Talk:RuneScape/Archive 23

message: I'll elaborate a bit more on the fansite issue here. Right now, the consensus is to include the three largest fansites, which are RuneHQ, Tip.it, and Zybez. This has been determined using Alexa ranks; all three are listed because their ranks are fairly close and Alexa is very rarely perfect. There are several medium-sized fansites, such as RuneVillage and Sal's Realm, but there is a difference of several thousand ranks between those and the three sites listed above.
Like I wrote in the FAQ, consensus can change, and if you would like to revive discussion on this topic, you are welcome to do so. There has already been quite a bit of discussion on this topic, however, so please try to bring something new to the table. You can see old discussion here, here, here, here, and here. Possibly more, as I haven't dug past archive 18. Comrade Tux 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a point to adding fansites? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise fansites. Legend Talk 00:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are given because they provide players of the game with further information. The three sites linked are the largest according to Alexa; there would be only one, but Alexa isn't always very accurate, so it was decided to include all three. This section is here because many, many people have suggested that smaller fansites be added. Comrade Tux 09:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's purpose isn't to support fansites or level the playing field between those sites. Wikipedia is not a directory of links to other sites, so only the most highly used and most useful fansites should be included. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: Stupid wikipedia formatting!!! For a long time now there has been a big blank space near the top of the page near the TOC. Ive tried to fix... no luck. Anyone have any ideas how to fix.  → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whitespace seems to be there for all articles I've seen. I suspect that it's there to draw more attention to the table of contents and/or separate the lead from the body of articles. It's not much of a problem, really. Comrade Tux 09:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been here before. Remember those Star Wars puns? :-) Ask at WP:VP/T. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugly White Space 

message: We need someone else in the WikiProject to help with welcoming and informing new users who edit RuneScape pages. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/RuneScape#Communicating with new contributors who edit RuneScape pages. (cross-posted here so more people see it) Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communication with newer editors 

message: I'm going to leave in comments about which images I would keep in the article and which images I would remove.
First of all, the basic aim for this article is to use selectable and varying images in the article. By this, I mean that there shouldn't be too many fair use images, but enough to give a wide view of Runescape. Because, fair use images of computer games should be used for identification purposes only, and not as a gallery of what kind of things you can find in Runescape. In Template:Non-free game screenshot, identifaction purposes either of the game itself or some characters/items in the game.
*The first two images in the article (1 and 2), about DeviousMUD and Runescape Classic, I'd keep these because those are definitely for identification purposes of a minority of RuneScape. And definitely because you can't access into these games anymore. (Unless a regular to RSC.)  
*The third image (3) is a map of the server locations. Definite keep, because it is not copyrighted. It is always a bonus for articles, for at least one public domain/GPL/CC licenced image, to be included. The text both in the image and in the article is a duplicate though - it should be enough in the image to describe, where are the servers located. 
*Now for the first Runescape 2 image (4), this image is a description to, which skills are not available to the unpaid version of Runescape. What I'm asking, that is it necessary as an information source? It only tells about an example, what is different between P2P and F2P versions of the game. Since the image is fair use - it isn't a good idea so I'd remove it. 
*There's an image where a player is mining a rock (5), as a description of what a skill could be in Runescape. However, the very next image (6) shows an animated picture of a player slaying an NPC in combat. This is a skill also, and having two images about skills is more than enough for simple identification in the main Runescape article. I'd remove the mining rock image and keep the combat image.  
*The last image (7) is a temporary image of moderator crowns. To be honest, it is part of in-game and you are instructed to read the rules before playing the game - and between the rules you will possibly approach the fact, what do the crowns mean. This isn't very useful for non-players, because the image is just a set of icons, how to identify a moderator in-game, and the article text should be enough to tell that there are moderators in game. I'd remove it, as the image isn't much of use in it's current state. 
We still need some other images, to identify every possible gameplay fact of Runescape, while keeping the amount of fair use images limited. What do I feel, that we need at least the following media:
*A screenshot of the whole gameplay screen, only the player names removed out from the image, to identify how is the game interface arranged.
*A screenshot of a crowded place. This would be a fine example/proof of the popularity in Runescape. If possible, could be merged into one image with the phrase mentioned above.
*A monster. As seen in the template, identification of copyrighted characters also. We already have the King Black Dragon image, and I'd keep that one, as it's the best image in quality/animation about an example monster in Runescape.
*Quest interface. For example, events occurring in a quest, NPC talking, etc... We need to give a view, what could you do in Runescape.
*A screenshot of talking/activity of both player and jagex moderators. This isn't just about the "crowns", but more like how do moderators act in-game.
*A public domain/GPL/CC image which is not just about graphs. If it's possible in anyway, somehow relating to Runescape, to include a non-fair-use image to the article, to show that Runescape is not just about fair use. What I was thinking, real-life results somehow inspired by Runescape. For example, player's gallery in Runescape, is a great source for this, but not just "any" picture, but an encyclopedic one.
*A piece of music in Runescape. I am throwing this in as a wildcard, because I am 100% unsure if it would be allowed to include in a sample music found from Runescape. The length should be about 30 seconds, and the music should be one of the very first musics found in the F2P version of the game.
Opinions about this are more than welcome. ~Iceshark7 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meh opinions 

