Talk:RuneScape/Archive 5

message: The Below is old Discussion. If you feel anything below needs to be commented on, bring it up in the RuneScape Talk Page. J.J.Sagnella 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

message: When massive changes are made to the page while multiple users are editing, we step on each others' toes a 'lot' and revert many needed corrections.  Please edit one section at a time to minimize reverting others' edits, and check the history page after saving changes to see what other changes might have beed made while editing. Cilencia 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually used edit summaries, as well as proper English and grammer, we would know what the hell you just edited. I dont think we should edit each section seperately, especially if you are making minor edits, as the history gets clogged up. Making hundreds of minor edits, although small, also cause edit conflicts. Ever think of that? - • The Giant Puffin • 17:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to, but it does get frustrating when fixing something for the third time because bigger edits inadvertantly reverted them, including the area appearance, which I fixed about that many times, making it subordinate to the graphics section.  And repeating minor edits clogs up the history much faster than making them onec in the first place.  I appreciate your improvements to the page, but doing it in smaller bursts would better preserve others' efforts.  Cilencia 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please edit section by section. 

message: Area appearance is about graphics, so it should have a type 3 header, so it comes under the graphics section! - • The Giant Puffin • 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fashion, moderators, and economy are about community; PvP Combat is about Combat.  Should those sections be merged as well? Cilencia 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure if economy is about the community, but PvP Combat should definitely be in a subheading under combat, and fashion and moderators should probably be in community. --Rory096 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area appearance 

message: Removed ip editbut way easier to use. Just a little too pov.--Dakota ~  ° 19:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: The monster section of the main page is huge—10 monsters are featured.  I think we should summarize the variety and behavior of monsters on the main page and move what we currently have to a separate page altogether.  What do the rest of you think?  Cilencia 07:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster page 

message: In my opinion people who cheat in multiplayer games are nothing short of scum. The cheating information that has been added (and deleted) a few times should NOT be there in my opinion. I am not sure if there is any wikipedia rule about it, but unless there is a rule stating that information like this is allowed, I would say it is just wrong. Thoughts please? Clq 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of that, and therefore asked in the wikipedia chatroom what would be the right thing to do. The general opinion was delete, and noone was sure about official policies on the matter. Clq 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't be here.  Even if there's nothing in the policy about cheating, WP:NOT a game guide, so there shouldn't be instructions on doing anything. --Rory096 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be argued that this is factual information, though it was obviously not all factual (100% undetectable), but otherwise I wouldnt say it was a "guide", just information about programs used to cheat. But yeah, obviously we are on the same side on this. Clq 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Game guides are usually factual too (at least I'd hope their factual, otherwise why would people be buying them?), but that doesn't mean they're encyclopaedic.  It gave players instructions on how to do something in the game.  Perhaps describing the problem of macros would be encyclopaedic, but not instructions on how to use one.  --Rory096 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is why I brought this up for debate on this talk page. However, if there IS going to be cheating information, it must at least be factual rather than promoting cheating by saying stuff like "It is 100% safe". Firstly it isn't, secondly, would it be necesarry to link to the cheating programs in question? As an example, I am sure a lot of people would be quite mad is the CS page linked to Counter Strike wall hacks. Clq 11:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheating information 

message: Stop deleting the autoing section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.119.148 (talk • contribs) 
:No.  Editors have come to a consensus that it shouldn't be here.  Look under the "Cheating Information" section.  Go "protect the users" somewhere else. --Rory096 03:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a brief section on Autoing to alert RuneScape users to the presence of autoers - such information is important and useful, and we should not keep people in the dark. However, there should not be links to download autoers as this encourages cheating. J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there is already more than enough reference to that in passing. Cilencia 05:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a section on cheating the history of it, and what Jagex does to fisght it could perhaps be in order. Having played RuneScape since december 2001, I coulld probably throw down a few sentences (to be added to/modified by other people), but that would all be original research though, with perhaps some referances to official RuneScape news. My problem is linking to it, or otherwise promoting it. There is a high risk one gets banned using programs like that, and there are ways Jagex can detect them. Writing anything else would be lying. Clq 07:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoing 

message: Could the problems encountered in the mining skill be addressed in the article?
Often ive found that it only takes one vulture with a rune pickaxe in a location to hog all the ore and ruin any chance anyone else has to gain anything and level up at all.
Ive tried to contact Jagex and perhaps prompt them to put more than one ore sample in each rock (like fishing or woodcutting where everyone gets a chance until the resource fades) but all I ever get is the robot rubber stamp response back.
Arwengoenitz 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would be appropriate.  Challenge is obviously part of the game, and unless Jagex actually changed the way mining worked, it would not be the least bit encyclopedic.  (And I don't see how you can call the one with the rune pick a vulture.  They'd be the main predators, and those of lower levels and poorer equipment would be the scavengers.  No offense, but the analogy doesn't work very well.)  Cilencia 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Or you could mine ores that are less valuable and don't give as much experience—rune essence even behaves like you want (though it doesn't give much experience).  You obviously have time to spare if you spend this much time debating the issue here, where it would not change anything.  If you want the mining skill changed, the best place to have this discussion would be on the runescape forums, as a member.  Then, at least, it might come to Jagex's attention.  Wikipedia is not the place to suggest changes to the game.  Rather, we need to present the game as it is, targeting an audience that is not familiar with the game, and without bias.  Cilencia 19:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mining skill 

message: Just thought I'd remind everyone that Wikibooks has a RuneScape article. Now, the article isn't just "blah blah blah RuneScape is a game blah blah blah". No, it certainly is not. It also isn't really a book.
Wikibook's RuneScape article contains guides, quest walkthroughs, and skill guides. Things are continually being added. The article has been revamped totally. However, there is still much that other players can do. 
We (Wikibook's RuneScape article) have been recieving much traffic recently, mainly because of the new articles. There's a new price guide that any player and edit and add prices. There's a rare items guide. Many of the member's quest walkthroughs can be fixed up greatly, new ones can be made, and the good ones can be expanded and fixed to make them look nice.
The skill guides are coming along good, though there is always room for improvement. Much info is still missing, and contributions are welcome.
So please, check out RuneScape on Wikibooks, and go ahead and add stuff! The price guide is missing many many member items, so why not start there?
Also, there are too many pictures on Wikipedia's RuneScape article.Richard x 02:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you saw our debate.  It's not the first, doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, and likely won't be the last.  Are you sure you want our involvement in Wikibooks?  Cilencia 06:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape Wikibooks 

message: Please, excuse my inmense ignorance, but I'd like to ask; if there is a official policy stating that
Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.
...How come that there are articles such as Combat and Skills? Shouldn't they be better at WikiBooks?
I'm picturing every single famous MMORPG suddenly having FAQ's and Guides all over the place. It's not my intention to throw down all the hard work, but I think Wikipedia is not the right place for it.
:-Ancanus 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Only major MMORPGS which have wikipedia portals are WoW and RS. J.J.Sagnella 19:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Wikibooks 

message: hello I have a runescape fansite, and someone said I had to get permission here to add it to the list, so, do I have permission?
: And what is the name of the site? If we feel it is good enough, yes. If not, no. J.J.Sagnella 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission?