Talk:RuneScape/Archive 13

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 policy is that the one (1) most popular fansite by site traffic may be included and no others. For this reason, only RuneHQ.com shall be allowed. Wikipedia's rules also say no more than one fansite is allowed.
* 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 player feedback part of the criticism needs a pov check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by some ip (talk • contribs) 
:Every article should always be checked for bias. Care to add any details to this useful advice? Hyenaste (tell) 04:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Well, you guys certainly let these articles run rampant.
*Magic (RuneScape)
*RuneScape skills
*RuneScape economy
*RuneScape weaponry
*RuneScape gods
*RuneScape locations
*RuneScape dungeons
*RuneScape monsters
*RuneScape armour
*RuneScape combat
*Wilderness (RuneScape)
*RuneScape random events
*RuneScape mini-games
*RuneScape community
*Castle Wars
Wow. That's alot. I don't think any of them should have been created, either. The majority of these articles should be deleted, as the RuneScape Wiki is exactly the place to put fancruft.--Richard 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're trying our best to delete these articles. So far, we have nominated over 5 articles for deleting last week, all of which seem to be going really well. Relax, these articles, along with the main RuneScape article, should be fixed in a few months.--Edtalk c E 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two, no now it's three, of those articles are up for AFD as it is, another three can be merged into combat. We're already working on these, but it's going to take time even with many hands. Where we are now is lightyears ahead of a month or two ago. QuagmireDog 01:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have made plenty of progress from 3 months ago.--Edtalk c E 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How can you say that the following articles are unimportant?
*RuneScape monsters
*RuneScape armour
*RuneScape combat
*Wilderness (RuneScape)
*RuneScape random events
*RuneScape mini-games
They are what make Runescape different from other online RPGs.Jeeper5 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary articles 

message: Now that I look at RuneScape with hopefully "fresh eyes", I'm beginning to realize that we really don't need the Press Reviews on the article. It looks like advertising to me.....--Edtalk c E 00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally.  Someone that agrees with me.  Take that down and put something better in its stead.  Makoto 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Makoto. I've been working on this for so long that I suddenly became biased. So I started working on other things so I can be unbiased in a few days.--Edtalk c E 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are tons of negative reviews already, it's just that they are antiRS. Besides, the only reason the press would comment on something is because they think it deserves notability in the general public. If the press wanted to publicly make known a computer game, I doubt they would put in negative remarks. --Edtalk c E 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And besides, the article's way better without the reviews.--Edtalk c E 03:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that most of the negative reviews come from a single source which some have criticized as not reliable. While I am no fan of the Verifiability policy, we must follow it to satisfy those who will be reviewing RuneScape's Good Article nomination. And this means we must have reviews from reliable sources, in addition to player criticisms. Featured articles on other games have sections for press reviews - why doesn't anyone complain there? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YOu know what??? You're giving me second thoughts about our criticims section now. Perhaps we should keep it. HOWEVER, we will have to blend both the press and player reviews together so that is looks more "prosely".--Edtalk c E 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo! We should have a Criticism section that blends both player criticisms and press reviews from reliable sources in a prosely manner. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press Reviews 

message: While reading, I came across a note reminding users to only refer to Rune HQ as the RuneScape fansite. If I can recall, Tip.It is the first created RuneScape fansite, although when created, it was also dedicated to two other games as well, yet RuneScape's fansite section of it remained dominant, and now it is the only one they focus on. Comparing Tip.It and Rune HQ results in Rune HQ being abhorrently organized and not attractive at all -- lacking useful features. The only bonus I've ever reaped from Rune HQ was the House Planner, which Tip.It lacks, though hardly damaging its obvious greater quality. Also, a note: This is my first time to create a Discussion Thread, or however the lingo flows here, thus if you find any irregular actions or content, then please pardon it.
:Unfortunately this has been discussed time over but the best idea is one. Wikipedia chooses which to keep by traffic, not by content, as it is impossible to say which one is better without using POV. J.J.Sagnella 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can Rune HQ(RHQ) be verified as the site with the highest traffic without being subject to false data?Jrabbit05 05:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traffic is determined by Alexa ranking. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Reminder: Fansites? 

message: Can someone get the latest edit counts? I wonder if it's passed Jesus Christ or George W. Bush by now. Hmm... Cheers! The RSJ 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are currently on edit 73336648.--Edtalk c E 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: stupid me made a mistake in spelling stupid. XD maybe i'll go to bed now. --Ace the bunny 11:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: that's what i'm waiting for right now. all though i won't edit much. just fix little things people didn't notice. --Ace the bunny 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone Have the New Edit Counts? 

