Talk:RuneScape/Archive 6

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 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

This is an archive of discussion on Talk:RuneScape from 3 April 2006 - 7 May 2006. Do not respond to these messages. If you would like to mention or discuss any of these topics, do so on Talk:RuneScape. Comments here will not be responded to. Thanks, Hyenaste [citation needed] 16:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Two general reminders

Two general things which you should know if bringing up something here:

  • Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used.
  • Fansites- If you feel any website should be added/deleted you must get permission here first. The decision for this was made in Archive 3J.J.Sagnella 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Runeweb

I am requesting that RuneWeb be added to the RuneScape Fansite Listings for a variety of reasons. RuneWeb is formerly known has RuneNews; one of the very first RuneScape Help Sites in existance and home to numerous users. RuneWeb has been a big move for RuneNews users and only recently launched now nearing 2000+ users (some users split into other fansites). Im the graphic designer for the website and its getting a complete overhaul coding and images included to better users. Our signatures are being used on almost every board that has the mere mention of RuneScape. More features are to come from us and we will be playing a bigger role in the RuneScape Fansites when those are released. I understand that being added is a rare occasion due to the amount of possible piracy sites being listed; but I assure you in our 4 (nearing 5) years of existance we have maintained a high quality standard of living in the RuneWeb community for our users. Supa 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the website link for this? J.J.Sagnella 08:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh I see here? Well looking at that page, no. All information on that website can be found on the major 5 and traffic-wise, it is a big no-no. J.J.Sagnella 08:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're not permitting another fansite to recieve a link. All the information can be found in the Knowledge Base on Runescape that all websites have, and the quest guides can be found on virtually every main site. RuneWeb's Dynamic Signature is a very popular feature on all the linked websites, and it wouldn't be necessarily fair to leave them 'out of the loop' as far as a link on Wikipedia is concerned.

If you don't feel it would be a good idea to link to this particular website, then why not remove all of the links? It would generate bias amongst every other fansite that didn't recieve credit. Makoto 17:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why am I not permitting it? It is because way too many wesbites could get on that list if we were to accept reasons like that. The links on Wikipedia are supposed to be useful for unwise people to get more information on a certain topic and it is in Wikipedia policy to have some fansites. Also, care to explain how you came to find Wikipedia? J.J.Sagnella 17:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In Archive 3 where you basically decreed the top 5 sites only be listed; the final user to make the statement was banned from Wikipedia for being a sockpuppet of another user. How can you call Wikipedias runescape section UNBIASED when its practically law that other fansites can't be listed. I understand it could cause a jumble but even at that why not a "Other Fansites" listing. When the header is named FANSITES I expect that all possible fansites be listed; not the top 5. (Supa 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

