Talk:RuneScape/Archive 6

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two general reminders 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: 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)
replies: text: The whole section is unsourced, which is somewhat of a problem. --Hetar 01:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  'Clean Up' of Criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is that better? Cilencia 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: They look much better, thanks. Hyenaste 22:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jmod/Pmod/Fmod Images 

message: This article is no longer tagged with:  Hooray! Hyenaste 08:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under 30K 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes, this page should be a summary and overview of the sup-articles - • The Giant Puffin • 15:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview page, yes? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Celebs Playing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean-up of Minor Articles? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Brilliant Idea. Much Better J.J.Sagnella 12:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  membership 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  My image gallery. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New images in my [[User:Tarikochi|gallery]] for April 25, 2006. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A good week or so ago. J.J.Sagnella 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O. Was it on AfD? I thought it was a vastly improved article - • The Giant Puffin • 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was. Why weren't you there arguing the case to keep it? J.J.Sagnella 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[RuneScape quests]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New images in my [[User:Tarikochi|gallery]] for April 26, 2006. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section getting silly 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This line in the intro bothers me. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concerning Nouns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Runescape Fakes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Wikibooks guide has moved... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Cool - • The Giant Puffin • 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation of my recent edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editing priorities