message: Hiya everybody. I've been kinda tied up for a while with work, and now sophomore year of high school so i havent been around much, but i'm not dead. I was sorta wondering if anyone knows if RuneScape (not Run Escape, that discussion was idiotic) works on the Opera based browser on the Wii. but other then that i'm pretty much brainwashed from too much Naruto / Naruto Abridged on Youtube.  → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 00:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I'm sure is that your signature is way too long! OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. It's only three lines of wikitext. A bit on the foofy side, but if it's under the 255 characters limit, (which I presume it is, unless you manually type it) it's policy wise ok. i said 02:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perm Distraction is not part of sig lol, my sig is here! But, that's all.  → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your question, as of a few months ago, it doesn't work. My wireless router isn't set up correctly now, and so I can't really try again. The forums and such work though. Comrade Tux 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason it doesn't work is because the internet that the wii runs on doesn't support Java. Tesfan 00:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi Everybody! And a question about Rs Working on Wii Internet Channel? 

message: Why does the article Zezima redirect to RuneScape?
I'm beginning to get suspicious...
--70.252.189.152 01:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because that page was repeatably recreated but there isn't exactly anything we have to say about Zezima, (nn runescape player) so it redirects to the closesest page on the subject. (I think) - note that Zezima is in "Category: Protected redirects" OSbornarf 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Zezima is a RuneScape player, but why does the Zezima article even exist? There isn't a Kid Evil 1 article, is there? I know they're number one on the hiscores, but that doesn't make them deserve an article. Besides, if you don't play RuneScape, you most likely have no idea who Zezima is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.18.35 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It exists to be protected, so people don't create another one- yes, Zezima is quite nn (not notable.) OSbornarf 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect exists because Zezima is the most notable RuneScape player, but still non-notable. If people type in "Zezima", they probably want information about him. Since there aren't any non-trivial independent sources which can give that to us, then an article on Zezima cannot be created. --Hojimachongtalk 05:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Zezima]] is [[RuneScape]]? 

message: I think private servers should be mentioned in this article somewhere Diablo1123 05:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say no: They are nn copyright violations. I believe a page on them was AfDed some time ago. Are there established sources on them? Are they notable? OSbornarf 05:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, we don't link to copyright violations (which is what the private servers are, as RuneScape is copyrighted and Jagex have never released the source code). Sorry. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Private Server attempts happen in almost every popular MMORPG found in the Internet. There is no need to mention about it in the RuneScape article, as it's a regulary occuring thing between many games. ~Iceshark7 17:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, "the code in them is not Jagex's source code"? It is, I'm afraid. They wrote it, so they own it and the copyright, and they have chosen not to release it to the public domain or under a free licence like the GNU General Public Licence. That makes downloading the source code, reverse engineering it and providing one's own version of RS a copyright violation. Private server operators own just the code of any modifications they have made. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Private servers are not permitted and I could go into detail if required. They are also not directly associated with the game. They don't need to be mentioned. BlazeDS 20:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Servers 

message: Please add:

to Zezima
and

to Talk:Zezima
This was the closest place to make the request as both pages have been fully protected. ~Iceshark7 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit protect to [[Zezima]] and [[Talk:Zezima]] 

message: I think we should list some of the major clans in RuneScape based on clans on the RAW list (A ranking of clans that is found on Clan Discussion on Zybez's forums). I can't do it seeing as I can't edit the actual article. *Cry*
The 'clan community' is pretty large and significant enough to be included under the Community section or maybe under Gameplay -> Interaction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MooMix1 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. This would be blatant advertising. Besides, do you see a clan listing anywhere in World of Warcraft- or Guild Wars-related articles? Fan sites such as "Zybez" do list clans, but the Wikipedia article about RuneScape is not something that should be targeted at the RuneScape community, it's supposed to give basic information about it. Litis 08:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, clans are not an official part of the game - at least yet. The only clan feature that's been implemented this far is the clan chat, and people just use it as chat-rooms. Litis 08:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, you should be able to edit the main article in about 7 hours. It's semi-protected due to heavy vandalism in the past, so unregistered or newly registered users can't edit the page. You will no longer be considered newly registered after 4 days, after which you can help us improve the article to featured status! *cough* join the RuneScape Task Force *cough* ... Why's everyone looking at me like that? However, I do agree that a clan list would be unnecessary. See Wikipedia:Fancruft for a general explanation of why we don't include stuff like that. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 13:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clan Directory 

message: What happened to the god guide? I spent too long editing that page removing all the fancruft and only keeping the truthful data, its not my fault ALL INFO ON THE GODS are only spoken of IN GAME, as I said, runescape.com is where the info was gotten, go there and look for yourself, its impossible to get more direct links, I even offered for anyone to ask me where the info was from and I would tell them the quest and the NPC that gives it, this is just so idiotic that I think I may quit wikipedia felinoel 05:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deities 

message: Small question, why was this article put under protection?
Javascap 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of mass vandalism from IP's is my understanding.  You may want to see the Protection logs for this page . SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If it has a higher Alexa rank than the current set of fansites, fine. But please don't just add it without making sure everyone else is okay about it. Sorry about misinterpreting this post as spamming, by the way. I didn't look close enough. >_< CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: Since October 2007, according to the credits on the website, it appears that the C.E.O. of Jagex is no-longer Constant Tedder, but instead "Geoff I".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.74.139 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jagex's CEO has been, since August, Geoff Iddison, the former CEO of PayPal(Europe) Ltd at eBay.  --RS Ren 15:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Constant T was basically a founder, however. I believe the first 3 members of Jagex were Andrew, Paul, and Constant. MooMix1 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchange of hats? 