You do know how many fansites there are? Over five hundred at least. That would be silly. J.J.Sagnella 22:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If you don't wish to list other websites that have contributed to other communities (and yes, RuneWeb has contributed, just look around at the Dynamic Signature) then take down the links altogether. You could either comply and list all five-hundred, or comply and remove all of them. A quick sidenote: Fansites aren't really mandatory to be linked to. Jagex doesn't support them whatsoever, so this is your own judgment that's being passed. Makoto 22:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Jagex is Jagex, this is Wikipedia. And remember why Wikipedia has external links, to have a small selection of websites for people to go to for more information on the subject. And on wikipedia, even tohugh mandatory, they are highly recommeded.J.J.Sagnella 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You contradict your very statement in your last response. (Even though mandatory, they are highly reccomended). I won't go into another tangent on that. Anyway, what you should realise is that there's a handful of sites that should be added to the list, not over 500. We're not going to sit back and debate the little ones, even though they have in some way impacted the RuneScape community. If you did look around on ALL FIVE of the websites you link to, then you'd notice how this community has impacted every other...the Dynamic Signature. Other websites such as RS Bits and Bytes have their own dynamic signature as well, and I've noticed a handful of their signatures going around the forums too. Sidenote: In all fairness and neutrality, I should mention that RS Bits and Bytes DOES have this kind of system, and should be credited as well. They've worked to make a dynamic signature too, so why not give them credit on the same basis as RuneWeb? -- I'm also wondering as to who designated you the sole proprietor of this free Encyclopedia. I can understand simplicity and everything, trying to keep it simple, but who told you to commandeer this entire project and defend it with such fervency? All we're asking is for our (long overdue, I might add) credit for the dynamic signature. If you wanted content, you could easily go to the Knowledge Base. Makoto 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though I wish your site all the best, Signature sites aren't really needed on Wikipedia. Sorry. J.J.Sagnella 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that RuneWeb is really notable for is its signatures. RSB&B makes stats signatures as well, they have a known affiliation with Rune HQ, and Rune HQ has a link on the RuneScape article. Sorry, but that's probably the closest a fansite only notable for its signatures is going to get. Dissentor 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You say that Runeweb has exactly the same as the current five sites, but I am familiar with them all, and the current sites listed have generally the same content. This means that one specific site is roughly the same from the other four, and they are all still listed with nobody stopping them from being there, so why should Runeweb be excluded if it is simply following suit with the current sites listed? You did not create this article, and likewise, you do not own it. Wikipedia is meant for all users to be able to edit, not just one bossy person telling the rest of the users what to and what not to do. Why not, rather than just biasing against the five current sites listed, add one or two single links to a Top-100 fan sites page, letting users viewing this article allow themselves to choose a site to go to based on how many people have voted for it on an external fight, rather than having only five to choose from just because one person must have their way. Scott 01:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion: Actually, WP:EL says the following: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)" Thus, I believe we should either include a link to a directory of fansites, or ONE fansite link (determined by Alexa ranking or some equally transparent qualification) to bring this section inline with policy --Hetar 01:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point I'd agree with Hetar since all five 'major' fansites do contain pretty much the same information. For instance, both Tip.it and RuneHQ have databases, RuneHQ has an item database whereas Tip.it does not. RuneVillage has pretty much just decently put together maps, and not many other sites have that...but that's about all from them. Zybez offers a link to a controversial 3rd party client, and for people that don't like to use third party things it might not be a good idea. RuneHQ offers a link to Runescape Bits and Bytes for their dynamic signatures, and they're not all that 'popular'. RuneWeb has the dynamic signatures as well. Sal's Realm of Runescape offers virtually nothing above the standard as far as guides go—great community, but communities alone shouldn't be the deciding factor.
As far as content goes, all sites are simply cookie cutters. You can pick and choose those sites that go above and beyond the standard. Some sites do things differently, but the basic information is still there. Seems unjust to pick five similar sites with only a few glaring exceptions. I move for either a creation of a fansite page OR removal of links altogether.Makoto 14:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

This article has an excessive amount of images. Anyone have any suggestions for pairing it down/which ones should go? --Hetar 05:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that at least "A player talking to a P-Mod on private-chat." could go. People get the idea of the crown from the above picture, only a different colour. Besides, player mods are not at all uncommon to see in game. Though all of them are good and descriptive, some of the animated images will probably also have to go. Clq 06:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe there is a need for the P-Mod image nor the J-Mod image. And why isn't there an F-Mod image? Not that I want one, of course...
most of the animated images are from the user tarikochi, may be personally go to the user's talk page to discuss the solution of the problem. User_talk:Tarikochi GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 03:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think its great that he/she wants to contribute to the page, but there has to be a limit when it comes to images. The page takes long enough to load as it does already. --Handmedown 05:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As recently demonstrated, Hetar has already downsized the article along with the images. That appears to be a reasonable solution of this apparent image-problem.
All that's left to be done is to make the images completely relevant.
Tarikochi 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Image "A player talking to a P-mod" is an image I uploaded while editing the Moderators section to be more up to date. I believe that it is important for people to know who is and who isn't a mod and what a 'silver crown' would look like ingame. I've noticed that P-mods are rarely seen in f2p worlds yet rather common on member servers. The bulk of Runescape players are non-members, thereofore what might apear to be obvious what a 'silver crown' looks like to you and I, may not to the average player. You might be surprised but most players have never encountered a P-mod. For the five years prior to becaming a subscribed member, I, myself have never encountered a player mod. --Master Liang 21:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

