Talk:RuneScape/Archive 14

message: Laydeeeez an' gennelmen, for your viewing pleasure, witness the spectacle! The thrills and spills of the fair, see the amazing clowns juggling flaming Alexa-ranks. Please remain in your seats and don't feed the monkeys. (this follows from the Fansite discussions, you want comparisons, then you got them). Following from the discussions over fansites, here is a listing of Alexa ranks for the major sites. Remember lower is better and means the site has more visitors. QuagmireDog 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be a dick.  We agreed on RuneHQ a long time ago, from the Alexa ranking back then.  If the statistics have changed since then, which they apparently have, you can bring it up in a civil way, not to insult us.  I can see Zybez being the most popular, as it *is* a good site, and the only one I use myself, except for the Lewt advertisements on their site.  We're not going to link to a site which breaks one of the rules. Sorry, misunderstood it and thought that they were actual traffic stats, not the rank itself, in which Zybez seemed highest.  Someone give me some caffeine :|   Agentscott00(talk contribs) 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ohhhh, it's sunk in. I should have realised that an explanation of Alexa rankings would be necessary and clear. I'll keep hammering at it until it's both clear and fully explained. My bad. QuagmireDog 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intention was to provide information in a light hearted way on a discussion which seems to get a little heated at times. If you look at my edits further today they've involved trying to lay out the concensus in a way which is non-combatitive and aims to answer questions without more of the same debate trailing on. Instead of dropping a note of your concerns on my talk page (which, if you'd done so civilly I'd have thought "oh hell, that's not what I was aiming for" and I would have changed the wording in a heartbeat). No, instead you call me an uncivil dick, here. To say I take a dim view of your attitude is putting it a lot more politely than you deserve. QuagmireDog 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!!! The tables have turned indeed! But would you mind providing a link to the ranking webpage? That way, if we keep watching the rankings, then we can just change the fansite link in the article.--Edtalk c 23:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm confused. Is the higher number or lower number better? -Amarkov babble 00:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think the higher one's better. But isn't it strange how RuneHQ is suddenly in the bottom?--Edtalk c 00:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lower the number the better, think of it as race results, being first is the best and coming in last means you're fourtieth. I should have thought to provide the link to the alexa search used (I pinched it from one of JJ Sagnella's editting comments). I would have put down more sites but I only know of the ones already in the search. By taking a weekly tally, it means they get archived before becoming too large and it gives the opportunity for more sites to be added if visitors ask. I'll find the link QuagmireDog 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lower the number the better its ranking is. The number is based on how many unique visitors and how many regular visiters enter the website on a daily ,weekly , and monthly basis. So the lowest number (1) is the most visted website on daily basis. If a website's rank went up (higher number then it was) is means the website's popularity declined (less people visit the website on daily basis). Keep in mined the alexa renking goes even deeper then most people think. the ranking you see might NOT be the same as someone from japan (unless you are viewing the world's over ranking). Alexa also makes seperet ranking depending on the country or the website and where do most of the visiters come from (what country) when they enter the site. Wiz126 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Wiz, I'll look into that when I get a minute - knowing as much as possible will help us all to know we're doing the right thing. QuagmireDog 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa Rank Comparisons - Weekly 

message: Why can't we talk about the RuneScape forums in th article? It is in the topic of RuneScape, and once I added it in, but just as quickly, someone edited it out. Why? DeenMan (talk • contribs) .</small>
:Simple. Nobody but the people who already use them would ever care about them, thus making it borderline fancruft. Speaking as someone who does use them, there's really not anything special. The only non-obvious information you could possibly put would be a description of the community on the forums, which is meaningless for almost all of them, has no information to put for a few, and changes too fast for the remaining 2. -Amarkov 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can write the features in two sentences. "The forums are divided into various sections for different topics. They have a bump feature, and an emoticon feature that features hats." What else is there? -Amarkov 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I still don't really think that it's a very important feature. If you can get 7 sentences, though, then why not? -Amarkov 03:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, remember, this is supposed to be an article, not some sort of forum. People look at articles for information, not to talk about the many features involved. DiamondDragon 04:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They do too look at the many features involved. Server capacity is a feature. Gameplay is a feature. Previous versions are a feature. There's no good reason why they constitute information, but the forum feature does not. With the limited power I have to say people can do things (hint: limited in this context means "next to none"), yes, go ahead and add it. I sure won't remove it. -Amarkov 04:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: While trying to preserve the main message of the paragraph, I merged the section into Community, tweaked a few sentences, and tried to remove fancruft. However, this section needs citations. If we can't find any citations for this, it will be removed.--Edtalk c E 02:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry. Finding citations are possible. For example, the main RuneScape forums page is a possible citation. The only requirement for adding a site as a citation is that the citation supports your statement. This is a requirement of this article per WP:V.--Edtalk c E 23:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I just realized that there exists a paragraph about the RS Forums on RuneScape#Community. Your paragraph wasn't needed anymore and was removed.-Edtalk c E 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forums