message: there is one skill that is not actualy a skill you just need to know the price of items. "scavengers" or "colectors" are players who can be in low lvl. they pick up stuf high lvl players don't want. the only known scavengers as i know is "sno222" and "sno777". "sno222" hasent been in game for a while, but "sno777" normaly hangs around falador or varock.
Sno777 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RuneScape article should only include facts, which are both notable and verifiable along with the Wikipedia policies. There are tons of non-skills people use to play the game - the article is already too big and is unable to include even some obvious things worth of noting. ~Iceshark7 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  colectors/scavengers 

message: On the community section I think that it should say that around 24% of runescape users come from the USA, around 9.6% come from Lithuania, around 6.3% come from the UK etc. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=runescape.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arain321 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the community section 

message: An abusive user, Darano has been reported to Admin noticeboard. Please comment if you wish to add information to that section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved, at least until the block on his IP runs out next week. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want my opinion, he got off too lightly. Ah well, at least we have a week to prepare until the next inevidable wave of puppets. --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abusive user 

message: In jagex's latest press release it says that runescape has over 6mil regular players. Please update this. http://www.jagex.com/corporate/Press/pressRelease.ws  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arain321 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 million players 

message: An user, Pyroraptor70 added the information about Runescape 3 in beta. I have doubts about this site and reverted it. I would like for opinions with regards to this site as it seems to be that this website is a phishing site. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be so, Dharok.com is owned by "Chris Spencer", doesn't sound like how a company like this would operate. (Also does not appear to use Jagex's own login Java applet, AFAIK they use this  since it's hard to duplicate and therefor scam sites like this are easy for consumers to spot.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 05:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't even worth debating on. It's clearly a scam site - if Jagex were working on another version of RuneScape, they'd at least hint at it on the web site. Litis 08:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any site that is not at Jagex.com or Runescape.com that says it's an official RS site is a scam. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 20:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, I was just double checking. I guess we better look out for more links like this one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another tip-off is that, when I looked on the rs3beta page, the worlds were always the same number of people playing for 10 minutes. Iner22 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you went to the Rs3 "beta" site, you should scan your computer for key loggers and then change your rs password to ensure that your account is secure. Dr5ag2on1 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runescape 3? 

message: the page definatly needs info on the falador massacre on the 6/6/06. as it is a big part of history that jagex will not want repeating  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.240.176 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a curious glitch, but it is none of the general crowd's interest. There is a link to the RuneScape wiki, and anyone can stumble upon the article regarding this. Thus, there's no need to mention it. Litis 10:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Falador Massacre

message: umm.....gp is gold pieces, not "gold points"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.167.126 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see what you mean. Recent change, so I've switched it back to "gold" for now. If anyone has any concerns, don't hesitate to raise them. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A search of the RuneScape Knowledge Base found 19 results for "gold pieces" and 0 results for "gold points". --RS Ren 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've played RuneScape for over two years, and I've never once seen "gold points" said in game, on the forums, or in the knowledge base. "Gold pieces", "gold", and "coins" are all correct, but "gold points" is not. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no doubt that it is gold pieces and not gold points. BTC 22:00 28 October 2007 (Eastern Time Zone)  —Preceding comment was added at 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always called "coins" in-game, and never "points". ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold points vs gold (pieces)

message: Should we link to all three RuneScape Wikias (RSW, DRSW and RSFFW), or just to the original, like we are now? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think RSW is fine, I'm not sure about DRSW, but probably not RSFFW, only because fanfiction isn't considered canon by Wikipedia; this is a common issue in Star Wars articles and on Wookieepedia. If the three linked between eachother on their Main Pages, that would be great. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be voted on to have a rule, like with fan sites to prevent any "yes"-"no" edit wars. But yes, it would be a good idea to have then link to each other on their main pages (which they do :)), but some of the people at RSW seem to hate DRSW for some reason... Ah, oh well. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 06:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some people might "hate" DRSW as it is beans, but I don't think they meet the criteria in the external links policy, so it should be removed if it has been added back in. RSW is perfectly fine though.  SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikias 

message: :In the reception section, there is only positive opinions on runescape.  Considering that at least half of the comments about it are negative, shouldn't there be a list of negative reception in here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.154.227 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went and gave this it's own spot so it will get seen. Anyway, I don't think it's needed; critism goes under reception, just like positive reception. --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate Section for Negative Critism?