Talk:RuneScape/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 →

Contents

Archived

All recent material sent to Archive 11.----Edtalk c E 17:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback Section

Please take the time to read what I just did to the Feedback section before you make any rash decisions. I have combined the positive and the negative into the same section. Almost all of what was there is still there. It looked heavy on the negative and light on the positive, when in reality a lot of the "negative" that was already there was already both positive and negative, as our intention was to give both sides of every story, thereby avoiding POV.

I would like to take out or completely revise the Sounds and music section, however. It sounds like a pet peeve or personal rant, and although it is cited, I feel (IMHO) that is needs major work. I think we are getting to where we need to be. It is just a process and, like all processes, takes time. Xela Yrag 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Support It does need some work. Perhaps some more citations could help and improve that statement. Whereas to the part about combining player feedback, that's a great idea, since it's promoting NPOV. And I will be sending a request for a peer review as soon as we fix that sound statement.----Edtalk c E 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I added more, what do you think?----Edtalk c E 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

GET RID OF THE CRAP

K, you guys, you all know that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Then care to explain all this?

About 80% (or all) should not be here. There's a RuneScape Wiki, that's for these things. There should be a note somewhere on the RuneScape article (even on this talk page) that any new articles about RuneScape MUST go to the wiki. Now, I've got solutions for you guys:

  1. Delete them all/almost all. Many of them suck. They don't belong here.
  2. Move them to the RuneScape wiki. However, they got most of these articles, so moving them would only hinder them.

That's all I could think of. There's no point in keeping them, as if a wiki covers them all, then they do not belong on Wikipedia of all places. If some of those articles aren't on the wiki, then I'll get someone on it right away. So, what say yous?

I apologize for the \s, I'm on a proxy. Wanna know who I REALLY am? Wikipedia:Long term abuse#RuneScape Vandalism.208.68.210.177 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Comment Look at some of the article's discussion pages and you'll see that they have been nominated for deletion. Strangely, some of the results were "keep" or "no consensus". I agree entirely with you, but the only way to get rid of these articles is if we reach a consensus. However, that is not a priority here in Wikipedia. The main prioirity in the RuneScape series is to promote this article to FA status.----Edtalk c E 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

All of these have been nominated for deletion and survided, so they will stay.But thanks for telling us about the barrows article. It is stray. J.J.Sagnella 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the "pending tasks" is to "Shorten the article, making greater use of the many separate articles we have for specific Runescape subjects." Maitias 22:15, 10th August 2006 (GMT)

Well Mr. 24, we meet again! *strokes cat* That list was twice as long a few weeks ago, because a load of articles have been merged and redirected. We just haven't finished yet. Oh, and thanks for telling us about the proxy. I'm sure the nice folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies would love to hear about it. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the articles can be decrufted/transwikified/merged (many already have been), but it's going to take a hell of a lot of time and effort. The sheer volume of text on RS couldn't be dealt with in a couple of articles, but now they can be. Barrows is (rightly) up for deletion, I'll be rewriting a section for it within the minigames article anyway - it's no wonder another article has popped up about it since there's as of yet still nothing about it of any substance in any of the articles. As a quick job, can I suggest that the Tzhaar fight cave is merged with the minigame page post-haste, it's just a couple of nice pictures and a wodge of game guide ATM and doesn't help matters. QuagmireDog 22:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This list makes me consider renaming Wilderness and Magic to more consistent titles. Hyenaste (tell) 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is my deletion list. These articles MUST go.

You guys should only have 5 AT THE MAX subpages for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.225.85.127 (talk • contribs) .

We'll work it out in our own time. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
the editors of this article well aware that some of these articles will be deleted, but we are current in the process of restructuring(please read previous discussions) this article which will affect what those article contain and how they are use. Gnangarra 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you archive everything?

There were some ongoing discussions on how to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, and someone archived all of them. While I understand the need to archive to prevent the page from becoming too long, please don't archive sections where there is an ongoing discussion about an issue with the article that needs to be addressed. You can archive sections about minor issues which have already been addressed.

The sections you should NOT have archived:

  • Who wants to work with me to make RuneScape a good article?
  • Edits to lead section.
  • The Fansites Debate
  • Structure and organization of the article
  • Finding references for this article
  • RuneScape Reviews

Archiving means "end of discussion". If you archive a section with an ongoing discussion about adding references, that means you aren't interested in adding references. Please don't rush with archiving - we want to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, and we need to address these issues.

In addition, please don't rush with the Peer Review. Address the issues we are aware of first (e.g. by adding references) before sending the article for Peer Review.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

++ to it all, it really peeved me off that debates were just stopped midway through. --Maitias 09:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
PLease return these discussions, each discussion should be archive when finished and not the whole page, that as a guide even completed discussions should be left at least 7 days after the last entry to enable other less regular editors the oppotrtunity to review whats happened and why. Gnangarra 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that if the current ongoing had been left on this page the suggestion of wrongfully deleting all of the above articles could have avoided, now editors will spend weeks chasing their tails trying to protect these article instead of improving them. Gnangarra 10:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, my computer is slow, and I have a hard time posting comments on long talk pages.--Edtalk c E 17:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Comment And also, I thought we already addressed the issues with this article. Every statement already contains a citation. We changed the criticisms to ensure a NPOV. I'm just looking for more issues before we try FA.--Edtalk c E 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, any archived material can be brought back into discussion without comment. Hyenaste (tell) 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Who wants to work with me to make RuneScape a good article?

Having recently joined the Computer and Video Games WikiProject, and as a member of the Good articles WikiProject, I have a goal of making RuneScape a Good article.

The RuneScape article has previously failed a Featured Article nomination and failed a Good Article nomination. I sent it for Peer Review, raising several concerns, but received no significant responses.

The article needs considerable work to become a good article, and I obviously can't do it alone. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia project. I am currently seeking Wikipedians, such as J.J.Sagnella, who wish to collaborate with me to improve RuneScape to Good Article status. In addition, such Wikipedians are likely to be potential Wikifriends with a common interest in RuneScape.

If you wish to collaborate with me to make RuneScape a good article, please reply with your comments. Please read the Peer Review and the comments on the failed Featured Article and Good Article nominations. In the next few weeks, I expect us to be participating in copious discussions on this talk page, about issues with the article we need to address and how to address them. During these discussions, we are likely to learn more about each other and become Wikifriends.

While we work on improving the article to Good Article status, I hope to keep RuneScape semi-protected to prevent floods of anonymous vandalism. I wish Wikipedia did not allow anonymous editing. Once we have consensus, we will send the RuneScape article for Peer Review, and once the peer review is complete, it should be ready to be nominated for Good Article. Once we achieve our current goal of making RuneScape a good article, we may have a future goal of getting it to featured status.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:I'll offer my services when independent copy editing and sense checking of the article is required, just drop a request at my talk page Gnangarra 07:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC) dont bother asking me Gnangarra 07:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Gnangarra, and thanks for offering to help! Perhaps you could fact-check everything - there's lots of vandalism. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Now RuneScape is Protected-and should STAY like that, we can get to work to making it better. I'll have a look and tell you if anything is wrong. J.J.Sagnella 07:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Good. Keep it semi-protected. The only people who wish for the semi-protection to be lifted are the moronic anonymous vandals. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've searched throught the article and its revisions and reverted some subtle vandalism (someone changed the price for billing out by 10 cents...) and I removed some things which are either too specific or would be considered as "gamecruft". Now I'd say the main problem is getting sources for all the criticisms. Also the "weapons" section may need a cleanup, because the metals named aren't the only ones. There's granite, blurite, wood, which technically makes the list void. J.J.Sagnella 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Good. I think what we should do is to identify all major concerns with the article, then work out how to address these issues, then actually work on them. We must uncover all problems that would prevent RuneScape from becoming a Good Article. That's where Peer Review would help, except that my Peer Review did not receive any significant response. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll chip in sometime. I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment, but I'll have a go at spelling, citations, and lend a hand with the subpages too. I did manage to get some information out of the last Peer Review, and I added them to the bottom of the todo list a while back. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, CaptainVindaloo! A toast to our co-operation! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ill help when I can. I am a bit busy with other projects at the minute, but Ill try to use some of my free time to improve this article - • The Giant Puffin • 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Good. Let's see how we can improve the article, and where you can help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One

