unsatisfactory and empty, but most importantly isn't supported by Wikipedia's rules at all. I am completely unbiased, and I am a member of many major (and a few minor!) sites and I keep an open mind to all of them and often use a compilation of the sites in help for updates like quests. And as for the quote "linking to fansites is a target to vandalism"- I suppose you think every page on Wikipedia's links is a site for vandalism? If so, please get to work removing every unofficial link from Wikipedia , If not please explain what makes RuneScape special from the other pages on Wikipedia, as quite frankly, I can't see why. J.J.Sagnella 17:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
That contribution didn't have a hidden message in it, which might have helped stop some vandals. And vandalism isn't the only think I'm trying to avoid. It's also content disputes like this. Even if RuneHq has the most traffic and stuff, people are still going to make a fuss about it. A directory of links will work better, because readers will have more fansites to choose from, and it will look less biased. Dtm142 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is never censored for the minors. Ever. If a small parcentage of people have a problem with something, and "fuss" about it, for say, offensive images or even this, Wikipedia does not bend over backwards and happily give in to their demands. Nor does Wikipedia change tehir ideas to accomodate their feelings. Wikipedia does what is right, and in this case as there is a TOP fansite, it should be linked to. And as for,"more fansites to choose from" Wikipedia is not for somewhere for people to go to and instantly be taken to. Wikipedia is not a link directory. And as for "look less biased"- it's not a matter of how bias it looks, it's a matter of what's right. J.J.Sagnella 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Also I would like to show you another adminstrator's opinion again stating that bringing back the top fansite is the best thing to do. J.J.Sagnella 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all it's decided by us, the RuneScape portal editors, not some administrator. Just because it won't get you in trouble doesn't mean it's right for this article and portal. What you think is right isn't the same as what other people think is right. And if someone did have a problem with an uncensored Wikipedia, they would still have a right to propose a policy against it. Dtm142 21:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dtm142, Could you tell me one rule which agrees with this "No links" proposal? Because quite simply it sounds like you're promoting a void idea. The Bottom Line is, putting the top fansite is right because:
  • It follows Wikipedia rules
  • Adminstrators agree
  • It is Suitable and Sensible
  • There is A definite top fansite (directories only needed when there isn't one)J.J.Sagnella 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This "top fansite" is a matter of opinion. You might think that RuneHQ is the best, but someone else could think that Tipit, Zybez, Runevillage, or any other fansite is better. Could you tell me one fault that you can find with using directories? Dtm142 15:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Dtm142, A "Top Fansite" is a fansite which could be shown to be Very good, but not only that proven to be the best via tools like Alexa. As for faults with directories...
  • Often out of order
  • Usually depends on how much a site advertising for that toplist which depends its position.
  • Incredibly difficult to pick the best directory, as there is no real basis to make your decision on
  • Only needed when there isn't a clear, almost-undeniable top fansite. J.J.Sagnella 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Who cares? Just pick one! It will lead to less content disputes than this. Dtm142 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
We have already picked a fansite, proved it is the best, and not only that my idea coinsides with Wikipedia's rules. There is a top fansite, a fansite which people can virtually not dispute with as being the top and hene for that reason as I have stated many times before, makes the idea of having a toplist void. J.J.Sagnella 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You're the only person who has actually picked a top fansite, and many other people disagree with it. I think that we should only have the top fansite. And do you know which fansite that is? It's the RuneScape Knowledge Base. Everything that you need is in there, and if it isn't, you can visit one of the many fansites on the toplist. Dtm142 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but that is not the definition of a fansite. Please read the first few lines of the Wikipedia article so you know. Secondly for your first sentence, it is incorrect on both ways. Firstly, I'm not the only person. If you look at this edit, you'll see another person, completely unrelated to me or RuneHQ added the link after having a chat with an admin. Also, I don't think anyone has disagreed with RuneHQ being the top fansite. In fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive07#New_Idea_for_Fansites no-one commented on the idea for one fansite, but instead 2. 2 fansites was a bad idea and really there was room for debate as to which should be second. (Zybez,tip.it or RV). In all honesty I should of listened to the first comment there and removed the idea for 2 and instead 1. Then the idea would of had more backing and would of got put through and you wouldn't have to bicker over this. J.J.Sagnella 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Dtm142, the Runescape Knowledge Base cannot be defined as a fansite. It is technically not a fansite, because it is run completely by Jagex Ltd, the owner of Runescape. In this portal, the largest fansite can and will be linked to, and the only way to determine the largest fansite is too look at the hit count of the fansite and the Alexa rating of each fansite. In the past, Dtm has claimed that it would be biased to have one fansite to be picked and listed. Having one fansite listed would not be biased if we determined the most popular fansite using external sources. The solution to this dispute is very simple: find the largest site using reliable external sources (such as Alexa). After the largest is clearly found, post it. I will repeat myself though: the RS knowledge base is not a fansite. I would also like to remind Dtm to keep cool so that he does not upset or work up other users. Thanks, WIKIPEEDIO 18:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Dtm142 should do your test and find the largest fansite. We'll see if it's possible that dtm142 could get a different result than both me and Wikipeedio. J.J.Sagnella 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving the fansite problem.