While so, alongside another who doesn't seem to want any further actual visual contribution to the articles, one of the images is more than enough, or at least, to a smaller size. The common is more important than the rare, in which case, would be the Player Mod, as you mentioned the F2Pers would be most common.
The arguments have been handed to have a severe shortage of images, so anything that looks even mildly repetitive should be remove, as the points of views have stated.
Tarikochi 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't think that having many images is a bad thing. See the article on Yellowstone National Park, for example. However, if enough people complain about the amount of images, then maybe we can create a section just for adding images, like on the Strokkur article. Another idea is to move the images to Commons, but the image use policy is much more stricter there. For example, "fair use" images are allowed here but not on Commons, as far as I know. --Ixfd64 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And What do you think I've been doing? RuneScape Images? J.J.Sagnella 08:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry Tarikochi, I didn't really understand what you were trying to say with the F2Pers and the common before the rare. I agree that they may show some slight repetition being both mod pictures, however, they both differ and relate to their appropirate subjects. They are necessary to indulge the readers (especially people who arent as farmiliar with the game) with adequite imformation of the layout of the chat system in association with the rest of the screen and what a Moderator's message would appear like.
On another point, Tarikochi, I've noticed that you've made quite a lot of video clips yourself. Which I admit are extraordinary. However, it could be said that they too, are quite repetitive such as the animations of all the weapon specials, one posiblility could be to remove some of them if there was a 'severe shortage of images'. Since one would find little problem picturing a dragon dagger from a dragon long cut short a few inches. But at this point, I dont see this being necessary.
By the way, I do believe I uploaded these images back when image space wasn't an issue--Master Liang 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although animated images and movies seem interesting and make the page a lot more dynamic, it doesn't really portray anymore than a regular still picture would. --Handmedown 07:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with that; the animated images shows the animation of the game as well. I am not sure who wanted what on the current revision; But I do not think it has too many images as it is, in fact, I wouldnt object to one more. Clq 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If people want to see a moving picture of runescape then they should just go and play the game, rather than waiting for movies on wikipedia to load. --Handmedown 06:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As of the satisfactions of Hetar's attempt to eliminate the RuneScape articles to turning into a "gallery" with little to no discussion, I have removed and deleted every single images created by me. This action has successfully cleared over half of the RuneScape Images overall. I hope this meets the everybody's expectations in having little to no images in all of the RuneScape articles, thus brightening and making the information much more viewable. Tarikochi 13:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The main page, at least, really looks good. Thanks for your efforts. Cilencia 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

After reading all of the runescape-realted articles, I have seen much redundancy (covering information on weapons on the main page, covring random events some other relatively unrelated page). How about we start an effort to try to clean up the information? This will also shorten many articles, including the main article. What are your opinions? Nerion 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've looked on the related pages, and they're all extremely long just like this one. It seems like we should first work on making the specific pages (RuneScape armour, RuneScape skills) more concise, then come back here, erase whatever we have on that subject and rewrite extremely little on the specific subject, and provide a Main article: Whatever as we already have in some cases. Hyenaste 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The sub-articles need to be made completely correct, then we can come back to the main article and remove anything that is unnecessarily repeated, and provide the Main article: link on each section. It will shorten all the articles and mean that information is more correct and unrepeated - • The Giant Puffin • 15:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

'Clean Up' of Criticism section

In [this edit] the user in question has removed an awful lot of information which whilst being badly written was (at least in my opinion) of relevance to the article, should it be restored and reworded/cleaned up properly? --Veratien 12:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole section is unsourced, which is somewhat of a problem. --Hetar 01:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The edit that is [this edit]. The older version in that link is better put. The newer on in it makes it look like newspaper headlines. --Actown e 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Some things, like common criticism of online games like NeoPets and RuneScape, are very difficult to source. You need to have actually played the game to see the problems. For example, having played RuneScape for a year, I have often seen the words "fauck" and "gai" being used to bypass the filters. This is why I added such information to the article. I was the one who made this edit which adds some information to the Criticism section and elaborates on the criticism. While I agree that some of the information is badly written and presented, Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes states that we should not delete poorly written content, but try to clarify it. I suggest that several users work on cleaning up the criticism section and in fact the entire article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

thats odd... any users are welcome to make this section better, replace better words if you feel need to. but just to say that, siting a critisim section having 1/10 of the whole article is just not very common, thats why i cut it down like "newspaper headlines". anyways, i will explian all my changes point by point below.

  • the filter is not only aim at swear words, other "improper" words are also filter out, such as ".com"
  • the marco detection system is not very advance if you know it.
  • "The new Knowledge Base is already taking some stress off the Customer Support team."

have nothing to do with crtising "RuneScape" customer support.

  • repeation with the point right after it
  • "The number of people choosing this method of trade"

is just saying there is another method of trading but somehow people use this method to cast their own fate. "A marketplace forum is available to members in the RuneScape forums." does not explain anything that link with this crtising point.

  • "Some players have thus resorted to creating, training and selling high-level free accounts, which is against RuneScape rules. However, this can be understood as Jagex's ultimate goal is to make a profit - this is harder to achieve in the free game due to the relatively small revenue brought in by the advertisements."

that is basically out of the scope of too little free content.

