Talk:RuneScape/Archive 16

message: * Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used. This rule applies to all articles in the RuneScape Series.
* Fansites- Wikipedia's external links guideline is that one major fansite may be included as an external link. As fan sites all offer similar information, an effective measurement must be made to decide which is the most appropriate to list. The method that contributors believe is the most effective is by Alexa ranking. However, Alexa recently has proven that the difference between two fansites is negligable. RuneHQ.com and  Tip.It are the lowest-placed (most often visited) by Alexa rank and are therefore listed. For more information on this, plase click here and for information on why more fansites than one are being used, see the discussion below or in the archives. 
   
* RuneScape Wiki - Ok, I'm advertising the RuneScape Wiki, but it's probably a good idea.For those of you who get your edits reverted with such nonsense explanations like "cruft" or "linkspam" or whatever, you might want to check out the RuneScape Wiki. To put it plainly, your edits are more likely to be appreciated there. Hyenaste (tell) 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Reminders 

message: The rs would select page now says things like US East 3 as server location. That could make locations a pain if it becomes even more ambiguous. Keep your eyes peeled... p00rleno 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information we have would be true if each country only had 1 server, except the UK. It doesn't really matter to the article. And you know, you can set your signature to something else. Just click "Raw signature" and copy in the signature you normally use, excluding timestamp. -Amarkov blahedits 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i dont know where raw signature is. p00rleno 00:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In Preferences, where you type your signature. -Amarkov blahedits 00:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TEST → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS    00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous server locations. 

message: In this it says they were created to stop "automated programs"?
It was created to stop java based G.U.I.s that use scripts made by the users, to click on specific locations of the window which has runescape located somewhere within the window , if you want to get technical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshua090909 (talk • contribs) .
:A "script" that plays the game/clicks in pre-programmed spots (macros) *is* an automated program.  It doesn't necessarily need to be made from Java, many aren't.  Agentscott00(talk) 04:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not literally "play the game". It uses the pixel scale to tell the mouse where to click. Such as "MouseClick(X,Y,Right or Left click)"  Just to mention --Joshua090909 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information can always be added once you find a reliable source for that. Also, signatures are important, so that we may identify who left a comment.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself as a java and pascal programmer  know it is the simplest way. Such as the once popular pascal color clicker S.C.A.R., it used the command i showed above. Java bots simply just use there jar file "runescape.jar" and place it on a java applet the same way jagex would if it was client based.I also know that "bots" can be made in Java,Pascal,VB .net,etc. . Joshua090909 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I get it. You mean bots that reverse engineer the RuneScape client/applet? You might also be interested in the Captcha article, as this is what random events effectively are. Computer programs don't do randomness. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random events 

message: It says that the most trafficked fansite is RuneHQ without any proof at all? Do external links need to cite there sources?--Joshua090909 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the messages at the top of this talk page, and see here.  They provide information on why there's one site. Agentscott00(talk) 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been many questions about this recently. The community decided that RuneHQ was the most trafficked web site, backed up by a ratings system.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i see that now, i just didn't see that page before.Joshua090909 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Due to the fact that some servers are taken offline and the number of servers often changes, we are only providing an approximation. Currently, the number of servers should simply say "over 130," and the maximum number of players need not be exact. So, please don't change the number of servers unless Jagex actually adds new servers. For RSC, of course, the number can be exact because there's only 2 servers with 1250 people each maximum. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there is too much arguing over this. Using an exact number of servers is nothing but trouble, and a nightmare to keep correct and up to date. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got tired of people editing to "correct" the number of servers every day. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Totally agree, people are like, Arrgh! Im gonna cut someone's head off if it dosn't say 137.59 servers capable of 2x103 players per server! Now dont rv my edit or fear my wrath mwahahaha!!!! Sorry, felt like being silly... But seriously, more than 130 will suffice for now, till theres over 140, and 150, and 160, 170, 180 190, 200, 210, 220 230... u get the point.  → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS     00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of servers 