message: I'm looking at the criticism section right now and I KNOW there's more criticism than this. I'm thinking that we create a Criticism subpage specifically for RuneScape Criticism. This allows us to do 3 things:
*Reduces the length of the article
*Allow for more criticism on the subpage
*Allows for a more detailed report on criticism
--Edtalk c E 01:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose creating an article dedicated to criticism of RuneScape. POV forks are generally discouraged. It should only be done if the criticism section is getting too long, and a seperate article is needed to offer sufficient coverage of the criticism. The Criticism of Microsoft article is an example of when POV forking is good. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose creating a separate article for criticism.  I do not believe that their has to be an exhorbitant amount of criticism.  The criticism we do use needs to be cited whereever possible, and as NPOV as we can keep it.  As noted above, keep in mind that criticism does not necessarily mean negative.  Critical review can be positive or negative, and we should have a well-balanced mix of both.  I still think we should call this section Critical review rather than criticism anyway.    Xela Yrag 16:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose creating a subpage/separate aricle for the criticism section.  I can see it being deleted fairly quickly - although the article itself might be a tad long, the Criticism section along isn't long enough for its own page unless there is a lot more added to it.  Just browsing through it quickly I could spot a few things which don't really belong, will get to them later.  Agentscott00(talk contribs) 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, as there is enough to do with the criticism section already. Making it into an article would atract deletionists, and I don't think there is enough information to make a good article anyway.Hemhem20X6 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Although Im sure there would be enough to warrent a page, I just feel that any more sub-pages created about RS should be seriously restricted because most will just get put of for Afd and put more attention on getting the whole series deleted along with it - • The Giant Puffin • 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose There's not enough criticism for it to go on its own separate article. If there was a large amount of negative feedback sometime, then maybe it would be possible, but for now, it's not that good of an idea. DiamondDragon 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, such an article would be dragged into AFD and spanked on sight. Some of the criticism already listed is from GameFAQs reader-reviews - completely unusable, it's basically taking one player's opinion and making it out to be a definitive statement. Renaming this section to 'impact' or something similar and listing both pros and cons from more appropriate sources would solve the problem of there being too many citations to list and improve the quality of the info. Despite which, kudos for thinking around the issue. QuagmireDog 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This page is so biased in the first couple of paragraphs there is so much how can you claim runescape to be a "top" online game it is supposed to be a neutral point of view I think some one should go thought this badly written piece of work and remove all the biased, runescape is not a terrible game but by no means is it a top online game, Have you ever herd of Halo or Rome Total war they are top games this is not, it is not in any game charts or any thing some one fix it!.  Mr Roboto 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biased? Halo isn't for computer and Rome Total War is on CD. Online game-wise, only WoW gets close to it. J.J.Sagnella 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The 'Top Online Game' claim is cited by a reliable source, in this case, the BBC (see the article), notice the little number [2]? The 'Top Online Game' actually (presumably) refers to the number of players. I own both Halo and RTW, neither are dedicated online games, so trying to compare them is a bit of a waste of time except if you are trying to decide the best video game ever made, or somesuch. Every such claim in this article is cited. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased

message: I've removed the references to devious mud being v1 of Runescape, it wasn't, even if it inspired the creation of RS. --Awaken 16:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So its just going to be mentioned as inspirational to RS or not mentioned at all? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeviousMUD as a part of RS 

message: "For example, some worlds have a greater percentage of players who speak Spanish, Dutch, or Lithuanian."
I have never seen a Lithuanian player, but i have seen a number of players from other major European counties such as France or Germany, is Lithuania realy relevent? P.S. Not trying to sound racist. --Boris Johnson VC 10:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I havent seen a lithuanian either. I have seen French, German, Dutch and Spanish. I think Lithuanian should be replaced with german or french • The Giant Puffin • 16:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think more nationalities should be mentioned, at least German and French. There seems to be quite a lot - • The Giant Puffin • 16:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there are more Lithuanian and Estonian players than either French or German (I am friends with a few at least); you don't notice many of them because they also speak English :) Nathan M 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithuanian? 