07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my rather extended absence from my "duties" here on the RuneScape pages. I have been in the process of moving. I am still in flux a little, but I should be able to help more as the days pass. I have done quite a few grammar, punctuation, etc. edits this morning and will do more later. I am here to help. Xela Yrag 13:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that real life can get stressful. My common tests just ended. I know you're also one of the regular editors of this article, and I look forward to collaborating with you. Let's discuss the issues that need to be addressed and how to address them, then actually address them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try to help. I don't have a good internet connection (in fact its terrible), but I can check the info on the article. Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My Internet is pretty slow too. Thanks for offering to do fact-checking. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to help. I used to play RuneScape myself, so I could give my insight on this. I'm not like those RuneScape vandals who like to promote the game, instead of placing in encyclopedic info.--Ed 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to help as much as possible, though my beady eye is fixed mainly on the sub-articles, there's plenty of opportunities to improve them. If nothing else I'll be buzzing through the main article and checking for vandalism, though by the looks of things there's a lot of progress happening here very quickly (well done to the contributors who managed to pull the article through the sheer volume of edits and bring it this far). QuagmireDog 01:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits to lead section.

I have recently edited the introductory section of the RuneScape article. I spotted (and fixed) several grammatical errors that could possibly be the work of anonymous vandals. Please feel free to look through my edit, and further improve the introductory section, and to correct errors. This is in the interests of making RuneScape a good article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I did most of those edits, it wasnt vandalism, it was to remove the and this, and this, and this style of writing. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. There were 6 sentences that started with "Players" so they were re worded to stop the repative prose. Dont ask for help with editing the article if all you do is revert when it happens. Gnangarra 07:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I suspected it was vandalism because those edits caused several grammatical errors in the lead section. Thanks for trying to help - please feel free to improve further. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh J.L.W.S., if only comma splices were the worst vandals had to offer... And Gnangarra, don't take it so personally. The lead will probably be rewritten several times as we prepare it for WP:GA. Hyenaste (tell) 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The lead is the most dynamic section of any artcile, so it should be. I expected it be edited and altered so that's not an issue. To say it was the work of anonymous vandals when most of my edits clearly state what I did and why, just look at the history, thats different. Gnangarra 08:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not as if J.L.W.S. said "rawr gnarr is a vandle!1", and I don't think he looked at the recent page history. With all the vandalism this page is used to anything, even a typo, could be the work of a vandal. Hyenaste (tell) 08:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm really sorry - I didn't check the page history. And this article suffers from so much vandalism - some of the vandalism is subtle, like deliberately introducing grammatical errors into the article. And I said "possibly the work of anonymous vandals", not "definitely". I think we should discuss how to further improve the lead section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
what I suggest this paragraph is too long winded it needs to be condensed. Gnangarra 11:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
For an article of this length, we need a lead of about three paragraphs. Being concise is important - when shortening the lead, we must not lose information or make the sentences less comprehensible. I spotted several grammatical errors in your lead section, and that you had missed out the information on combat. Let's improve it further:

This is about the same length, yet squeezes in more information in a more concise manner.

Wikipedia is a wiki, and made to be dynamic. As I have improved on your improvement, may you and others improve on my improvement.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

two points, I see combat as a skill and therefore doesnt need to be specifically mentioned in the lead. Quests are a linear activity that while its the players choice to do, the process itself isnt. their completion is required to obtain certain weapons/armour and access areas its a necessity aka "lost city quest", "dragon slayer" Gnangarra

Current lead (3rd para)

Players, shown on the screen as customisable avatars, can see and interact with each other. They set their own goals and objectives, deciding which of the available activities to pursue; there is no linear path that must be followed. They may engage in combat with other players or with monsters, complete quests, increase their experience (train) in any of the available skills (such as runecrafting or fishing), or just hang out and chat. Players interact with each other through chatting, trading, participating in mutual missions, playing combative or co-operative mini-games, and visiting each other in their player owned houses (referred to by most players as "POHs").

The Fansites Debate

(Question. Who says RuneHQ is the most popular? I see Tip.it just as often in any situation.)

It was decided by the main component-site traffic. Check out some of the archives to see previous dicussions and a more complex answer as to why runehq was chosen. J.J.Sagnella 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why, may I ask, only one fansite allowed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madman6510 (talk • contribs) .

A maximum of one fansite is dictated by Wikipedia:External links. Also, please Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been decided that only one website - RuneHQ - be included under "External links" in the RuneScape article. RuneHQ was selected based on having the highest traffic as per its Alexa ranking.

However, this controversial decision has been repeatedly disputed. Other users frequently add links to other popular fansites - Tip.it, Sal's Realm and Zybez. Such edits are usually reverted quickly. However, this is generally done in good faith, and I do not consider it vandalism or spamming, as Tip.it, Zybez and Sal's Realm are also popular fan sites.

Wikipedia is a wiki, and is designed to be dynamic. This is one reason why many dispute this decision. Therefore, if you wish to comment on or dispute this decision, please do so only in this section, and please cite reasons why other fansites should or should not be included in the External Links section. Where possible, back up your arguments with hard-and-fast evidence.

My opinion is that there should be links to several other fansites. This is to give players more places to look for information (particularly as we wish to avoid fancruft). For example, RuneHQ's price guide is considerably inferior to Zybez's. However, the list should be limited to the most popular and notable fansites to reduce the risk of spamming. RuneHQ, Tip.it, Sal's Realm and Zybez should be sufficient. Some argue that several other sites sell RuneScape gold. This is false, and the fault lies with Google AdSense. In addition, Neopets has 4 fansites listed.

Nevertheless, if having multiple fansites will decrease RuneScape's chances of becoming a good article, or having a single fansite will greatly increase RuneScape's chances of becoming a good article, I will support having only a single fansite. Several administrators have cited that having only a single fansite in the External Links section is in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another alternative, during the recent AfD I utilised Star Wars as an example of the size and content of some fan based articles. One of the categories I highlighted was fansites, they have about 12 articles on the major fan sites. I'm not saying that each site needs an article but maybe its possible to have one article about all the major fan sites. Gnangarra 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think fansites should have their own articles - they'll just get deleted. If we structure the article as I suggested, and RuneScape community has a main article, we could include a section about fansites, as they are relevant to RuneScape's community. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, It is best to leave it how it is. The article gets vansalism all the time but now it is protected it is safe. My main problem, is hwy have you decided those four? Choosing four is going to cuase problems and questions like "Why four? Why not none? Why not five?" will arise. Not only that, but at five,just one more, an adminstartor demanded they got removed. Whatever decision we chose would be unstable, but I think it is more stable now than any other decision.

(Oh,and to clarify on Neopets, It is now three not four and we are trying to get it down further, but as there is no clear top fansite we are looking for a toplist.) J.J.Sagnella 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please ensure it stays semi-protected, if not permanently, at least until we get RuneScape to Good Article status. Thanks for informing me about the past debates about how many fansites there should be when there were multiple fansites. As for Neopets, I think no one disputes that PinkPT is the number 1 fansite. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
But It has had its fair share of security scares. J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, an article about all of the major fansites would be inappropriate. The fansites are not nearly notable enough to deserve their own article. It would immediately be deleted for that reason, and as fancruft. We can barely have an article about a monster without it getting deleted. Second of all, the external links style guide states that we should have only one fansite at max. However, a directory or toplist would be better. I am in support of linking to a directory. Dtm142 17:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Zybez and Tip.it have lower Alexia rankings due to the fact that their forums are seperate from the main pages. Since RuneHQ has integrated message boards, they have a bigger traffic rating. To have one's link on Wikipedia is an incredible benifit to a site and that gives RuneHQ an unfair advantage despite the fact that in many regards, their features are inferior to Tip.it or Zybez. 24.84.50.181 21:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Separate forums do not mean anything; a sites Alexa ranking does not depend on forum usage, it simply depends on the number of visits to a site. We cannot choose a fansite to link to based upon any percieved 'quality'. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind my asking, then... what do we base it on? Honestly, it's probably best to take them all off, given that there's no definitive "power gap" between the "good sites" and... everything else. --Boss1000 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Coming from a person from Zybez)

CPT Vindaloo, forums make a difference. Since people go to discuss the content of the parent pages, on RSC they go to an entirely different page. Whereas on RuneHQ, the forums are all contained within. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.50.181 (talk • contribs) .