When I asked an admin (Deckiller) about this issue, he replied to me on my talk page here, saying that linking to the Largest fansite would be O.K. After doing research using the credible source http://www.alexa.com/ I have found that out of the most known names, RuneHQ is by far the most popular. Therefore, I will place RuneHQ on the portal. If you have found a website that you would like me to research and see if it beats RuneHQ, then place it on my talk page (or on J.J.Sagnella's, I'm sure he would be happy to do it for you too), or below so that someone can look it up. These are the standings of my research:

  • RuneHQ.com - Traffic Rank 3,732 - About 280m users reached per day
  • tip.it - Traffic Rank 7,411 - about 175 mil users reached per day
  • zybez.com - Traffic Rank 3,276,503 - users reached per day is unlisted
  • Runevillage.com - Traffic Rank 92,644 - 7.5 mil users reached per day

Above research was from http://www.alexa.com. Please note that removal of the fansite that I post could result in an admin being notified. Thanks, WIKIPEEDIO 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aiai cap'n. The best way to put this in action is to being back the major fansites section and redirect it to major fansite. If you need any help upholding the decision, I'll help.J.J.Sagnella 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, for more proof, look to http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=789099 if you look to the right of the page there is something that says "Most Popular in RuneScape", if you look below that, Runescape will of course be the first popular, but second most popular is RuneHQ, meaning that it truely is the largest one. Thanks, WIKIPEEDIO 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Id support using just Rune HQ, or perhaps Rune HQ and Tip.it if we can get away with it - • The Giant Puffin • 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
We couldn't get away with tip.it and runehq. Remember everyone voted against it? We have a chance though because no-one commented on the one-link policy i made. J.J.Sagnella 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't have a problem with adding tip.it in there. The problem is that it would need to be the second most popular RS tip site. If it wasn't, then everyone would think it was biased.... But then again, even if it wasn't biased, people would say that "Wikipedia isn't a link farm". So I think we're better off just keeping what we got and not risk losing it all. WIKIPEEDIO 22:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Correct. The rule states one so we should stick to it. In fact I would say for many reasons Zybez is better than tip.it so really there is no way of adding it on. Also if we have two, people are likely to say "why two, why not three". But if we have one and it conforms to the rules, no site has a basis to put their site on. J.J.Sagnella 06:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
O.K - • The Giant Puffin • 07:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Best answer would be somebody reasonably trustworthy puts up an off-wiki page on the available fansites, and we link to that and that only, preferablty the page would also include details on each site. Also, the wikia wiki is progressing, though a microcosm of what happens here, with serial editor styles pulling in as many directions as there are active editors. Ace of Risk 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only who not only didn't understand what ace was on about but also not have a clue why such a plan is necessary? J.J.Sagnella 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I second that - • The Giant Puffin • 11:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Fansite Link back to main article?

Now the confusion and turmoil has ended and we know what the right thing to do is (one link, RuneHQ) perhaps we should bring the link to the main article, clearly stating on the talk page why this was done and giivng references to the dispute I had with dtm142 which states nearly every single reason to only have one link? If anyone gives me the nod I'll go ahead and do it. J.J.Sagnella 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, go ahead. Try adding some hidden text (the <!-- blah --> tags) below/above it, so people trying to get rid of it will directly see what has been decided, along with a mention on Talk:RuneScape. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay. If you have changed your mind (You were so against this!), then well, something weird has happened. J.J.Sagnella 18:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I was originally against having so many of them there, as a few of them had objectionable content (in my opinion, others may think otherwise). RuneHQ I have nothing against, sorry if I had wanted to get rid of it before, I was mostly aiming at a few others. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 18:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Trust me, there's no need to apologise J.J.Sagnella 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/n/Portal_talk%7ERuneScape_Archive01_31e1.html"