Talk:RuneScape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes. That information is available elsewhere, in printed guides and online, and does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please do not add your own hints or opinions of the game. Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome. If you have questions about whether specific information should be added, ask here first.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RuneScape article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
Good article RuneScape has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
? edit Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What kind of English should be used in the article? American? British?
A: British English should always be used as RuneScape is originally a British game.
Q: Should I be putting information into the article that only RuneScape players would be interested in?
A: No. No matter the number of players or the amount of players that actually visit this article, this is still an encyclopedia, not a game guide. The RuneScape Wiki would welcome information of this sort; however, Wikipedia is not the place for it.
Q: May I put my opinion into the article?
A: No. As this is an encyclopedia, everything is to be written in a neutral point of view and thus do not push your opinion.
Q: Why are only three fansites listed?
A: Editors on this page have established a consensus that only these three are to be listed. This is because they are the largest according to Alexa traffic rankings, and no other sites come close. Consensus can change, however, and you are free to revive discussion on this topic if you would like. (See also discussion below.)
Q: I am a RuneScape player and want to add interesting RuneScape details, why are my edits always reverted?
A: It is likely the content you added is uncyclopedic and not suitable, but remember to be bold too. The RuneScape Wiki writes about the details of RS.
This is not a forum for general discussion of RuneScape.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Main goal: Featured Article Status
    • Get rid of the ugly white spaces near top of page
    • Better picture to illustrate mod identification
    • Community section needs work
      • Mention of chat is completely missing...
    • Describe skills in a non-fictional perspective
    • Rearrange images - A limited number of fair-use images in a describing way of each gameplay element
    • Possibly another peer review?
    • Check spelling
  • Merge information from related articles listed at AFD
    • Add that certain items such as santa hats or party hats are tradable holiday items in the holiday item section.
  • Update the article to include the current changes and standards
Priority 1 (top) 
Archive
Archives (Index)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15
Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18
Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21
Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24
Archive 25
About archives

[edit] Neutrality and Adverisement tags

Parts of this article seem to be written like advertisements for Runescape. Parts also seem to be one-sided, speaking from a pro-Jagex perspective, for example, on the graphics section. Because of this, I have marked the articles as lacking neutrality and advertising. Please do not remove them if you believe otherwise but discuss here why they do not apply. Ecopetition (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree, Wikipedia isn't a strategy guide or an advertisement. Orangemango (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Criticism is in the reception section. If you find other, cited criticism, you're welcome to add it, and then it's possible it will overweight the possible reception so much that it will need a section on its own. Litis (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the only bit of criticism that I can see is "the graphics may not be perfect", which is directly followed by justification as to why they're not as bad as made out. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see the issue in the graphics section, nor elsewhere. It discusses how the graphics are improved versus the *older* RS graphics - it's *not* comparing it to any other game or presenting any kind of "rah-rah" that I can see. Could you clarify and/or give some specifics? I am disappointed to see this entire article suddenly marked as "advertising" and am hoping we can work this out. -pokemama- Tkech (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but in order for a neutral article it must compare it to other games in the market. If it simply says "Runescape is better than it used to be as the graphics are better", it lacks integrity in the eyes of Wikipedia. It must be compared to the likes of competitors so as to not read like an advert. If it were to say "Runescape is better than it used to be as the graphics are better, but it still lacks merit when compared to World of Warcraft", it would be much more neutral. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please quote something from the Graphics section that reads like an advertisement, because I just read it and haven't seen anything like that. Litis (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please read my original comment. I wrote, "Parts of this article seem to be written like advertisements for Runescape". I did not say, "the graphics section seems to be written like an advertisement". The whole article lacks criticism, and where things lack criticism they tend to follow a more advert-based objective. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply quoting people saying things about the game does not constitute neutrality. If quotes are to be used, they must be sourced and a widespread range of views should be published. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Take the "Effects on youth" section of the article. It states that Brunel University's study concluded that Runescape is beneficial to players in that it educates them. There is then a sentence discussing the findings. At the end, it states that another study did not find Runescape beneficial. There is no sentence for its findings, and people must click a link to find the story. Sections like these require a rewrite in order to be neutral. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My two cents on these confounded Neutrality tags.

The Effects on Youth section - first off, this isnt much of a section since it is basically two sentences however, it has one positive reference and one negative reference, so I fail to see how it is not Neutral.