message: When to use semi-protection
Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page, if the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with. Like full protection, it is usually a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure.
Jimbo Wales has suggested that semi-protection may be used in the cases of "minor bios of slightly well known but controversial individuals" which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "subject to POV pushing, trolling [or] vandalism." In such cases, semi-protection "would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often.
When not to use semi-protection
Semi-protection should not be used:
as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism has occurred;
as a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others (see the protection policy for how to deal with this);
in the case of a few static IP vandals hitting a page (blocking the vandals is a much better option than semi-protection);
on the day's Featured Article, which should almost never be protected in the interests of encouraging newcomers to be bold;
to prohibit anonymous editing in general.
Talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances. User talk pages subject to persistent vandalism or trolling may be semi-protected or protected on request.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.96.237 (talk • contribs) 
:Are you trying to say this should be unprotected? If so, do read what you just posted, in particular these bits- "if the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with" and "semi-protection "would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often". J.J.Sagnella 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah this page has got to be protected if anything wants to be done. However, that's te problem. Not much IS being done. It seems like someone does something, someone else dislikes, reverts, they bicker, someone else does something, others don't like it, etc. This article has very slim chances of becoming a good article too, as it's unstable and the contributors can't seem to agree on anything.--Richard 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Richard. Any good work seems to quickly get undone. For example, we worked so hard on the Press Reviews section (which the GA/FA reviewers asked for), and then it was deleted as "advertising". Then there was a conflict in the History section. After the article was unprotected for a few days, I decided to give up on making RuneScape a good article. I was the one who suggested we collaborate to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, and that's why we're all working on the article now. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we need to work on the subarticles as well, but for now, we need to concentrate on the main article. I agree it will take a long time and a lot of discussion before RuneScape can become a good article - therefore, please do not rush to nominate it for Featured Article. Besides simple vandalism and fancruft, there's also subtle vandalism, such as deliberately introducing factually incorrect information, spelling and grammatical errors, and other things that easily slip through the cracks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, quite right. My over-enthusiasm about the sub-pages is due to the amount of running around I've felt obliged to do in order to get some of the AFD articles removed without relevant info being lost. I'm happy that the excess articles are gone, but the issue was forced and I'm extremely concerned about articles getting AFD'd before it is demonstrated that merging can happen/has happened and that the remaining daughter articles are being strengthened rather than isolated. QuagmireDog 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Looking at the massive amount of information we have on wikipedia about runescape, it is almost turning into a game guide. I mean, some people are even calling articles they are editing "guides" in the talk pages! Why dont we keep the runescape article how it is, to have an overview of the game, and then take all of the other articles and move thyeir info to a runescape wiki? I know this hs been said before, but here it is again WillieWallieWoo 12:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much info, the series has already been made smaller, all the articles are being re-done to be more NPOV. This has been said before, here it is again - • The Giant Puffin • 12:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The RuneScape series has just as much right to subpages as any other MMO, or any other videogame for that matter. Just because it is browser-based, why should that mean there is a lot less to say about it? I'd argue that, because it is frequently updated and has been around longer, there is in fact more to write about RuneScape than other modern MMOs, like World of Warcraft. It wouldn't be a good idea to rely on the RuneScapeWiki too much, as it is written for players and not the general public, and will just confuse such readers in the same way as fancruft does on Wikipedia. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And just how is the RS Wiki only written for players? It has walkthroughs, it talks about the skills. It can be used by anyone who isn't an RS player. I also disagree with moving articles to the RS Wiki, as most of them are already there, little as they may be.--Richard 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the writing style and an assumption that a readers knows what is meant, thats all. A non-player would have to do a little further reading to understand some of the terms, see? Although a player of another MMO would have a little head start on this. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that  was intended to indicate active revisions such as a "collaboration of the day" type of article, or to avoid a stub being Speedy Deleted. It was not really meant for articles that will be left for hours or days in an "unfinished" state without active editing. Gimmetrow 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and Move? 

message: I just read the entire Jagex webpage.  It has a nice little history of Jagex and everything, but there is no mention of Constant Tedder on the page.  The reference used to verify this is another Wikipedia article.  The Jagex webpage also says that Jagex was formed to handle several games, not just RuneScape.  I am checking further, but we need better sources if we are putting in information like this.Xela Yrag 05:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go...--Edtalk c E 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Err...did you even look at the new source that I added?  It's the one Ed has above, from the official RuneScape website. Do you want to look at another source from Jagex.com? I find it odd that you missed a good Constant Tedder source with your search seeing how there's one on the fourth and not to mention third entry on this Google page. Audacious One 19:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constant's also the Commercial Director now, so he's probably not doing much with programming.--Richard 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Tedder also gave an interview in that PC Gamer article I posted a while back. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I see what you're saying about how it's unsure whether Tedder helped with the rewrite. When I added that source yesterday I thought about rewording it in a way so it wouldn't say he did or did not help in the rewrite, as we're not sure. I had a hard time with that so I thought I would leave editing the article until a later time - but we definitely do need to clean that bit up. I misunderstood what you said about Google, but it's good we got somwhat of an understanding of how Tedder was involved. Audacious One 00:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant Tedder