  • "(Which was ironically from players criticising.) What does this mean? ." what the point is this trying to say anyways???
  • item scamming does not interfer with the game itself, but the users. it is just like saying "there is too many fakes in a peer to peer software" or "too many phishing websites in an internet browser"
  • "The speed of RuneScape depends on the user's internet connection"

thats the client side problem, nothing to do with the game itself

  • "*The so-called "PK triangle" is always unbalanced, in a sense,as players can have all three classes highly developed within in one character."

100% perspective (always) and that playwers ave all three classes did not explain the relationship of unbalancing the combat triangle.

  • "The maximum combat level achievable in RuneScape is 126, and users cannot get this high by being 'pure' (no ranged or magic skill as a warrior, etc) so they must be a hybrid class (train in all three types of combat), which is another issue altogether"

absoultely no meaning, a pure is explained in the article to get their combat level as low as possible

  • "*The prayer system is somewhat unruly as it rewards players with abilities such as protect from magic, ranged, and melee, which makes players invulnerable to those attack types for a period of time against NPCs; however, against other players the prayer system only protects from half the damage."

did not explain how "unruly" it is but rather explaining the prayer system GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 06:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with those changes as they shorten the page, deliver the information more clearly than it was, and removes anything that doesn't make sense in that section. To take it out of a "newspaper headlines" look, we could simply put it into paragraph form. My only complaint is that the bullet "the combat triangle is not significant" needs to be expounded to make sense. Hyenaste 23:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If the information is on the same topic, I welcome shortening and summarising it. It makes the page more precise and more tidy. It also means the language is more formal - • The Giant Puffin • 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jmod/Pmod/Fmod Images

I believe that these images should be fixed/replaced in order to show what the gold/silver/green crown looks like without requiring the user to actually click on it and wait for it to load. The image of the crown is the only reason these images are allowed, and I can't even see them on the RS page! Note that in the current image, all the skills, minimap, etc are displayed, wasting thumbnail real estate and requiring excess shrinkage. Shrinkage is bad. Hyenaste 07:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that better? Cilencia 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Good, That's one way to do it. However, the images are a little blurred. I will see to obtaining better cutouts from their original pictures and replace them in the near future. --Master Liang 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
They look much better, thanks. Hyenaste 22:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Under 30K

This article is no longer tagged with:

This page is $1 kilobytes long. Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "$"

Hooray! Hyenaste 08:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

why was the zezima page deleted?

why?

Does he really need a whole page dedicated to him? It wasn't me that deleted it though. --Handmedown 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
try list reasons why it should not be deleted GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 04:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't pass the notability test on WP:BIO. Hyenaste 06:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
How much information about Zezima could even be verified? Cilencia 17:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
well what is wrong with zezima having a page dedicated to her in the 1st place and the information that can be verified is that she is the best player in runescape and that she was the 1st person to reach 99 in all stats and the reason why it shouldnt be deleted is because since the page is deleted certain people who havent checked the hiscores will not know who she is.
Zezima is male. If we can't agree on his gender, how can we have an article about him? Information on these pages--WP:LIVING, WP:NOR, and WP:V--show that Zezima shouldn't have his own page. Hyenaste 09:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
quote "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". I think getting maxed out and having millions of people recognising him is enough to be newsworthy? If Zezima walked into an internet cafe and logged onto his account, do you think he wouldn't be treated with celebrity status, needing body guards and everything to protect him from the haters and the fans and the paparazzis and everything? Really Zezima's recognisability in say, the USA, would match that of a C-list to B-list celebrity. ->> RZ heretic 06:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Getting all 99's is not newsworthy. If Zezima did log onto his account at an Internet café, the attending RS players would likely go crazy, but your average non-player wouldn't care at all. \Hyenaste 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I have played Runescape since the begining, There had always been "celebrities". Take Ladykilljoy for instance, she used to be ranked the strongest runescape player, and be the talk of everywhere, however, she has since quit and now you'd barely hear even the mention of her name. Also, on another point, Lillyuffie88, though ranked 7th for overall levels, has the most experience of anyone in runescape, surpassing even Zezima. She is also ranked 1st in Hitpoints, Ranged, and Prayer and is recongnised no less respect than him in terms of fame. You also have to understand that maxed stats are only a minor milestone in runescape. Theres already two other players out there (The Old Nite, and N0valyfe)with maxed stats, undoubtably with more to follow. Infact, in the past, The Old Nite has on and off switched places with Zezima as number one. Therefore, the point is, runescape celebrities come and go, and it would be too redundant ans unecessary to start a page for every last one of them. --Master Liang 17:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, how about listing the current top ten Players according to ranking. It could be changed weekly or monthly.