The Reception section - the things that are there are cited, so should remain; if you can find other articles (legitimate articles - not someone's blog or rant) that support your opinion, post them, because this whole section is opinion. The difference here is that it CANNOT be MY opinion or YOUR opinion (which basically would come down to my pet peeves about the game versus your pet peeves about the game) (and let me state EMPHATICALLY) that the your in the sentence is not directed at any one person but at everyone else besides me). There are things I love about the game and things that I hate. But the things that I love may be your pet peeve and the things that I hate might be the things that you love. I have said this before on this page. We can't just go posting everything that that someone hates about the game. Talk about losing our neutrality. Therefore, we have to post what the EXPERTS say about the game - citable quotations that have been published in a location that we can count on being there six months or a year or ten years from now. And, I repeat, not in someone's blog or rant or even personal praise for the game. It's hard to find sources.

I don't like the tags because they detract from the article and make it appear to be less than it can be. This article, while still far from perfect, has come a long way. Having those tags on there for any period of time is a detriment to the article, and I think they should come off IMMEDIATELY.

I hope that I am able to monitor this article more often again. I have been to busy levelling my character, I guess, lol.

Can we now get on with the business of getting those tags off the article???

Thanks! Xela Yrag (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The fundamentals of Wikipedia, in particular a neutral point of view, cannot be ignored for the sake of making users of the game happy. Also, Wikipedia is not a fansite, so its content need not be totally positive towards Runescape.
In answer to the first point you make, it lacks neutrality as one of the points is more developed than the other. Wikipedia is not an advertising service for Runescape, so the article should be completely balanced.
In answer to your second point, the reception section is not neutral! There are plenty of places I could go to find a bad reception of Runescape, not least the Runescape forums. There is not a single point against Runescape. A second part should be added to the section regarding the bad points, like addiction, lag, repetitiveness of training skills, and also the irony in that a game for teenagers and above contains content aimed at what seems to be young children.
You third point is too unjustified. The tags may scream "this article is bad", but that's what they're supposed to do. If you feel that they're not good then edit the article to make it neutral and non-advertising. Then you can be bold and remove the tags.
Your fourth point says it all for me. You play Runescape, so are probably more likely to take a positive view towards the game that you play. However, this article is not for the players of Runescape to read and edit, it's for everyone. That's what Wikipedia is, and if you don't like that fact then it's too bad.
I hope I haven't been too blunt with you here, but thanks for your understanding. Regards, Ecopetition (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that there just aren't any reliable sources with criticism. We can only balance an article as far as the sources let us. I can find non-reliable criticism (this [1] also mirrored here [2]), and that one is already referenced in the Effects on Youth section through a mirror regardless of it not meeting WP:RS. Forums are not reliable sources. Using them violates policy and they have no business being used in any article, for purposes of balance or not. Exactly how should the demand be met? If you have sources that could be used to justify your claims, please bring them to this page and they will be incorporated into the article. If you have no objective information showing that there is actual criticism that has been published by reliable sources, then the tags should be removed. Jim Miller (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • For articles (not particularly reviews) on RuneScape, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive_25#RuneScape.2FJagex_in_the_media - not sure if any are relevant, but its worth a look --RS Ren (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If reliable cons cannot be found, how can so many pros be found (bearing in mind that a large proportion of the editors of the Runescape article play Runescape)? It just seems that many editors of the article are very selective in their use of quotes and facts.Ecopetition (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    ReplyAFAIK, this article was promoted to Good Article status in pretty much the same condition it is now. If you have an issue with individual editors that can be shown to be an actual COI problem, then bring it forth and back it up. If you can point out a specific claim that is in violation of NPOV then present your argument, or just remove the part you feel is a problem. The same again for OR. That's what you are supposed to do instead of just placing tags. You have not edited the article according to policy by removing those uncited statements with which you have a problem, nor have you brought new cited sources to the discussion for inclusion. Please feel free to do so. If not, I am going to remove the tags again in 24 hours. Concensus exists among the editors of this page, with you as the only dissentor. If you put them back again, I will remove them again and put this up for a third opinion or even RfC because the back and forth is accomplishing nothing and is getting beyond the point of being considered as a reasonable content dispute, especially for a GA. It is approaching the point of simply being disruptive. Jim Miller (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree with you, JimMillerJr. If you can't find a source, the proper way is to remove those contents, not giving way by letting OR urls go into the article. That is not the correct approach to address NPOV. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    How do we disagree? My point was about the 'Reception' section which includes one reliable source about an academic study, and a WP:RS violation for one very shady opinion piece included just to provide perspective. How far should the article go?? There has been no suggestion of NPOV material to remove. I have asked Ecopetition to edit the parts that are not in accordance with policy. Not a single sentence of the article has been removed, or even brought forth for discussion. In fact, Ecopetition has not made a single constructive edit to the article. I believe we absolutely agree. This article has passed GA and all of its requirements, which include WP:NPOV. No specific problems have been mentioned, and the only thing actually brought forward to help the article is that "There are plenty of places I could go to find a bad reception of Runescape, not least the Runescape forums." Not one source has actually been provided. This also comes from an editor who asks us to discount the work of User:Xela Yrag due to playing the game as a violation of WP:COI. Adding more COI opinions is not the solution to the alleged problem. Two non-reliable sources do not provide balance. Having read all of the links in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive_25#RuneScape.2FJagex_in_the_media, done extensive google searching, and checking other news archives, I cannot find ANY reliable sources that have published criticism (and I truly believe every article needs to include criticism). I have offered to do the writing myself and include ALL criticism in the article if sources are provided. The burden is on the editor who wishes to add information to the article. We cannot sacfrifice verifiabilty just to meet NPOV. If the sources don't exist, they simply don't exist. I only wish to address Ecopetition's constructive criticism, but I cannot find a way to do that without a little help in finding what should be included. Simply placing, and replacing, tags without providing specific ways to improve the problem is disruptive. Jim Miller (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    The reason why I have not made a single constructive edit to the article is because I have no obligation to do so. What I feel I do have an obligation to do however, is to ensure that Wikipedia remains a neutral and accurate source for information. The Runescape article as it stands is, in my opinion, not an accurate source as it is not neutral. If we were to allow content that is not neutral to remain unfixed on Wikipedia, the whole project would fall apart.
On the "Reception" section of the article, the pro study is more developed than the con study. This is, as I have said many times before, not neutral. Also, you say that no specific problems have been mentioned by me. There are many problems that I have mentioned above, which you should take the time to read.
I still find it extremely hard to believe that so many points of praise can be found for Runescape when very little criticism can be. Take a look even on fan forums and gaming blogs, and you will find plenty of criticism. Ecopetition (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Fan forums and gaming blogs aren't reliable sources. I've taken a look at various websites, scouring for criticism, and came up with this review at TenTonHammer. There are some points of criticism in there, feel free to use them if you'd like, Eco. If you're persistent enough to keep the tags on there, you can be bold and edit it so it is in sync with what you think it should be. I think the article is fine the way it is, but go ahead and edit it so we all can be happy. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 15:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've been bold and fixed the neutrality issues. Some neutrality issues still exist in the article which should ideally be fixed soon, but I feel that the neutrality tag can now come off. However, I'm leaving the advertising tag on as some parts of the article still read like blatant advertising and I don't feel like fixing sifting through the article fixing the ads. Thanks, PeterA (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't true, but the line "humour seems to be aimed at young children (for example, uses of cartoons in some pages)" seems to me to contravene WP:OR. --RS Ren (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Runescape Combat Changes

The image of PvP is of Runescape Classic, I think it should be an image of combat from Bounty Hunter since that represents a method of PvP combat in Runescape with the PvP wilderness removed. Also the image of combat is an image of PvP combat since we already have an image of PvP combat it should be a player against an NPC and it should be more than a player kicking an NPC since most combat is done with a weilded weapon, mage, or range. --TehKittyCat (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there are two consectutive images of PVP combat under both the PVP combat and Combst section - couldn't you have an image of a player fighting a monster under the combat section?

Roborrye (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Server Cap Incorrect

This seems rather petty, but the maximum server cap is 1999, rather than 2000. I know that 2000 is a 'rounder number', but 1999 is the true amount, and wikipedia is about accuracy rather than 'nice numbers'

Roborrye (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to a source that states that the server cap is 1999? We can't put it in the article without a reliable source to confirm it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't link to anything that states the server cap be it 1999 or 2000. Roborrye (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No the server cap IS 2000. It states it somewhere in RuneScape, and all fansites/infosites go with 2000. Androo123 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)