message: I'm pretty sure it's 1980, not 2000. It may be splitting hairs, but is there any source for either? -Amarkov blahedits 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't quote me on this, as I have no official source, but I believe that they can handle up to 2000 players, but stop accepting new logins below that, perhaps at your suggested 1980. --Russoc4 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be something about 1980, since I've never seen a player count get above 1979 without going to "full". -Amarkov blahedits 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Each server can handle 2000 players. When they stop accepting logins is a mystery, but 2000 is the maximum capacity - • The Giant Puffin • 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen it go over 1980 either.  Maybe they stop accepting logins before 2000 in case a lot of people click at the same time --JCGracik talk c 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is purely a guess, but maybe it is displayed as being full from the world-select page when there's 1980 or more players, but players already on the login page can enter when there's up to 2000 players. This would give players more of a chance to log in once they clicked on the world number. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 02:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But guessing isn't very reliable, guesses don't get sources. But everyone does agree on this, so look to see if Jagex said it anywhere. J.J.Sagnella 07:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  uh-oh --- i saw one go to 1985 yesterday. Glitch? Or was it just me?  → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS     12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (insane on) NOOOO! My theory! (insane off) Oh well. Maybe we should try contacting Jagex through customer support to ask them about it. You know, I think I might have seen this once or twice too. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ummm... last I checked it was Amarkov's  theory not yours... =P → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS     13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Until Jagex verifies the information, we'll have to just say that each server accepts 2000 players--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when I played (I quit a few months ago), the servers could handle 2000 users each. I saw it go to 1980+ multiple times, but I don't know if that still occurs. Nishkid64 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of players per server

message: Should this sentence be mentioned? Who really wants to know how to Play Castle Wars? J.J.Sagnella 07:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't tell you how to play castle wars, it just gives a general idea as to what it is. I think it should stay. -Amarkov blahedits 16:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in because just "Castle Wars" alone with no definition or explanation seemed a bit confusing. Without that, it could be taken as fancruft. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Its a comparison. Its hardly a guide on how to play it. It just tells people who dont play RS what it is like - • The Giant Puffin • 15:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "which is similar to the real-life game [[Capture the Flag]],"

message: I think there should be a section that lists the skills. -Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.199.75.203 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is: RuneScape skills. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautiful responce.  → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS     22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that - • The Giant Puffin • 13:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol... I third that. :P --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skill Section? 

message: Idly browsing the Jagex jobs page, I noticed that the advert for 'Systems Administration' asked for someone capable of maintaining 'locally hosted Linux servers' and 'experience with the Debian Linux distribution' being also useful. So there we have the answer to that question that came up in October. See the Systems Administration/Systems Administration Team Leader section. Pay's not bad for those, actually... CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! An answer! - • The Giant Puffin • 13:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray! Let's add it in before the page disappears!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Servers

message: I've noticed before the game is updated a message pops up opposite to the split private chat 2 minutes prior to the event. Is this notable by any means? After all, I personally use it to get to a mage store to get low prices on the newly restocked runes.  → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS     12:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has always done this for has long as I can remember. Maybe a sentence or two on it may be appropriate - • The Giant Puffin • 13:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 minute server update warning-- 

message: I've removed two statements tagged with  since the age of the dinosaurs.
*diff 1 - we can let the reader work this one out, but there apparently isn't a controversy about it anyway, as a lengthy Google search brings up only Wikipedia mirrors to support it.
*diff 2 - the only web sources supporting this are web forum rants - which are against WP:RS anyway - about slow customer support response, by people who admit they are breaking the rules: "all I was doing was using an autominer!" "all I did was hurl abuse at a wall!", etc. Why should Jagex offer priority support to rulebreakers?
For my next trick, I'm going to Google some professional reviews of the game, bringing up a balance of positive and negative points, and throw out all these ghastly GameFAQs user reviews. Apologies if this is overly bold or a little harsh, but we seem to have gotten bogged down in bureaucracy with the GA effort. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beautiful! I totally agree with your edits.  → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS     19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited statements removed

message: I have reinstated an old version of the criticism section that used only professional, reliable reviews of the game. The GameFAQs user reviews are no more. I have also rewritten the old section to contain good points offset by bad points. A large amount of criticism, such as bits about web forum safety and skill grinding were removed altogether, as these are badly cited (unfortunately, having to log into the ProQuest database to read one isn't acceptable) and are generic criticisms of online communities and RPG games anyway. And that, apart from some copyediting and an NPOV check, is that: I believe nearly every point in the recent Peer Review and the Good Article criteria has been addressed;
*It is well written (apart from that copyedit).
*It is fully verified.
*It has reasonably broad coverage.
*It is of a neutral point of view (apart from that check).
*It is stable (vandalism doesn't count as instability).
*It has properly licensed and rationaled images.
It was that easy. Why is everyone so down, like we have a mountain to climb, eh? Just copyediting, an NPOV check, and a bit about server technical aspects to go now. The automated peer reviewer points may help with the copyediting, and Wikipedia:POV check with the NPOV. The next step is  nominating for GA, maybe a final Peer Review, although some problems can be identified and addressed in the nomination. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I haven't been editing here as much as I should. I've been focusing on other articles and collaborations. I gotta get to the server info quickly!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for doing this. The criticism section was one of this article's weak points. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work, I havent been on this particular article as much as before - • The Giant Puffin • 13:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish that this just solved all our problems, but we'll still get complaints. Mostly stupid ones, like "OMG j00 f00s don't gotz da reviews wer pplz swear at Runscape!" -Amarkov blahedits 15:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section rewritten