If anything, separate forums give Zybez, Tip.It et al an advantage over RuneHQ, as they have two sites with the potential for a high Alexa rank. However, RuneHQ recieves more hits than any other fansite, hence the higher ranking. We can only link to one fansite at any one time; this is dictated by Wikipedia policy. It is hardly Wikipedia's fault if more people visit RuneHQ than Zybez or Tip.It. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought that this issue was already resolved, but that would be mighty naïve of me. In truth, I'd support the last decision that was made based on this straw poll, which was to remove them all. Or, if you wanted to avoid fancruft, generate a list of the ten most popular fansites in RS. That is all. Makoto 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Although the issue is resolved, this section is here in case anyone presents new evidence that could overturn the decision, as well as to inform others why RuneHQ is the only site listed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It is resolved. That last decision lasted barely months.

Having none is a decision not supported anywhere by Wikipedia. This idea is the most stable and Is in accordance to Wikipedia's rules. Also, we can't say one fansite is betetr than the other, because that would be POV. J.J.Sagnella 08:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again?!?!? How often do we have to do this? Is it going to keep coming up until someone gets his or her way? Even then, will it keep coming up because someone else is not getting his or her way? I believe the hard and fast reason for only one is that one is Wikipedia policy. If other articles are breaking that policy, that does not mean that the RuneScape article should also break the policy, no matter how many other links those other articles may or may not have. Two (or six or twelve) wrongs do not make a right even if three lefts do. RuneHQ is inarguably the site with the most hits. Is it my favorite? No. Do I use if for anything? Only occasionally. Am I happy that RuneHQ is the only site we link to? Not particularly. But I do believe in following policy as much as possible and policy dictates RuneHQ at this time. If you aren't happy with that, go out there are get whatever other site you want on there higher on hits. It's as simple as that. Now, can we stop the foolishness and get these articles up to professional quality standards, or must we continually debate the same issue over and over and over ad nauseum until we all just want to throw up our hands and say it's just not worth it? Xela Yrag 16:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't put it better myself. J.J.Sagnella 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently I'm not versed on Wikipedia's policy on fansites (and I doubt many are, either). Perdóname. With that said, I agree with leaving it at RuneHQ. --Boss1000 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Why even link fansites in there if your not going to give other fansites a even chance at getting some traffic off of Wikipedia? I say remove the fansite section in a whole. Would be better, and would stop debates

Will having more than one fansite harm RuneScape's Good Article hopes? Conversely, will having a single fansite increase its chances of RuneScape's Good Article nomination? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Though RuneHq gains more traffic purely from the fact it's message boards are attached to its site, compare the breadth of its userbase to Zybez and you'll see Zybez has more users, more frequently in a similar vein to Tip.It. If RuneHq moved it's message boards to a seperate domain it'd surely lose it's "highest traffick" rating. Whther a "good article" or not Wiki is surely about giving users the most knowledge available and RuneHq, as sole Runescape fansite, doesn't provide all the info on the subject of Runescape. Only a combination of perhaps RuneHq, Zybez and Tip.It does. --Maitias 14:23, 8 August 2006 (GMT)

I'd say leave well enough alone or delete the link to put an end to it. As it stands, readers of the article have a link to all the game-guide material they can eat, whilst contributors have a bulwark against the links section becoming a one-upmanship spamfest. All of the mentioned sites are much of a muchness in terms of information offered, despite varying strengths and weaknesses. Adding the four 'main' sites wouldn't stop people charging in here and adding yet more links to smaller and considerably less useful sites, and we'd get even more "well if that's here then why isn't *insert cookie cutter RS help site here*?". Whilst I'm not sure (even now) that adding to the links would affect the GA attempt, I'm pretty sure it will destabilise the page further and remove regular contributors' ability to keep the links in check. QuagmireDog 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly I see no reason why RuneHQ should be the only fansite linked to, other than that silly policy that gets in the way. Why does that policy even exist anyway? I think that links to multiple fansites should be allowed, or no links to fansites at all. --Nanosauromo 1:57, 9 August 2006

It stands because if we have two, then we will have three, then 4,5,6,7,8,9,... ...googol, googol and one... There is no reason to link to any other sites. Follow the rules. Alos bera in mind you are like the umpteenth person to have a tantrum over it because your favourite nn fansite isn't linked to. Your opinion isn't going to make a difference so just live with it. J.J.Sagnella 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
J.J. Sagnella, please be careful not to bite the newcomer. I think that it is better to explain why the rule is there (which you did, partially) than to tell someone to just "follow the rules", which sounds slightly dictatorial. I'm not trying to attack you, but just suggesting how you could have done it better. And frankly, Tip.it and Zybez should not be considered "nn sites" - they are also acknowledged in-game. While I have decided to remain neutral on this (in contrast to my previous stance), it appears that many are unhappy with RuneHQ being the only fansite that is linked to. If these complaints indicate consensus that other sites should be included, we should consider that. You may also wish to consider their arguments on how RuneHQ's forums affect their Alexa ranking.
To those who wish for other fansites to be listed - there is a policy on Wikipedia that says only one fansite may be listed. This is because in the past, with more than one fansite, there were constant debates about how many fansites should be listed and which fansites should and should not be included. RuneHQ was decided through Alexa ranking. If you wish for the policy to be changed, please discuss on the policy's talk page. In addition, if you wish for other fansites to be listed, there must be a consensus for which fansites are listed. For me, I think RuneHQ, Tip.it, Zybez and Sal's Realm.
J.J. Sagnella, you have not answered my other question. Will having one fansite or multiple fansites listed affect the chances RuneScape's Good Article nomination passing or failing? If having multiple fansites is detriminal to it's Good Article chances, I will support having only one fansite listed. However, I must remind you not to bite newcomers and to explain to them the reasons behind this decision. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry had an argument there and was in a bit of a stressed mood. Sorry for getting so uptight. Also having four fansites is not a good idea. When we had 5, an adminstrator pulled them down. If an adminstrator pulls down 5- 4 won't be too much of a difference, and I think may hinder it's chances. J.J.Sagnella 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I know - just a friendly reminder to keep your cool. And you still haven't answered my question: Will having one fansite or multiple fansites listed affect the chances RuneScape's Good Article nomination passing or failing? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I have a major temper tantrum problem. Well IMO having say 4 fansites might make some admins vote against. I mean if and adminstrator oulled them all down at 5, what's there to say at 4? J.J.Sagnella 07:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you need to learn how to control your temper. Your answer wasn't clear. In the phrase "make some admins vote against", by "admins", do you mean "Good Article reviewers", and by "vote against", do you mean "fail the article"? If that is what you meant, it means that having multiple fansites will make it harder for RuneScape to become a good article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Q1:Yes, Q2:followed my possibilty. Remember the rule. If we want to get it to featured article/good article status then we must obey all rules. This includes no gamecruft, limits of pictures, observed American/english spelling (Just to name a few rules). I'm not completely sure, but having multiple might show to a rule-obeying voter that we aren't applying Wikipedia's rules. Or changing it again might show the article is highly unstable,detracting possibly many voters. Not only that but if we have 3, then say zybez is bested by traffic by say Sal's realm then we'll need that one. And if sal's realm gets bested by another one........... Then we will have a slippery slope back to how it used to be. Also Highly unstable was one of the main reasons it got declined last time wasn't it? We've got everything settled now, everything is calm and we have made spam templates for protection against. Why change it again? J.J.Sagnella 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. So having multiple fansites will harm RuneScape's Good Article hopes. I will therefore put aside my own opinions and defend having only one fansite, although I will be more patient with those who want other fansites listed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
J.J., it was semi-protected last time because of vandalism, not edit warring. Without vandalism, this article is as stable as a tree. I don't think its very fair, really, delisting a Good Article because of vandalism. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which site is better is purely a matter of personal opinion. We do not care about which site is better, unfortunately. We care about which gets the most traffic. More people go to RuneHQ, so RuneHQ is where we link. It is as simple as that, and there should not even be a debate. Which site you personally use, which site has the best or the most content, which site is better or worse or the greatest thing to hit the planet earth since chocolate ice cream. It just does not matter. That is all opinion, and we all have our own opinions about which is the greatest. I personally despise Zybex. I can't find anything there and I don't completely trust it due to some of its advertising, etc. However, if it was the site with the most traffic, I would support it as our link. I prefer Tip.It, but it is not the site with the most traffic, so I support the site that has the most traffic, which right now is RuneHQ. Please spend your valuable time making reasonable edits, corrections, and improvements to the article, which is the important thing here. All the other is fluff and nonsense. Xela Yrag 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If it appears there is a consensus against having only RuneHQ listed, and those who oppose having only RuneHQ listed provide valid arguments to back them up, then we should reconsider. Remember, this encyclopedia is built for the readers. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet to put in comparison, if a bnch of people want to vandalise a page, then they have to observe Wikipedia's rules. J.J.Sagnella 07:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You missed the quote "this encyclopedia is built for the readers". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet the only reason RuneHq gets so much traffic, and so is the sole site for Runescape, is because it has its message on the same domain as its Main Page. Everyone knows that if Zybez or Tip.It followed suit one of them would quickly overtake RuneHq has having the "most traffic". And I hate to reiterate but this site is about sharing the largest available resource of information and just showing RuneHq doesn't do that. RuneHq, though it certainly has a lot of infromation, certainly isn't #1 in all parts. Surely linking to the main 3 would allow a new Runescape user full access to practically all the information out there which is exactly what Wiki is all about. Maitias 12:48, 10 August 2006 (GMT)