Also the page and the discussion page would be a prime topic for vandals and hate messages to zezima. It is no worth having really either.Dracion 15:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Overview page, yes?

Am I wrong with having the idea that this page should just be a general overview page? I was thinking each aspect of the game that has its own article should be mentioned briefly then linked. The issue is that lots of editors, mostly anonymous, come along and see this article, and immediately want to add information that has already been covered extensively on another page. We can't have individual articles on different subjects, and then a 900KB article that includes all information from all pages. I'm coming close to breaking the WP:3RR with these additions. Hyenaste 09:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you completely on that. However, recently there has been a lot of criticism regarding the amount of articles covering Runescape, and attempts have been made to either delete them or transwiki them to Wikibooks. --Master Liang 17:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this page should be a summary and overview of the sup-articles - • The Giant Puffin • 15:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Celebs Playing

I heard that Drew Carey plays this game a lot. I used to but not anymore, can anyone varify this? Not that im stalking, I don't even play this game, i'm just curious. --Steven91 05:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The only reference I could find was on our own Drew Carey article. The information was added by User:208.189.163.253. Since this is unsourced, I shall remove it until a source is found. Hyenaste 09:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up of Minor Articles?

Articles like the runescape Wilderness article are badly littered with grammatic errors and general poor english. I do not object the contents, but the way they are presented. Would someone be kind enough to help fix up the english a bit? =>> RZ heretic 04:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

i think it should be stated that these sites and none of there contents are writen or endorced by jagex ltd and that some content is the opinion of the developers or staff of the site and do not represent one absolute truth

I agree, and I doubt that anyone would disagree. I'll go add it. Dtm142 00:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
To me, it doesn't seem necessary. The sub-headings (eg. "Official affiliates") and descriptions of the official sites create a division which quite clearly points out that the selected fansites are unofficial. Perhaps changing the sub-heading to "Selected unofficial fansites" is all that is necessary. I would also expect readers to assume that the content of a "fansite" could be opinion. Someone42 11:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant Idea. Much Better J.J.Sagnella 12:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

membership

does the membership section really need to have all the infomation? why not create a seeparete page. Rdunn 19:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The current version does not have enough information to qualify for its inclusion as a separate page. The only issue with it now is that some may think that it reads like an advertisement. Hyenaste 23:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Once there is more verifiable information, it might be possible to make a seperate page. However, until then, a section will have to suffice - • The Giant Puffin • 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RS Writer

Can I put a link to my fansite on the article just for today (my birthday)? You can remove it tomorrow.Dtm142 15:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not for birthday presents and we have no idea if it really is your birthday. J.J.Sagnella 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it is. Second of all, it's only one day a year anyway. Dtm142 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
So? If someone wanted to they could make 366 acoounts and have the link on all the time. And wikipedia is never ever going to be sued for birthday presents. J.J.Sagnella 16:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Aye and ye cant prove its your birthday or not (no offence meant if it is!) Rdunn 17:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
If it his birthday though, happy birthday. J.J.Sagnella 17:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It is my birthday, and it was worth a try. Oh well. Dtm142 22:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, lol yeah, I suppose you tried. Handmedown
No, this discussion on the talk page was the first suggestion of it. Dtm142 made no attempt to add a fansite without discussion here, and respected others' input on the matter even though it was not the desired input. Cilencia 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My image gallery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to discuss about this idea.

TarikochiGalleryCriticize 22:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm absolutely delighted that you have reintroduced these! Hetar may have not liked the images at a glance, but I look at these articles every day reverting vandalism, and I don't like the plain black and white pages at all. Like a child on Christmas morning I'm going to scour the articles and place images in where appropriate. Thanks! Hyenaste 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice approach! That's a great idea. It certainly eliminates any possibility of personal bias in their inclusion. Cilencia 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

New images in my gallery for April 25, 2006.

Image:Runescape monsters chaoselemental.gif
Image:Runescape randomevents evilbob.PNG

Make use of these images if possible. Thanks. TarikochiGalleryCriticize 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape quests

What happened to this article? I didn't even realize it was up for deletion, and now it's gone. Hyenaste [citation needed] 20:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Same. I just noticed it wasnt on the series template, and found that the article no longer exists. A lot of people put into that and I didnt even know it was on AfD. Anyone know when it got deleted? - • The Giant Puffin • 15:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
A good week or so ago. J.J.Sagnella 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
O. Was it on AfD? I thought it was a vastly improved article - • The Giant Puffin • 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it was. Why weren't you there arguing the case to keep it? J.J.Sagnella 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I would have been if i knew it was up for deletion. Is there any chance we can bring it back some day? - • The Giant Puffin • 11:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Review Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and maybe put it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you want it back. People always try to just recreate it under a different name or something, but that will be immediately deleted if people don't follow policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

New images in my gallery for April 26, 2006.