message: I found this while browsing through Special:Mostrevisions' talk page.  It is from early September, but still a good side of the argument for keeping RuneScape protected.  
At the end of the second paragraph, "So how did a humble, Java-powered MMORPG rack up nearly 11K edits? Vandalism!" - good reasoning if we ever need to support semi-protection.  Agentscott00(talk) 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...this is very interesting! I'm pretty shocked with these statistics! I agree with you about using this article as a reasoning for semi-protection. Don't forget, though, that semi-protection shouldn't be permanently applied.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting.  I never realized it was that much.  DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 02:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. Thats a lot of edits - • The Giant Puffin • 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also from June, and we've racked up quite a few more edits since then.  We're still around the same spot though.  Special:Mostrevisions isn't working right now, so we can't really tell where we're currently at.  It's always been obvious that we've got a huge edit count due to the vandalism, but this article actually gives proof.  Agentscott00(talk) 23:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When is that page expected to be back up and running? We might have overtaken more articles since then - • The Giant Puffin • 11:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever the cache updates, as it uses one copy of the page for several days before updating.  Normally no more than a few weeks however.  I'm fairly sure the Wii has overtaken us since then though, from the last time I looked at the page when it was working.  The point I'm really trying to make though is that we've got an external source supporting the need for protection.  We've always had a high edit count (we overtook WWII at one point before we got semi-protection).  The numbers are generated from the offline Wikipedia dumps of the whole database, and two dumps (the two with complete edit history) from the Nov. 30 dump, which is the current mostrevisions cache, failed, so there's no edit history data. Agentscott00(talk) 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wii has overtaken us a while ago, see last archive, but I'm not sure its a bad thing, on the contrary, just one more vandalsimSP target...  → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS     13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's spelled "vandalism". Perhaps we should include a comment at the top of the article, warning admins not to lift semi-protection. Hopefully the comment, and web article, will convince admins, some of which prioritise welcoming anonymous vandals over ensuring quality. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web article mentioning [[RuneScape]] 

message: It might be a good idea to bring back RuneScape history and development(currently only a redirect), as this article is now 42kb long, and it does not appear that it will be shrinking without more subpages.Exarion 02:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you bring it back, I bet that it will quickly be nominated for deletion as Runecruft. Most featured articles are 30-50 kB long (some much longer), so I don't see why 42 kB is too long. Some sections are too long. For starters, nix the unreferenced paragraphs in the Graphics subsection, trim fancruft in the Gameplay section, and...should the "Criticism and response" subsection even be there? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it will just be put up for MfD like loads of other sub-articles - • The Giant Puffin • 22:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bring back history and development 

message: No Wonder the page is so big. There are like 50 footnotes. Can we put them in like a hide/show box?  → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS     13:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at what featured articles have. -Amarkov blahedits 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A previous version of Microsoft (a FA) had 137 references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Still, is one of those cool boxes you can click in the top left corner of to make it show up or go away out-of-the-question? It would make it look nice. → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS     01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could post on the Village pump suggesting someone create a show/hide box for references. If implemented, it would be used not just for RuneScape, but for other articles with many references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many footnotes 

message: For all IE7 users... a feed on the recent edits of any wikipedia page is now available and will be a powerful antivandal tool. To subscribe goto RuneScape's history, then click the feed icon nedt to the home page icon in your browser and select rss 2.0. When it loads click suscribe. You can then see the diffs on the last 10 edits to the page from your Favorites Center. (I have them for my user pages too) Feed On Wikipedians, Feed On!  → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS     01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It works in Firefox 2.0 as well.  Just so you guys know. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 05:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O good - • The Giant Puffin • 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Opera users like me? Are we left out in the cold? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It works in Opera, I just tried it --JCGracik talk c 04:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! I'll check it out. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use Thy Feed 