We've got a message in the page that a google search should suffice. That would provide enough information for everyone. J.J.Sagnella 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to laugh here. I do not see consensus anywhere. I see two pitbull puppies fighting over a favorite toy with neither one able to gain an advantage. Can we please just follow the rules, use the one link we are allowed (supposed) to use, and let this go? There are more things that need to be done that are so much more important. And I apologize to you both for calling you puppies, so don't flame me. It's a mom thing, and I can't stop being a mom. Xela Yrag 16:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey it doesn't matter, I get called worse things daily. It's the mother who is good for settling arguments. J.J.Sagnella 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for bringing this up again (though the discussion really only slowed down), but after reading the actual section about linking fansites, I get the notion that we don't need them in the first place. The section itself is titled "to be used occasionally." Now, many of you have said you don't think RuneHQ has the best information or is less organized, etc. Each different fansite has its own positives and negatives. This leads to none of them really being comprehensive enough to stay on there and be stable. Someone will say, "Zybez doesn't have a creature DB" or "Tip.it doesn't talk about X quest."
The question is if the people who visit this page will get the information they need from the link down there. Is it really that important to have one in the first place? Not having any would stop (or at least slow) the constant edits to add certain ones in (I just reversed one a few minutes ago). Keep in mind, as well, that the Knowledge Base is the official place to get information. Isn't that enough? I mean, a person who comes to this site can only be presented with so much. I'm not going to comment on the article's length, but I feel that all problems would be solved if it was simply removed altogether.
Whether or not you consider this "If we can't have it, they can't either!" it doesn't matter. To me, it just makes sense to not have fansites at all, because the section about fansite policy doesn't necessitate them, there really is no true way to choose one, and none can be as comprehensive as the official Knowledge Base. -Boss1000 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I think we should just settle with what we have. Everything is settled, we have warnings and we should focus on the other parts of the article and not the external links. J.J.Sagnella 14:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of Runescape Community and I do not agree with this. If you want to stop this arguement put all of the major fansites on it (RuneHQ, Tip.it, Runescape Community).

Enviro

Why we Can't A-Maximum of One Faniste per Wikipedia's rules, B-then where do you draw the line? 3? 4? 5? What about sal's realm? What about RV? Simply following Wikipedia's rule of 1, is the safest and best idea. Nuff said. J.J.Sagnella 14:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Best idea? Hardly, just one that stops people arguing. Better none than one. One is just makes it look biased, something that the Runescape article is trying not to be. --Maitias 21:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)--
Biased because it follows Wikipedia's rules? J.J.Sagnella 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think 90% of people who are browsing are avid readers of Wikopedia rules? Face it, to all intents and purposes Wiki supports RuneHq. Not having multiple sites is understable at least but there's no mention that other sites exist that the reader may wish to browse at their own leasure. Why not have a page based around the numerous fansites that have sprung up, a bit of history on the whole "Runescape Community" and fanbase, semi-protect and tell people if they want their site added to contact an editor? --Maitias 11:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking WP:IGNORE has something to do with this...--Edtalk c E 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I knew I'd seen an article like that but couldn't find it to quote and support my arguement. But yes, that surely is the way forward rather than sitting here and debating the "trueness" of Wiki's rules for the next 2334 years. --Maitias 11:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If we cite WP:IGNORE, then I think the maximum number of fansites we should use is the 5 highest; this will statisfy most people, while not allowing every small site to be listed. There used to be a version of this page that included links to a few fansites, but warned of dangers in going to them. However, the debate may be over, as there are now zero fansites listed. Hemhem20X6 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


WP:EL found to have a consensus on Fansites

Don't mean to be a bother, but I've not come across said rule that actually prohibits only one link. If you were referring to WP:EL as your so-called "rule" (which is generally an essay anyway), this link found in the Archives of said essay would prove the consensus of this issue to be the following:

—It appears the consensus is to allow links to multiple fan sites. This seems reasonable. What is not reasonable is the current phrasing of allow a link to ONE fan site. What is there are two that both claim to be the biggest? Do we engage in an endless tug of war? Either you allow both or neither. Not "one".

Makoto 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved this from the General Reminders section - let's remeber to put our comments in the correct section, okay??? Xela Yrag 17:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure and organization of the article

The structure and organization of this article is very important if we wish to make RuneScape a good article. Having good structure and organization will also reduce fancruft and prevent the article from becoming too long.

Here's how I think the article should be structured:

  • Lead section
  • "History and Development" section. Merge "RuneScape servers" section into "History and Development section" as it's related to game development (or see suggestion at end).
  • A long "Gameplay" section, similar to that of the Neopets article, which will be divided into subsections for each aspect of gameplay:
    • "Skills" subsection comes first as skills are most important in RuneScape.
    • "Combat" subsection, as combat is also very important.
    • "Quests" subsection.
    • "Random events" and "Mini-games" are considered less important, and should probably be included in an "Other" subsection.
  • "Community" section. Currently, the forums and postbag are not in-game. However, we could also include information about in-game interaction between players - such as the chat and trading features (such information may belong in the Gameplay section in a "Player interaction" subsection).
  • "Graphics" section. Graphics are not directly related to gameplay. However, this section needs to be trimmed down (though the same can be said for some other sections).
  • "Membership" section. This should give information about membership and some of its benefits. The "Players" section seems to have too much information about membership and could be merged in this section instead.
  • "Criticisms" section. If possible, note both player criticisms and criticisms from "reliable sources".
  • External links/references, etc.

I think the "Economy" section is fancruft, and should be removed.

We could also consider merging the "RuneScape servers" and "Graphics" section into a section about technical aspects of the game.