message: I was looking that the RS image category and I found this: :Image:RSlogo3.jpg. Anyone think we should put it up?--Edtalk c E 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, that looks good! I believe we are supposed to use free images rather than fair use ones, where available (Jimbo said something to this effect once). The image description states that it is from the free image pack, so... The tag might need changing though, i'll look into it. Speaking of :Category:RuneScape Images, theres a few orphans in there from now deleted articles, mainly monsters. We might consider adding them somewhere, the combat article, for example. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've changed the image description to include the text of the license document that comes with the fansite kit, i've also found a copyright tag that may be more appropriate: Template:Promotional, although I haven't changed that because i'm not sure. It's not a free image after all, but its more free than some others, if you know what I mean. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've also found Makoto uploaded another one . Are they identical? J.J.Sagnella 18:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one shown here is larger, or atleast appears to be - • The Giant Puffin • 18:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one JJ found is blurry.--Edtalk c E 23:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can download (from the official website), a fansite image kit, which includes a heap of logo's and images which you can use freely, as long as they aren't edited. According to Jagex's TOS, all other images from RS cannot be used at all. Handmedown 01:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The link's a dead end.--Edtalk c E 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks --Blaze1200 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I like the first one. (Not to be pessimistic or anything though!) --Djsonik 23:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: Runescape Quests is up for deletion. Just informing you...Hemhem20X6 06:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a speedy repost. J.J.Sagnella 07:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a terrible article, even I said delete - • The Giant Puffin • 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted to delete it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't object, as long as the section is accurate, and does not violate WP:NOT.Hemhem20X6 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, absolutely not. As a few intimated on that AFD, the way the existing article was done runs counter to what information on quests should be about - what are they, where are they, what can they involve, what are the rewards, are the rewards different to craftable items and mini-game rewards etc. etc. I'll create the article ASAP, once I've actually written something to go in it. QuagmireDog 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD Notice

message: In the Advertising section, it says that "Jagex moderators have stated that there will be no in-game advertisements." Yet, directly of their corporate website it says "Jagex will also consider proposals that go beyond-the-banner for larger organisations looking to establish high recognition rates with our audience profile. Sponsorship and in game advertising offer exciting and cost effective ways to reach our audience with positive association of the RuneScape brand." (taken from http://www.jagex.com/corporate/advert.ws). The statement currently in the wiki isn't verified, but the latter that isn't mentioned is.
--sickmate 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The advert section was the one I originally put up. But the statements are verified by Reference 14 (take a look at the sentence afterwards). So in that case, I don't know which one to believe. The source at  is supposed to be a reliable source, since it was made by a newssource. However, the Jagex corporate website might be unreliable since that website promotes Jagex itself.--Edtalk c E 22:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: I'm seeing a lot of edits on subpages that aren't bad or malicious, per se, but are just crufty and such. For the most part, these edits would be appreciated at the RuneScape Wiki. So I figured we could kill two birds with one stone and tell the following to those users who cruft-up the pages:
:Hello! Thank you for your contribution to the article [[<article>]]! Unfortunately,as a general encyclopedia, Wikipedia only permits a certain level of depth. That is to say, your edits were too specific and may be considered fancruft. However, you are very welcome to make contributions to RuneScape Wiki, where more in-depth contributions such as yours are appreciated! Hyenaste (tell) 00:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion, of sorts. 