message: === RSHelp ===
#RSHelp is the official RuneScape help channel of the swiftIRC, seersIRC, and runeboardsIRC networks.  RSHelp is almost two years old now and was founded by andy simman, also the founder of runeboardsIRC.  The official forum site for this organization can be found here.  We, at RSHelp, offer free RuneScape help and tips to help you and your friends with their RuneScape careers.  Also in the RSHelp family is RSE, RSPC, RSCW, and RS-market.  Please feel free to download mIRC xChat AthenaIRC IRCle or any other IRC client and connect to the swiftIRC, seersIRC, or runeboardsIRC server and type "/join #rshelp" to join our home channel!
http://runeboards.com/
Connor Coley, #RSHelp staff and Administrator of the Forums
24.106.227.36 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you could have rejected it just as well. For that matter, as a semi-regular there, I should have already rejected it. -Amarkov blahedits 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It really is not approppriate, as this falls under the category of Used by Few and/or Unrecognized by Jagex. Whether that's right or wrong, I think any such article would be shot down on charges of non-notibility and cruft.  Sorry Connor.  → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS     21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Runehq has gotten their article deleted, so an "official" IRC channel isn't going to be better. -Amarkov blahedits 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose It's not even notable within RuneScape. Even if it was, it would not be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. An article on RSHelp would be quickly deleted as spam. Sorry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the Articles for Creation page, 12/20/06

message: #RSHelp is the official RuneScape help channel of the swiftIRC, seersIRC, and runeboardsIRC networks.  RSHelp is almost two years old now and was founded by andy simman, also the founder of runeboardsIRC.  The official forum site for this organization can be found here.  We, at RSHelp, offer free RuneScape help and tips to help you and your friends with their RuneScape careers.  Also in the RSHelp family is RSE, RSPC, RSCW, and RS-market.  Please feel free to download mIRC xChat AthenaIRC IRCle or any other IRC client and connect to the swiftIRC, seersIRC, or runeboardsIRC server and type "/join #rshelp" to join our home channel!
http://runeboards.com/
Connor Coley, #RSHelp staff and Administrator of the Forums
24.106.227.36 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you could have rejected it just as well. For that matter, as a semi-regular there, I should have already rejected it. -Amarkov blahedits 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It really is not approppriate, as this falls under the category of Used by Few and/or Unrecognized by Jagex. Whether that's right or wrong, I think any such article would be shot down on charges of non-notibility and cruft.  Sorry Connor.  → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS     21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Runehq has gotten their article deleted, so an "official" IRC channel isn't going to be better. -Amarkov blahedits 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose It's not even notable within RuneScape. Even if it was, it would not be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. An article on RSHelp would be quickly deleted as spam. Sorry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSHelp 

message: I've seen a couple edits of dates being "wikified" lately, and I'd like to point this out.  Try not to pipe the links to appear as a certain way.  The Wikimedia software automatically changes dates to appear as a user has set them in their preferences panel if they're left normally.  Piping the links (eg. December 21 causes them to display inconsistently unless they're all formatted that way.  Here's what one paragraph from the article looks like.  The first date is normal, the last two are piped:
..site started on September 26, 2005 and has since become one of the most accessed pages of the site. From 24 September 2002 through 9 December 2004, players could..
See what I mean?  Either we pipe all the links, or we leave them all for the software to display.  For now though I suggest we leave them unpiped, unless someone has a reason to do so (Does the "This is a British game" reason apply here?) I don't mean to point fingers here, but see this edit as an example on the first line modified - 4 January is the same as January 4 - there's no need to change them in that type of case, as the order in the code doesn't affect the end output to the user.  I know this is a bit nitty-gritty, but we need to have consistency for FA/GA.  Unless anyone objects, I'll unpipe most of the dates sometime tomorrow.  Agentscott00(talk) 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops... That would have been me. Go ahead and change them back, I didn't know it appeared differently with user preferences. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 04:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unpipe them - • The Giant Puffin • 10:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits of dates 

message: It has, this article used to be good, about a year or so ago, but it's just been getting badder and badder.. Now it's garbage. It's a horrible article now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.190.37 (talk • contribs).
:And what do you suggest we do to improve it, o wise and all-knowing critic? J.J.Sagnella 08:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a lot better than before. Mainly because vandals like you havent been able to get your hands on it as much - • The Giant Puffin • 10:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anons make me laugh...  → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS     12:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's amazing how far this article has developed in one year. What was an ugly duckling page has finally become a truly briliant page. J.J.Sagnella 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
This article has turned to garbage
 Has Not!!