Image:Runescape features wildernessteleportportals.gif
Image:Runescape_locations_demonicruins.PNG
Image:Runescape locations castleruins.PNG
Image:Runescape_locations_volcano.PNG

One new animated clip and three new Wilderness-based location images, as I've noticed that the Wilderness article is lacking in images. Use these images if deemed necessary.

For those that need background information, the Demonic Ruins is popular for clan-based fights. Both the castle ruins and volcano (no currently known name from JaGeX yet) were recently added from this week's update. The teleportation portal only has me teleporting, as I do not know of how to further represent this. These graphics are also renewed.

I've noticed that the major articles that may need images are RuneScape, RuneScape holiday items, RuneScape monsters, RuneScape weaponry (this is the one where the image-needed template was first started...), and Wilderness (RuneScape). Even then, there are still several other articles that could use more than a few images included in it.

There are still a large amount of images in my gallery and possibly in your own disposals (check RuneScape Images) that you can use to fill these. Do not be afraid of using the same image twice in different articles. I still avoid doing this myself to not get into any further complications.

I also do requests for images on my talk page. If it is possible to do an animated clip of the request, please state so. The more you describe the request, the easier for me to get it, assuming I do it. Thank you.

TarikochiGalleryCriticize 04:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section getting silly

Does anyone else here think the criticism section is getting a bit daft? For example one of them is "Some players criticise RuneScape for stopping the rare item holiday drops from being tradable.". Well yes some players did, but also lots of players aplauded it as a good move because they were unbalancing the economy. Every single update made to the game there are people who criticise it and people who like it, just check out the official forums. If you listed everything single thing that somebody somewhere criticised you'd be here all day! Why do we have a subset of abitrary complaints listed? The whole section seems to be largely a matter of opinion, does it actually add to the article in any way? Another example is the statement that there some people think there isn't enough free stuff - well duh! people always think that. How does that add to the article? Comments? Runefire 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the criticism section. It's all a matter of opinion and I don't think it needs to be there. Flummoxer 01:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of it does, such as stuff that is universally agreed upon. But some of it is an individual opinion, and can be removed - • The Giant Puffin • 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Its not really the users place to comment on how they feel about runescape. This is an encyclopedia on facts and information, not opinions of people.--Handmedown 09:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I would be inclined to get rid of it, but it attracts a lot of passing comments that would otherwise be worked into the rest of the article. Cilencia 18:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Zybez as a fansite.