message: Runescape (as mentioned in the article) has it's non-members and it's members.  I think it would be a good idea to say how people become members of the game, and the benefits of it.
In the game there are three main ways of paying to become a member credit/debit card, phone and cash (a cheque in the mail).
Credit/Debit card: This is the cheapest way to pay, Aus$8.20 (US$5.00). You can only subscribe for one month at a time.
Phone: Subscribe with a simple phone call of Aus$12.00 a month (US$6.99). (There is also an option to pay by an SMS).
Cash: With this method of paying you can have a one, three, six or twelve month subscriptions. The one and the twelve month subscriptions being the most popular.  A one month subscription costing Us$7.95 and a twelve month subscription for Us$65.95 Currency exchange and other fees may apply.
Benefits of Membership:
There is twice as much map space to explore.
Lots of new monsters to kill.
Tons of extra tunes to listen in the game.
Fun mini-games to play like the extremely popular 'Castle Wars'.
Find the hidden loot when you get to the end of a treasure trail (clue scroll)
Plus there are heaps of new items weapons and armour.
And to top it off the there times if not more quests available to do as a member.
Etc. Etc. 
Something along the lines of this.  This is probley not the type of writeing you would put in an encyclopeida and not very detalid, but it can be made into detale if people like the idea.  I think this would be a great update to the article.
: Note: In future, please do not use the editprotected tag until there's a clear consensus that your proposed edit has been agreed upon by other editors, otherwise it wastes the time of administrators clearing the backlog. Thanks --   Netsnipe  ►  16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a section about membership, but it was deleted because the original section looked too much like an advertisement. I'm planning to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, so I will probably add a new Members section, but written in an encyclopediac manner. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runescape Members 

message: I have just noticed that the picture of Runescape isn't the latest type. The current version has a gray background the name Rune Scape and a sword.  The latest version (that can be found on the main page of the game, top center on the page). Runescape Is all the same but with a brownish blackish background.
The cheese master 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined. We can't use the latest logo from their website until Runescape provides an updated version with their fansite kit because only the images in the kit come with actual permission for Wikipedia to use them. --   Netsnipe  ►  15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is the case... even if Jagex has the logo copyrighted, Wikipedia can use it in the Runescape article under the argument that it falls under fair-use, can it not? Kareeser|Talk! 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Runescape 

message: I saw that it said "Runescape is a crappy game" on the article so i changed it to "Runescape is a MMORPG (Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game)" Random1234 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help. J.J.Sagnella 08:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when was it unprotected?--Edtalk c E 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Centrx unprotected it. Uh oh...Hemhem20X6 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It turns out that he reprotected it; I tested that by logging out. Never mind!Hemhem20X6 01:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: At the high school I go to right now, we have many databases that store all newspaper, periodical, article, encyclopedic materials, or whatever a researcher would need. I did a prelim. search on all of our databases and they had lots of stuff. They even had discussions, articles, criticism, which are all reliable! Tell me what you guys need, and I'll get it on my User:Ed/Sandbox.--Edtalk c E 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... Okay? Great? -Amarkov 18:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We could use everything probably. Hyenaste (tell) 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Can it be accessed from the outside, or is it a closed system? CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Subscription from a school or library.--Edtalk c E 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Tell me whay you see --Edtalk c E 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see an 'Authentication Error 1011', and a login screen. No matter, I'm just thinking it would be easier to just get it straight from the database. It sounds like pretty much everything in there would be useful, and your sandbox may end up stuffed to breaking point. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, yes. Only people from my school can access all of our databases. But I'm sure we can get the help from other students who have access to a database.--Edtalk c E 03:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've got access to the Thomson Gale database through my school, and it can be accessed from this (my home) computer as well.  Agentscott00(talk contribs) 00:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I have access to Proquest, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, FirstSearch, Infotrac, Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, CQ Researcher, plus other databases irrelevant to RuneScape.--Edtalk c E 00:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Samosa:please clarify. (really confused at this moment)--Edtalk c E 00:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can get reliable sources 

message: In the game the icons and menus looks different as well as the sign. I'll post a screenshot. If you want to use it. There are also new features like ambient sounds, new tutors and other stuff. You might add them. --IrfanFaiz 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, there are legality issues that would prevent us from posting screenshots of the new interface until Jagex officialy releases them to be used. -Amarkov babble 00:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New interface 

message: Why is the article empty? Litis 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?!?!?!?Hemhem20X6 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope It isn't empty, your computer must be malfunctioning. Try restarting. J.J.Sagnella 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a vandal deleted most of the article recently, perhaps Litis walked in on that before the vandalbot rolled it back? The page is still there though so it might just mean a reboot's in order :D QuagmireDog 16:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about it, automated bots catch half of these vandals without anyone having to lift a finger. The rest of them.. well someone just lifts a finger and reverts - takes vandals longer to try and mess up a page than for a contributor to roll it back :) QuagmireDog 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh? 

message: An article about RuneScape appeared on the front page of the Marketplace section of The Wall Street Journal today. In other news, we finally have some reputable sources for criticism of graphics. Hyenaste (tell) 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't be better news :). Now As I'm not so good at American Papers like the Wall Street Journal, can you tell me if there is an online version of it (Like the Current one for The Times) or if we will have to resort to other techniques? J.J.Sagnella 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears to be located here for at least today. Unfortunately it requires a log in, and I can't manage to subscribe (page doesn't load). Hyenaste (tell) 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you HAVE the copy of the Wall Street? In that case, you can just post the info yourself.--Edtalk c 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nvm that. I'll check my Proquest database and copy it onto my User:Ed/Sandbox.--Edtalk c 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have it, but I'd like also if others were able to contribute from that article as my contributions recently have been lackluster. Hyenaste (tell) 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I may have found the title of the article ("The Knights of Networking"), but I just can't pull it up on ProQuest. I'm thinking that since this is a new article, Proquest wouldn't have it in its database yet. I can go check my school library for the WSJ from yesterday...Anyway, I'll try as much as I can to retrieve a copy.--Edtalk c 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the correct article. Hyenaste (tell) 23:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I can't retrieve the article from my high school database "ProQuest". In fact, the most recent article on RuneScape that I can pull up from ANY publication was written July 16, 2006. =( Edtalk c 23:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it is. :( Hyenaste (tell) 00:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, can I transfer the whole text to a subpage of Talk:RuneScape???--Edtalk c 01:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, our figure is cited, and Jagex hasn't released any statistics recently (ever?), so either could be right. Both figures agree on active members though, with the more recent being just 50K from the older one. Hyenaste (tell) 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another error in it, it says Andrew's last name is "Gowers", among other small mistakes in the article.  Is it really worth trying to obtain copyright permisson for it if there's various errors or incorrect statements (the MySpace one Nifboy mentioned).  The graphics part is one of the things I can see us definitely citing, but unfortunately, other statistics (player count) in the article may contradict what we've currently got in the article.  Hyenaste: The last *paying* member count I have was from July, of just over 750k customers, however it was direct from a JMod, so we can't cite it.  Agentscott00(talk contribs) 20:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wall Street Journal 

message: Im not sure the validity of this statement (I saw it somewhere, but cant remember where..), but I myself have many problems when playing RuneScape on GNU/Linux.Dustin 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i've seen this also and experienced no end of problems with runescape and apple mac's .  problems with sound and java memory issues. i've read that they are addressing browser issues like making runescape run fully on firefox although i'm not sure if the article stated they were going for absolute multi-platform compatability (given that java implementations tends to differ on macs and linux and microsoft) --timdew (Talk) 22:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: They did focus on the issue more when they updated the game engine in May, though I don't think they did too much.  --Russoc4 11:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did originally have a problem with running Runescape on Linux way back when I first tried in early 2004.  6 months later, I managed to get it to work, provided I used the unsigned client.  That problem was also fixed and I run it without any difficulty in Firefox on FC5, or on Slackware 9 (with suitable Java runtime).  The only M$ specific problem in the last 12 months or so was the lack of sound when playing through any browser other than IE (true for both Linux and 'Doze versions of Mozilla, of Firefox, and of Opera).  This, too, has been fixed.  I would suggest seeking assistance on the support forum.  It works for me without a hitch (and in fact in rather less physical memory than supposedly required). Cain Mosni 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape made specifically for MS Java? 