Feedback from everyone is welcome. In particular, the decision to make the Skills, Combat, Quests, etc. sections become subsections of a long Gameplay section may prove controversial.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a shorter "Gameplay" section with a heavier reliance on daughter articles, makes them harder targets for AfD hunters. Subsection of Community about fan sites, with a daughter article to support where more of the fan sites can get an external link - this should alievate some of the pressure off editors wanting more of them linked from the main. Gnangarra 13:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea, but then we must ensure the quality of the sub-articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have thought for a long time that the Skills, Combat, Quests, etc sections should be part of a Gameplay section, but was hesitant to do it due to the controversy it might cause. Some of the other suggestions, I am not so sure about. We would have to see what happens in the edit process. I do not think we need to lose much of the content of this article, even if there is a small amount of game guidey type info that can be cut. Xela Yrag 16:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you know someone else supports this idea. Let's try and seek consensus. We won't lose any info except gamecruft. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
suggest maybe we create the new article in RuneScape/new article or similar and leave this current article in place until its ready. That way we can work without the hassel of vandalism, or losing current infomation as we chop and change the article creating the new format. Editors will be able to follow the link from here and work. With this article we just revert vandaism until the new article is ready. -- Gnangarra 08:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd warmly welcome a large gameplay section containing most of the current subsections. I think the prose would be a lot easier on the eye (and the leading section shows that contributors are more than capable of implementing this). With "History and Development", I'd also agree with the server info being merged with it, but I think that the resultant information should then be moved towards the back of the article underneath the gameplay section. We start with a nice lead and then get told what RS -was- as opposed to what it -is-. In a lot of articles the history section will be important to those gathering information, but since anyone reading the article can only sign up to the latest version of RS, is it correct that the average reader will be more interested in what they cannot access than the concise details of what they can?
Could I also suggest that the weapons, armour and magic pages would be far better suited to the RS wiki (as they are nicely presented and contain info that would be great there). The Combat article is currently quite short but the three aformentioned read like lists containing incomplete information (if looked at as guide material) or non-notable info in the 'pedia article (the information contained IE about weapons having different speeds, types, strengths and weaknesses could be written in prose within mere paragraphs) - adding prose from these articles into Combat could give it enough bulk to raise it up the ladder. I also agree that the economy article is hanging on by the skin of its teeth in terms of relevance - transwikiing articles like this and scooping the concise info out would give us a far smaller area to stave off AFD attempts from when it comes to relevant info, and allow more sweeps of the fewer articles in order to remove vandalism. Sorry for the long text, but with all the ruckus surrounding the RS family of articles I don't want to cause more work by messing with articles before discussing it with you all. QuagmireDog 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and do a major restructuring of the article as planned. The following paragraphs explain the new structure:

The "Servers" and "Graphics" sections have been merged into the "History and development" section. Advertisements, servers and graphics are related to the "development" of the game. If anyone disagrees, the "History and development" section could be renamed "History" and the three subsections merged into a new "Technical" section.

The "Combat", "Skills" ans "Quests" have been merged into a large "Gameplay" section. An "Other" subsection covers less important aspects of gameplay, and "Random events" and "Mini-games" should be merged there.

The "Feedback" section was renamed back to "Criticism", the more standard name. Two sections were commented out. The "RuneScape economy" section was commented out because it seemed like fancruft. I did not remove it because it may belong in another section or a sub-article. The "Players" section was commented out as it was badly written, and some of the information there should go into a new "Members" section.

No content was inserted or removed as a result of the restructuring. Existing content was moved and some was hidden.

Three other unfinished tasks with the restructuring will be to create a new section about membership (where some information from the "Players" section should be moved to), to add a subsection about "In-game interaction" into the "Community" section, and to find a better place for the "RuneScape economy" section.

Please be bold. If you disagree with my restructuring, please post your objections here. And please feel free to suggest further ways the structure of the article may be improved.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Finding references for this article

Although I personally dislike the Verifiability policy, if we wish to make RuneScape a good article, we'll need more references. I know finding references is difficult, and therefore I am starting this section so we can discuss how to find references and post any references we find.

For information regarding gameplay, RuneScape players can easily log in to verify information in-game. However, the best references we can provide to non-players are the RuneScape Knowledge Base and fansites. Unfortunately, the Knowledge Base is considered a self-published source while fansites are not considered reliable.

The Criticisms section will be one of the hardest to reference. We will need references for external coverage of RuneScape, as well as references for player criticisms of the game. Several Wikipedians have found references for external reviews of RuneScape. For player criticisms, finding references is more difficult. Perhaps we should try linking to some of the polls issued by Jagex (although the fact that only members can vote creates systemic bias).

On IRC, Eagle_101 sent me links for 3 sources. Please check whether they meet the criteria for reliable sources, and if they do, find ways to add them as references to the article.

http://www.gamespot.com/webonly/rpg/runescape/review.html

http://reviews.gamez.com/sage/view.x?s=reviews&&entry=61248

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/games/review.jsp?id=707

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gamespot and Channel 4 are certainly reputable sources, although I don't know about the Gamez site. Also, don't worry about using Knowledge Base and Fansite citations; Half-Life 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) uses official and fansite citations, and that's a Featured Article. Besides, what possible reason would those sites have for lying? Its not like there are many other reliable sources. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could help me check the reliability of the Gamez site, which someone told me about on IRC. We can use the Knowledge Base, although we should avoid overusing it, and find external references where possible. I wonder how reliable fansite citations are considered according to the policy; but we should only cite from fan sites which RuneScape players consider reputable: RuneHQ, Tip.it, Zybez and Sal's Realm.
Now for more references. You mentioned about the December 2003 issue of PC Gamer magazine. How can we reference that? An old discussion in the archives reveals several references:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1103882,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4774534.stm
http://www.just-rpg.com/default.asp?pid=1209
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/9096/the-rundown-on-runescape
That's a good start. In the section below, I stated my intention to rename the "Criticisms" section "Criticisms and reviews". I'll work out how to include the information and I'll add it within the next couple of days. Any more references you can find? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Reviews

I will be adding a new section called RuneScape Reviews. This section's purpose is to encompass reliable personal opinion, such as newspaper articles. I found an article on RuneScape from BBC News. I'll be putting that up soon.--Ed 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that would be beneficial? Apart from that one and the one already linked to on the article, I don't think there are nay on any major websites. J.J.Sagnella 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If it appears that I cannot find anymore on any major news service, I will delete the statements on that section.--Ed 21:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This came up before on here, see here. RS2 did have a short article in PC Gamer UK, issue 129, December 2003. I have a copy of that issue right here, if anyone wants a few quotes. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but I'm kinda on a Wikibreak right now, so could you put it up?--Ed 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This could go into the Criticisms section. It could be renamed "Reviews and criticisms". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Aggreed, criticism bascially is a kind of review anywayGSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Since you agreed, I will work out the best way to present the information about RuneScape's press coverage. Once I've figured it out, I'll be bold and add it! As I don't know how to do proper referencing, I will just place inline links, and you'll have to format them properly for me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok...someone just deleted the news reviews section. What happened there?? And I can put refs.--Ed 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I already added a few sentences about the main idea of each reviews source. Can someone help me elaborate on them?--Ed 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about deleting it. To be honest I didn't know it was a serious section - thinking back, I read it to fast and didn't give enough thought to it. However, I still am against the section. There's an extremely small amount of professional news organizations that have anything relalted to RuneScape. But most importantly, how is this benefial to people who read this article on Wikipedia? There's obviously going to be people who like and don't like RuneScape. Where are the bad reviews of RuneScape? The section is biased already. Look at other MMORPGs. I didn't see any review sections on the random 10 or so I looked at. Audacious One 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have read the concerns raised on the featured-article, good article, and peer review discussions, it said that the criticisms on RuneScape was placed without references, or if there were references, they were unreliable. The purpose of placing these statements from newsgroups are to display criticisms that were made by reliable sources. In addition, I'm planning to elaborate more on what the news reporters said, trying to maintain a biased and neutral point of view. However, I'm nervous that if I put too much of what the critics said about RuneScape, that section would slightly turn away from this article's main purpose.--Ed 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. This was what people asked for when the Featured Article and Good Article nominations failed. They wanted some professional reviews of the game. We need to show that RuneScape has received press coverage and is thus notable. So we'll provide links to reviews in a subsection of the "Criticisms and Reviews" section. However, I don't think the current presentation was correct. I'd prefer a presentation like "In April 2005, Newspaper X reviewed RuneScape and gave it a rating of 8 out of 10. In November 2005, RuneScape was listed as one of the best online games by Magazine Y". Of course, we need to reference them. For player criticisms, I'll see if we can dig up some of official polls issued by Jagex. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Putting in the results of ratings and polls might be a great idea. Other than Jagex's official polls, I wouldn't know where to find them. I'm still going for the news coverage for now, until we can find other information on criticisms.--Ed 16:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Go to http://runescape.com and click View Previous Polls. However, getting the exact URL of a poll will be difficult because Jagex uses some technology to mask the URL, so you'll only see http://runescape.com in the address bar. In Opera, I can click "Bookmark this page" and I'll get the URL in the "Address" field of the dialog box that pops up. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't use polls anyway—they require login. Hyenaste (tell) 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, we didn't use any...or did we?????--Ed 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PC Gamer UK article