I propose to immediatly remove Zybez from the fan site list as it is currently advertising on the front page for a site that is made for breaking RuneScape rules by selling gp for real life money. Clq 19:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Unless Zybez has some different method than what I am familiar with, the owners of the site have no control over the adverts that appear. I believe the advert system scans the page for common words and displays an appropriate advertisement. Most RuneScape advertisements out there are against the rules (why else would you need an RS ad unless you were trying to sell something?) and therefore, these illegal ads are chosen from the RuneScape cache and displayed. Most ad-supported RuneScape websites have this same problem. Hyenaste[citation needed] 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Though I cannot document it at this time, I beleve that ADs are not sold through any kind of system. Though I can't find it now, I have seen a page of ad-pricing somewhere. There is also the fact that the contact page says that one should contact W13 for questions about advertising. Even if it is random though, I still beleve it is wrong. Clq 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree That advert does not appear random to me. It has been the only advert I've seen appearing in that slot for the last 2 weeks so it appears it isn't just one of a mix from a network. They've even admitted that they know full well they are running that specific advert, and have made no attempt to stop it because of the cash it pays. Anybody complaining on their forums that they are breaking the rules just get's their post removed! Real world trading is a massive problem on RuneScape. And now it appears Zybez are supporting it for the cash, talk about a sell out! This makes them a cheat site not a fan site in my eyes, and the link to their site should be removed. Runefire 22:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I just looked, and all the sites have advertisements that go against the Terms and Conditions of RS (except tip.it, which currently features air purification and Medicare). Hyenaste [citation needed] 22:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose As much as I feel they are scamming people, ads are ads and guides are guides. If you delete zybez for that reason you will have to remove RuneHq as well. J.J.Sagnella 15:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It's a good site for RS info, and the ads problem can apply to many of the sites on the external links - • The Giant Puffin • 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've also been and looked at various other fan sites and I can't see the others encouraging rule breaking at all. Which adverts are you referring to? If you are referring to the RuneScapeMillions guide that many sites have that ISNT against the rules. That's not a real world trading advert, it's just a guide on how to play the game, which doesn't break any rules. It's completely different! I've loaded runehq 5 times running and can't see a single cheat ad, wheras I've loaded zybez 5 times running and got a cheat ad every time. Are people getting confused by the RuneScapeMillions guide or am I seeing different adverts in my country? Runefire 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree Since fansites really aren't supposed to promote things of a bad nature, this should go. My only question is... "Why are we playing the role of Jagex when it comes to scrutiny of fansites with advertisements?" Haven't you seen the ads on Jagex's main site? Makoto 21:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yeah, the RuneScape page has terrible ads at times as well. The ADs depend on the country you are connecting from, and it frequently advertises some Norwegian viagre product for me. There was also a hentai AD once. Back on topic, if people are reffering to the "make millions" ad as against the rules, I advise you to actually look again at the AD in question. Yes, it is lame, useless, but it is not against the rules any more than fansites are. Clq 13:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Hey there, I'm Dark, an administrator of Runescape Community and a developer for Zybez - Runescape Help. I'd like to inform everybody that the advertisements in question are soon to be removed, as we ourselves are both encountering many problems with them and we find their suitability questionable. Matt Pullen 06:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The quote: "ads are ads and guides are guides" sums my opinion up quite well. Zybez has been helping the RuneScape community for the past four/five years, with the owner paying from his own pocket for the majority of the time. We've grown by 700% over the past year, and a new server was a NECESSITY. The only way for us to do this, was to get a new advertiser; and yes, we are ACTIVELY seeking a new sources of revenue. The only issue is we aren't yet receiving enough traffic for the bigger advertisers. We are hoping this will change with our upcoming features. - Zybez Developer.
So are you saying you're linking on Wikipedia for advertising? If so, deletion of the link will be taken very seriously.... J.J.Sagnella 16:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
No? Where did you get that from? I was simply saying that we needed money for a new server, we got a new advert, that advert will be down soon, we will be working on 'new features for our website' to increase our traffic to get bigger advertising companies in.
To me it sounded like the "'new features for our website' to increase our traffic" was advertising on Wikipedia. J.J.Sagnella 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose First, you misunderstood what that person said Sagnella. That person never mentions using Wikipedia as a source of advertisement. The person mentions in looking for a different ad provider to help pay off for the server costs on Zybez.
In the RuneScape Community forums, Zybez appears to be having trouble finding an ad provider that pays off for their recently higher-cost servers. I have not located a link for this, but I can assure that it has been mentioned.
As for mentioning about Zybez removing posts that mention this, here is the exact thread on that issue: http://www.runescapecommunity.com/index.php?showtopic=528654
TarikochiGalleryCriticize 03:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I found this quote on the forums, and it really provokes me; If it bothers you, then you are obviously a legit player. If you're a legit player, then you have no intention of visiting the site. If you have no intention of visiting the site, then the ad should not bother you.

Am I the only one seeing the madness in this? For starters there is no note anywhere saying that this is against runescape rules. Also, this quote, and how mods are handling it makes me bealeve that there are no plans to remove this ad. This ad clearly will give people the oppertunity to think "Oh, I didn't know I could do that! And it's so easy!" I am a long time Zybez user myself, but this is just extremly egoistic. People buying game stuff for real life money really ruins the game for everyone else, people who cant afford it, and people who have become rich in a legit way. Bottom line; Zybez is advertising a cheating service without any plans to remove it, or do anything about it. In my opinion this makes it a cheating site, not a fansite as it ruins the game for real fans of it. Clq 12:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the ad not bothering you makes you not legit is like assuming that not liking chocolate makes you a racist. The Zybez administrators just say to ignore it, and participate in the part of the site that is legit, and rather not in the part that is funding the site. It would be the fault of the user to be participating it in the first place, as even if it is a stand-alone ad, the user should have more common sense as it appears to be the exact same ads the other sites, except for its interchangibility. You're saying it as if they actually wanted people to participate in the ad, Clq. They don't. TarikochiGalleryCriticize 15:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, I must have made myself unclear. I am saying that I would rather the site was shut down than it sinking to such a level as advertising for people who break Jagex rules. A runescape fansite should promote the values of the game. The fact that Zybez doesn't, even though they don't want people to click the AD, makes it loose it integrety as a fansite, and therefore I do not bealeve it should be listed as one. They are literally advertising cheating. Clq 16:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you would rather the site be shut down than advertise something that can be bypassed and ignored, but Zybez doesn't. If you have to break a law to save someone close to you, would you do it? The scenario is similar to Zybez, except it's on a widespread scale and that it is, as much a pun as it is, a RuneScape Community. Integrety is only avaliable if supported. TarikochiGalleryCriticize 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I accept that point though I don't agree. I think Zybez should ask.. no.. beg for donations before going that far though. I like Zybez,and I would gladly pay a few dollars to help keeping the site up without an AD like that, and I am sure I'm not alone in thinking that. Yes, I would break a law to save someone close to me, but not before I knew there was no legal way to do it. Again though, I am of the opinion that Zybez should be removed from the fansite section until this AD is gone. I do however accept the fact that other users don't think so. I just have to continue hoping as many cheaters as possible get banned. Clq 17:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Getting the site shut down is the final and most extreme degree over the survival of the site. And to Zybez, there is no currently viable method usable besides that ad, especially since according to them, their costs have gone way too large for W13 to handle. If cheaters get into the ad, then that'll be their problem when they ignored RSCommunity's advice of ignoring what they placed. TarikochiGalleryCriticize 19:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This line in the intro bothers me.

Being implemented in Java, RuneScape requires no installation and can easily be accessed from the official site.

Somehow, this sounds a bit like POV/advertising.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 22:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Although I can see where this could possibly be considered *slight* advertising (as it states the game "can be easily accessed from the official site", which may appeal to some users) the fact that RuneScape is written in Java (and the advantages of it being that way) is very important to many important aspects of the game's engine. Quite a few other game-related pages would have small things like what you have quoted. It is simply the truth about the game, and is a VERY minimal form of advertisement, and doesn't seem to warrant removal of the line. Agentscott00 00:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree It sounds like it a little bit, but it is all true. Wikipeedio 05:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree The essential feature of Java/flash games is that they can be loaded in browsers. RZ heretic 10:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree It is easy. Fact - • The Giant Puffin • 19:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps remove the word easily?

Comment The page currently says:

RuneScape is designed to be accessable from any location with internet connection.

where the alleged POV line once was. Hyenaste [citation needed] 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Nouns

This applies to all RuneScape articles. I have noticed that many of our nouns are capitalised, unnecessarily in my opinion. The most common examples are items, monsters, and non-city locations. According to my English studies, common nouns are to be all lowercase (even Wikipedia has a section about it. For me, these seemingly random capitalisations are distracting. Should we/I go through and fix it, or do you think it's OK or preferable as is? Hyenaste [citation needed] 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Runescape Fakes

Runescape fakes are images that have modified or created on ms paint or some other program, they are usually simply for humor. they are extremely common on fansites and such. they seem to be a large part of the runescape fansite comunity. should there be a section on them? Jedi of redwall 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think this would be necessary. They're only a small part of the RuneScape community, and not nearly important enough to be encyclopedic. Hyenaste [citation needed] 21:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Says you. Fakes are what bring the community together in a sense; they allow someone to actually see what things COULD be like instead of how they ARE (because anyone can see how they are). You claim they are a 'small' part of the community...depends on how long you were in the 'community' to be honest. I remember back when the game was still young, fakes were huge. It's all relevant, but I think they deserve some merit. Makoto 22:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Being a long time member of the community myself, my opinion would be; No, fakes does not deserve its own section. I feel that would be like saying "Hey, a lot of people photoshop pictures of Cats! There should be a "Cats in photoshop" section under the Cat article." Fakes would be something relating to something relating to the game, and thats one too many "relating too"'s in my opinion. Also, I don't think fakes are as huge a part of the community as you make it out to be. Those that are in the photoshop part of the community may think so, but its (imo) an isolated group, and a lot of people just don't care. Clq 13:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wikibooks guide has moved...

Just a heads-up, due to a recent policy shake-up b:RuneScape is now at StrategyWiki. Since you have such strict links rules I won't attempt to make the change myself. GarrettTalk 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

explanation of my recent edit

Well I recently edited the Selected Fansites section and some of you may be thinking "Wow this user just made a useless change." Well if you want an explanation, see this.

That was a really good idea. Well done. J.J.Sagnella 08:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool - • The Giant Puffin • 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice one. Should keep things sorted out for a while. Dracion 11:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing priorities

Could we make this a page which cant be editied by new or unregistered users? I know this page is vandalised a lot so it may be a bonus. Dracion 17:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

that would be unfair to those new people who wish to make a very good contebution to the artical. Rdunn 17:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)