And I quote:

Runescape 2
Browser-based Goblin basher goes 3D.
Dungeoneering through your web browser is about to be taken to new levels with the release of Runescape 2. Based on the highly successful Runescape model, currently boasting over 600,000 active accounts worldwide, the sequel, featuring a new 3D engine, will be unfeasibly compressed into a tiny 2Mb download.
Published by Jagex, Runescape is an RPG based on the traditional values of questing, slaying monsters and developing your character in a familiar medieval setting. Derivative stuff that isn't likely to have the big boys trembling in their +2 Boots of Subscriber Gathering, but sceptics should consider Runescape's enviable accessibility. Available via your browser, the game can be fired up on a narrowband connection, in just a few minutes. Easy access is compounded by a version of the game that allows free adventuring before players upgrade to a members account (for a monthly fee of £3.80), complete with three times the map area and double the quests.
An unsurprising success then, but as Constant Tedder, Jagex's MD explains, when it came to the sequel it was clear theat a mere revamp of the existing engine was not enough.
"We decided the Runescape engine could do with replacing. The graphics were starting to look very dated and we also had loads more ideas of things we wanted to add to the game which the older engine simply couldn't do."
The new aesthetic includes over 2,000 high-detail 3D models and a huge world made up of over 4 million tiles, all crammed into a hobbit sized download. The reinforced feature list includes multi-player combat and player-owned housing.
A beta for existing members is scheduled for December 1st, with an open beta following soon after, and you can ready your browsers for the full client by January 2004.

PCGamer UK, issue 129 (December 2003), page 145.

CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you just copy down an entire mag article???Your dedication to this article is strong. Anyway, thanks alot!--Ed 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thats what I did. In hindsight, I suppose I could have used a scanner. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I just don't know where this should go. Should we put it in the main body of the article, or should we put it in Press Reviews?--Ed 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd take some choice quotes from it and cite that issue of PCG as the source. By the way, I believe the author is Technical Editor Mark Sutherns. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to cite a magazine.--Ed 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just cite it in the same way as a website, although obviously, you can't include a link. See the citations guide. Wikilink to PC Gamer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). The ISBN of the issue in question is 9771470169009. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I already put as much press reviews as I could find. I even started the Advertisements section with those articles!! So now, we just have to clean up Criticisms and Advertisements, right??--Ed 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it's important to offer references to press coverage of RuneScape, we must not forget that other sections need referencing as well. In another section of this talk page, I suggested RuneScape have a "Technical" section covering the history and development of the game, the servers, and the graphics. I think information about advertisements could also go there. We must add references to advertisements section (and other sections). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks so, it might even be ready for another GA attempt soon (or a Peer Review, at least). Pay a visit to some of the fansites. Im sure some of the more obscure articles, such as those in the 'Special Reports' section at RuneHQ has some suitable citations for the criticisms. I'll check the RS news releases, I think something like this was referenced in one of them. If all else fails, Google has never failed me. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We'll work up the ladder. First, peer, then GA, then FA. I'll go check Rune HQ.
By the way, what's your opinion on the Ads section?--Ed 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Good find with the Ads, I never knew that. It looked a bit prominently placed for a moment though. I've tried checking the RuneScape.com news releases for any possible citations, but i've found nothing so far. I do know that there is a 'Guide to Lag' sticky in the tech support section of the Forums, but we can't cite forum posts. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't rush. Rushing will ruin its chances. References are not the only issue here. We have issues such as POV and fancruft. We should improve the article bit by bit. I think it should be nominated for Good Article in September, at the earliest, and only after we have completed a Peer Review. It will be several months after that before we consider it for Featured Article status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Advertising section is too prominently placed. Does it need its own main heading? I'm think part of history or community???? I did wiki it up some, and tried to make it sound not so much like a press release. Xela Yrag 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't belong in community, because it has nothing to do with the RuneScape community. I'm putting it in History and Development.--Ed 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not a "Technical" section covering history and development, servers, graphics and advertisements? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just check [runehq.com] Special Reports, but came up with nothing. RuneHQ is a game guide, and we certainly can't have that in a Wikipedia article.--Ed 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we are allowed to use fansites for some citations. Wikipedia has to be NPOV, but the sites we link to do not. If we had to link to neutral sites, it would be impossibly hard to cite anything. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a citation error in section "Advertising". Whenever I try to use multiple footnotes, it says: "Cite error 3; Invalid call; invalid keys, e.g. too many or wrong key specified". Can someone help me??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leroyencyclopediabrown (talk • contribs) .

I think i've fixed it, if your intention was to combine the duplicate citations into one. Don't forget to sign.
Looking at some of the uncited entries in the criticism section, all of them are just player rants and are completely uncitable. I think it would be better to remove them altogether and let the professional reviews do the job. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Player opinions are very important. However, we should only include a particular criticism if there is consensus among the RuneScape community (i.e. don't include one player's peeves). We may not be able to reference all of them, but we should be able to reference some of them. The polls from Jagex could be used as references if they are relevant. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

While I continued to lood for game reviews, I found the citation for most of the entries in Criticisms, including: Graphics, gameplay, and free play limitations. If you look at this page], you would see that most of the criticisms come from this page. What should we do now? Should we add this site in as a citation, or delete the content since the site looks unreliable?--Ed 19:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GameFAQs? I can't think of a much more reliable source. That would do nicely as a citation, although it seems to apply to RuneScape Classic (see the date). As that is not a professional review, it may not carry the same weight. I still think the uncited claims in the criticisms section should go, as they are just player rants. Urgh, i've just looked through the Gamespot player reviews, the first one I read was someone ranting about being banned. Read the rules, people! CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
So maybe we should just try to deleted those criticisms (the ones without citations). Is that what your saying??--Ed 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are uncited and uncitable rants by players, based upon their opinion. Wait for some more editor opinions before you do delete them, though. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I swapped the press reviews to the top of the section, moved and titled the uncited as Player cirticism. Agree that each needs a cite, it also needs balance if player opinions are used they should be balanced between positive and negative. Gnangarra 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Comment For now, I will use the citation that I found in GameFAQ's. Then we will deal with the rest after.--Ed 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep this in mind: When you look for player reviews with ratings, don't use 0/10 or 10/10, if you know what I mean. Those kinds of reviews might be excessively biased. After all, no game is all perfect, and no game is all horrible.--Ed 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"No game is all horrible"? You do realise someone made a videogame version of Big Brother? :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting you mention My Big Brother—the game was developed by Henrique Olifiers who now works where? Jagex. Hyenaste (tell) 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Spooky. Why did you delete one of my earlier posts? CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Every game must have something good.--Ed 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In the Feedback section, there are 2 mentionings of opinions about members content being more than free content. Does this count as a citation reliable for this certain issue?

"We believe that if players are so committed to the game that they exhaust the free part, then they will want to convert to the subscription service." [1]

When you read it, it seems to imply that the subscription service will keep increasing and that the free part is intended to stay the same.--Ed 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

With a little rewording, that should do nicely. The Guardian is easily a reliable source. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is so exciting!! I'm glad to see that we're making major progress, especially with all of the citations. Soon, we can try the Peer Review again, then maybe GA status.--Ed 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Comment In the Feedback section, there is a statement about "Speed". As you read it, you can assert that that can happen in any computer, in any game. Maybe we should remove that statement.--Ed 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Latency, as a result of Server load, Distance, as well as factors like Noise, Attenuation, Interference and so forth in the communications medium, is inevitable in any form of communications, and pervades any and every multiplayer videogame. This statement is effectively redundant, and can go. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding GameFAQs as a source: don't. GameFAQs may have some very limited QC, but the vast majority of its reviews are by users, and therefore only slightly better than its GameSpot counterpart. I use it solely for fact-based stuff: release dates, publisher, ports, etc. Nifboy 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Comment One more citation needed in Feedback!!!----Edtalk c E 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Comment Check Gameplay in Feedback. Should we delete the farming statement, or continue to find a citation??----Edtalk c E 15:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Okay folks, we may want to have a look at the automated recommendations for improvement here. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism: There is none. Wikipedia is looking biased

The Criticism section is only giving more features of the game, there is effectively no Criticism. This section used to be extensive, but soemone deleted it. Now the article is locked, while RS's competator's articles have mounds of negtive and repeating Criticism. Wikipdia is looking very biased right now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.188.142 (talk • contribs)

Oh, you're just biased against RS. The criticism is right below the section to which you refer. Seriously though, you are correct—that section does not belong there. It reads too much like advertisement. Thanks for pointing it out—it must be attended to before this can be a good article. Hyenaste (tell) 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The original commentator referred to the section I am reproducing below:

Press reviews

  • Lessons on labour: According to BBC News, playing RuneScape as much as working on homework is not necessarily a bad thing. It can instruct players about working hard to achieve goals. Studies show that the nature of most games, including RuneScape, can teach teenagers vital skills as they enter the labour market. [1]
  • Fastest growing: The Guardian stated that Runescape is one of the fastest growing out of all of the MMORPGs. Online RPGs are one of the few internet businesses that can entice people to pay for online content. [2]
  • Free, with no strings attached: Just RPG, an organization that reviews online role-playing games, says that "It's rare for something that's free to come with no strings attached, and is actually fun to boot." RuneScape does just that.[3]
  • Great entertainment: The Yahoo Buzz Log states that the unrealistic roles of the characters in the MMORPG Runescape can provide good entertainment when people need a break.[4]
  • RuneScape 2 a huge success: According to PC Gamer UK, RuneScape 2 should be a great success. "Available via your browser, the game can be fired up on a narrowband connection, in just a few minutes."[5]

Hyenaste (tell) 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we just make this into a separate 'Reviews' section? CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Still seems a bit like an advertisement. It praises RuneScape a bit too much you know? Hyenaste (tell) 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If its cited, it should be fine. Just place quotation marks where appropriate, to make it clear that the reviewer said this, not us. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

68.192.188.142, please create an account and contribute to Wikipedia. The "Criticism" section contains two subsections: both "Press Reviews" and "Player Criticism". The Press Reviews subsection states what external reviewers, such as game-related newspapers or magazines, thought of the game. If they give positive reviews, we must state so. The "Player Criticism" subsection contains players' criticism of the game, and most of the content in the original "Criticism" section was moved there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, if the newspapers praise RuneScape, then it means that they recommend RuneScape as a good game. Now if anyone can find a negative PRESS review, then we can add it to the section.--Edtalk c E 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worth replacing the player reveiws with a link to here: http://www.gameogre.com/reviewdirectory/reviews/RuneScape.php As they are mixed and provide a real insite to what the players think, not soemthing that resembles an ad and has nothing negative.--68.192.188.142 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else feel the "music" part in the Player Comments section is A) Completely out of tone with previous parts and B) poorly written? --Maitias 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this use to have a good crticsm section but someone deleted most of it. This seems to happen every other week though.... (Koolsen0 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Consistency

I've noticed a lack a consistency regarding the way the free-to-play and pay-to-play aspects of RuneScape are presented in this article. For example, when referring to players who subscribe for membership, I see the words "paying members", while just "members" and even "P2P players", among others. This is the same with players who use the free options. Even when describing content I see things like "F2P content" and "free content".

I think it's important for us to decide on specific terms to use consistently throughout the entire article, especially if we want RuneScape to become a Good Article. I personally prefer "paying members", "free players", "subscription content" and "free content", but it's not only up to me to decide. Audacious One 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. People who read might not know the meaning of words like f2p. J.J.Sagnella 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Support I support that, too. I think that we should use the terms "members", "free players", "subscription content", and "free content", with links to Pay-to-play and F2P.--Edtalk c E 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the support - I appreciate it. I really like your suggestion Ed with "free content" and "subscription content" with links to P2P and F2P - but only when they are first mentioned. I originally planned on suggesting "free content" but couldn't find a good term for the - well, subscription content. Thanks - Audacious One 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye, using P2P and F2P in encyclopedia articles looks horribly like leetspeak. I'm with you. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just fixed all of the links for P2P and F2P. I also noticed that the article uses the term NPC, instead of Non-player character. In the mean time, I placed links to non-player character, but should I actually change its text?--Edtalk c E 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

At one point, each of the terms you are berating here were listed spelled out with the abbreviation in parentheses after {i.e. nonplayer character (NPC)}, so that there was no question what the term meant; however, in the course of all the recent slashings of content, this has been removed. To write out nonplayer character and paying member every time they are mentioned in the article sounds wordy and, well, downright pretentious. To take a page from someone else's book, other articles use abbreviations. Why can we not use them for the RuneScape articles? This also brings up another problem: how to spell or present the fully spelled out words. Is it nonplayer character, non-player character, or non player character? Is it free to play or free-to-play? These decisions had all been made at one time, and they were listed in the "General reminders" section of this page. I am one of the editors who was keeping them consistent. Also, per the guidelines, we do not need to make every mention of a term a link. That is overkill and makes the article look silly with all those colours. The first one should be a link, unless it is in a heading or in a bold or italicized phrase, in which case the next mention should be a link. Another link should be added if the term is used again in a distant section. Xela Yrag 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what you might have thought, I am definitely not berating any terms. I am not angry or even upset whatsoever that multiple terms are being used for these things. I'm merely trying to present the idea that consistency is important and it can help us bring RuneScape to be a Good Article. I strongly disagree that writing out simple words and keeping tmers consistent is pretentious. It is a professional way of writing. With regards of how to spell things, there are correct English spellings for all such words and usually the Wikipedia article corresponding with such terms are spelled correctly. And I agree with you about the links - I didn't mean to say there should be a link with every single mention of these terms; only when they are first mentioned. Audacious One 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
NPC is linked no less than six times in the article, two of them in one sentence and a third on the next line. Pay-to-play and free-to-play are linked twice each in one paragraph, along with multiple other links for both throughout the article. Three-dimensional graphics is linked twice in the same section. That is just examples of what I mean by overkill. I didn't check to see who made all those links; it could be one person or several. And should we even be linking to some of this stuff? The guidelines say that you should only link to relevant articles. At one point, we had a link to clouds and the colour lavender in one of the daughter articles. Some of these may be reaching a little to get relevance, but I am not sure enough to remove the link yet. Xela Yrag 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to be bold and remove the links. And take a look at this. Improve the graphics of the entire free world??? Sounds like President Bush talking about uniting ourselves into a community of freedom...lol--Edtalk c E 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

no offense

whoever added the citation needed in the graphics part of criticism really has problems —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimRepr39 (talk • contribs) .

Could you clarify that accusation? Hyenaste (tell) 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If this is the old "RuneScapes graphics are the worst" arguement again, they're not. Have you ever seen the graphical quality of the first Empire Earth (for example)? Any claim that RS's graphics are the worst of any game will need to be cited. One other thing that puzzles me is why games are often judged merely by their graphical quality. Gun Metal has easily the best graphics of its time, yet has a plot which is wafer thin and narration that makes me want to bang my head on a wall (due in no small part to its creation for the sole purpose of showcasing nVidia's GeForce FX cards). Empire Earth, despite its ugliness, is one of my favourites, hence my frustration at not being able to get it working. Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
When leaving posts, please add details as to why you are leaving them. Leaving short posts on discussion pages makes it hard for us to address your situation.--Edtalk c E 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation #15

Placed in error at top of talk page - moved. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Before we start, lets get one thing clear. You cannot rely on citation #15 for each and every criticism of the game. The referenced article is just one player's view of it. It is not a Gamespot review it is a player review hosted by Gamespot. You might as well have let one person right the criticism section themselves and claim squatters rights to the opinions therein.

Get it sorted!

And now we can continue... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.32.8 (talk • contribs) .

Number of players

In this article, it is mentioned that there are 9 milion players, however, the article about Jagex states there are 5,5 milion players. Can someone verify what the correct number is? - Redmess 15:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the different figures are from different times? The RuneScape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) figure is cited, so i'd be inclined to believe that one. Jagex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) doesn't recieve as much traffic, so maybe the Jagex figure is out of date. I'll change it to reflect this article's figure and citation. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
In the case of RuneScape, it is very important to draw a line between number of players and number of accounts. One of the numbers might be accounts, one may be players. On the Jagex cooporate website though, Jagex states "Jagex has a large audience of over 5 million unique users who play our games every month." I would therefore say its safe to assume that there are at least five million -players- of RuneScape as, lets face it, the other Jagex games are not that popular. Clq 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I saw the 5 million figure on the Jagex Corporate site a long time ago. The recently published (last month) 9 million figure makes sense to me. I'm not sure if either of the reports take account of multiple accounts, so that may well be a systematic error. Maybe we could change the wording to say 'accounts' rather than 'players' if necessary? CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

GameFAQs is not a reliable source - WP:RS

Although useful if there are no other reviews, the article will never pass a FAC if the source of criticisms and review come from a bunch of anonymous amateurs at GameFAQs. Anyone can write for gameFaqs, but it doesn't mean that their point of view matters, I could write a review saying how amazing I thought the 3D engine was and the great lighting effects in Runescape, but it'd be all wrong. Gamefaqs wouldn't know that.

So whereas as a stopgap measure, critique from GameFaqs is OK, you should be looking for more professional publications in which to source the critical commentary. Problem is, most of the gaming press ignore browser based games, and many of these sources will be offline so you can't use Google either. - Hahnchen 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I did have a look through my vast archives of PC Gamer magazines, particularly those issues from around where RS2 ended its beta run. Apart from the brief mention in the 'Netgamer' section in one issue (see my transcription above), nothing. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected this page. While I understand that this article may get a lot of vandalism, permanent protection or semiprotection is not something done on Wikipedia, not even to George W. Bush. Protection is a temporary measure only, and the only pages permanently protected are protected for the reasons listed on this page. —Cuiviénen 17:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cuivienen, please try to understand this article is trying to be featured. I challenge you to find 10 edits which have been constructive to this page by anons. Most of the edits are either vandalism or edits which don't help the article being featured, but instead hinder it's chances. Could you just leave semiprotection back on till we have our good/featured article debate? It really would help this article, or we may find ourselves reverting our way through tons of edits. J.J.Sagnella 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
What does being on FAC have to do with anything? Articles are not semiprotected when on FAC, and this article is no different. Ask for blocks of persistent IP vandals, or, if it gets really bad, the article can be reprotected, but protection is not meant to be a permanent solution, and this article had been semiprotected for nearly a month. —Cuiviénen 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
RuneScape is one of the top 10 most vandalised articles on Wikipedia (6th, I think). There is just too much vandalism from anonymous users, and it is severely degrading the quality of the article. It was once a huge mess - we've only just started saving it, so please don't destroy all our hard work! If we want to make RuneScape a good article, it must be semi-protected from all the moronic anonymous vandalism. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Got downgraded to 7th. The Israeli conflict has overtaken us by around 200 edits. J.J.Sagnella 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason that this article is so heavily edited would be the Fansites debacle. No one likes it, and (almost in general) it could very well be the single reason that this article is targeted so frequently. Fix that, and you won't need semi-protection. Makoto 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The fansite debate has been raging for months, see above. --Maitias 11:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see the "Vandals" section below - they are back. We need semi-protection, permanently or nearly so. It is the only way we can get anything done without dealing constantly with the vandalism. Xela Yrag 16:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Now we can work in peace!! Xela Yrag 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Parts of the RS Series

I don't know if this would even affect the article from reaching FA status, but let me voice my grievance with it. Where do I begin from here now...

The rest of these:

could just be safely deleted, as they contain more fancruft than usable information. Makoto 01:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, except for RuneScape Community. It got created to shorten the main article. J.J.Sagnella 01:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If it were to be kept, then it should merit an overhaul, such as citations and a newer structure. Makoto 02:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you there Makoto. I hate that horrible Construction article. However, I think that maybe Economy and Community can be merged, decrufted and kept. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Captain Vindaloo--Edtalk c E 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I believe that the Ecnomomy is the largest fancrufty thing in this Wiki, since it does talk about specific prices frequently (which are always subject to change). If there would be a way to cut out all of the fancruft, talk about ways to bring in amounts of cash, steady supplements, then maybe it could be viable as a merge. Makoto 16:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The pricing information can be given the heave-ho, of course. It may be better for that article/section/whatever it ends up as to discuss what drives the economy, in the same way as national economic articles (for example, Economy of the United Kingdom), namely; the sale of weapons and armour (which is rather worrying! :-) ) and food. I believe there has been some writeup stuff around the internet discussing the RS economy; if not, we can throw in some general MMORPG economy theory. BBC News has tonnes of that stuff, particularly related to World of Warcraft. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

I'm seeing lots of anons in the article history. Should we be worried???--Edtalk c E 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If they aren't vandals, they're usually packing the article with cruft. Hyenaste (tell) 16:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Main reason why we need permanent or nearly permanent semi-protection. I wish others could see that and leave well enough alone. Xela Yrag 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Xela, this article is not going to get permanent protection. It probably doesn't need it. Let's think about this from an "outside-of-the-box" point of view...Why are vandals targeting this wiki in particular? I can think of three things right off the top of my head:
  • They disagree with the content, so they modify it.
  • They believe that an amount of RS users view this Wiki to help them ingame, therefore frequently it is packed with "free item" links, etc.
  • They wish to be reckless and believe that their information is factual.

Now then, let's look at the specific targets for vandalism. I've noticed a few in the recent months, namely the Community, Skills and most particularly the Links section. What must happen here would be an agreement as to what goes in those spots. Make it stick, too. What's up there right now is great, but this article is far from GA status, let alone FA.

Vandalism—relating to links of free stuff or obviously false claims—is all about the opportunity. Make this Wiki so factual that the opportunity is a lot smaller, and you'll be getting a lot less vandals. Makoto 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In short.....make this a fantastic article so that others wouldn't want to change it!!! Thanks Makoto!--Edtalk c E 03:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Each of the above points - they disagree with the content. Well, what they want is cruft for lack of a better word. They put it in; we revert it; they get mad; they vandalize the article. That we can handle AFTER we get the article up to standards. They want to scam people with their free links crap - again we can handle that kind of vandalism AFTER we get the article up to standards. They wish to be reckless and believe their information is correct - again, AFTER. What you are missing is, they are pissed off at Jagex because they just got banned, or they just simply hate the game, and they want to deliberately ruin the article. Even this we can handle after we get it all good. But trying to get it all good while they are free to vandalize at will is expecting a lot from us. And since we are semi-protected again, this is a moot point right now. Xela Yrag 17:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

another point is that most of these anon edits come from the main age demographics that play the game being 12 to 20 years. That no matter how detailed and factual this article is, this age group will expect to see significant cruft when its not there they will try to add. Gnangarra 07:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe an agreement will help. For example, we developed an agreement regarding fansites. But most of the anons are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and therefore don't respect consensus.

Yhis article is packed with cruft. However, it also receives a lot of true vandalism. Besides amatuerish vandalism, such as inserting insults, there is also plenty of subtle vandalism, such as changing facts or deliberately introducing language errors. This degrades the article.

The anonymous vandals are very persistent, and the article will keep getting degraded as long as it is unprotected. It seems admins are afraid to keep the article protected and actually want anonymous vandals to completely ruin the article. In the weeks it was semi-protected, we made great progress, but after the protection was lifted, the article became a huge mess again. As long as this article is not semi-protected, I give up on improving it to Good Article status.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you give up on making it GA/FA? The rules themselves specify that constant vandalism attacks don't hurt its chances. If you really wanted to make this a GA, you'd start from the ground-up; rip out all the fancruft from EVERYWHERE you can find it. Makoto 18:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)