message: I wanted to post this information on runescape but the article is locked so I am going to post my information here.
Runescape is an online game that includes a free version and a member version. In order to play Runescape there is no cost or programs needed except a java web browser. The member subscription costs $5 U.S. dollars if it is paid by credit card and $7 if the subscription is paid in bank, such as western union.
On the Runescape main page there is a section for polls where only members can vote. There you can find several different issues that were asked of the pay-to-play community about several aspects such as: technical, in game play, suggestions, and personal information about players.
One of these polls that was set in 2005 asked the players of Runescape why the prefer Runescape from other games. The results showed that one of the main reasons was that no downloads were needed as in other games (Ragnarok), the graphics and the 3D environment, others said that they play Runescape because many of their friends play (there is an average of over 200,000 people online).
Another reason for its great popularity is because of its easy access. This is because it is also accessible from other pages such as www.miniclip.com.
One of the main complaints from other online games is that you play in one server. These servers may be closed or hacked and when you change to another server you have to start again.In Runescape this can not happen because there is a different world system that is like several servers but if you change from one to another you still have your account the same way as you left it on another server when you last logged out.
Cic10jorgee 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those things are all either already included in the article, too unnoticable to be included, or are about things that Runescape does not do, which should never be part of an article. -Amarkov babble 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text for article

message: I've listed an article advertising an illegal private server on WP:AFD.  To take a look, and if you want to vote to help have it removed:  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Merlinscape. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 04:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been deleted now, and rightly so. I've marked it's screenshot, :Image:Wikipedia2.png for speedy deletion as an orphaned fair use image; I can't see any use for it in other articles, unless someone wants to do some cropping to make a holiday items gallery out of it. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is very interesting. Hyenaste (tell) 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, it is. Shame really. I've never even heard of Baskets. You think it can be adapted? At least something useful will come from this unpleasant situation. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Baskets were from that holiday recently were you got to deliever the eggs to people for the easter bunny, remember? J.J.Sagnella 22:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, aye, that's right. Do you think I should be worried about this memory loss? Also, do you think I should be worried about this memory loss? :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be worried...I'm surprised you remembered how to log on to Wikipedia!!!--EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Server AfD 

message: Should I go ahead a nominate for peer review?--EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section needs some work first. There are a few POV implications in there. -Amarkov babble 18:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind, fixed it. There was less than I thought. Yeah, peer review seems like a good idea now. -Amarkov babble 18:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, then we will all know what we are supposed to be doing. Maybe make it a peer review of the whole series of articles? CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll get to work on it.--EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 18:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, nothing else. I think you are overdoing it a bit on the citations, but there's nothing else I can see to do. -Amarkov babble 19:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. At least the article satisfies WP:V now.--EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 19:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Overdoing citations?! You can't have too many citations! Seriously though,  is an FA with 47 cites, so 43 should be about enough. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should bring back the press reviews. The Criticism section has improved considerably in documenting player criticisms. However, it wouldn't hurt to include a paragraph or two about the press reviews RuneScape has received. This would increase the number and reliability of references. Some complained that the Press Reviews section seemed too biased in favour of RuneScape. Therefore, we need to ensure the paragraph maintains a neutral tone, despite the references praising RuneScape. Finding some negative, but reliable, reviews would increase NPOV. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Press reviews, positive or negative, are the most reliable sources available for this sort of thing; way better than GameFAQs's user-submitted reviews (one of only two secondary sources cited in the entire section!). Still, I wouldn't mind seeing it renamed to a more neutral word/phrase. Most CVG articles use "Reception" or "Reception and Criticism", and a few bundle it into the history section. Nifboy 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, most of the criticisms are from newspaper references. (ie Guardian, Wall Street). Nonetheless, can anyone retrieve the previous text again?--EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review??? 

message: There are 133 worlds. World 126 was added and World 84 was removed. The last server's number is 132, meaning that there are 131 RS servers, and 2 classic servers. World 126 is p2p, though the silver star is wrong. --Richard 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked, 84 is not there.  As soon as w126 was put online, 84 was taken off.  A forum mod said that they took it down for maintenance.  So there are 134 worlds, they're just not all available at the same time.--JCGracik talk c 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worlds 

message: On the peer review, it recommended us to find more server info. However, I'm having some difficulty finding precise info. The following links are all I have:
*
*
EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way we can use this info?-EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW does anyone here play RS Classic? It would be beneficial to have a screenshot of it.--EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: All I can suggest for finding out the server specs is to ask, in the Postbag. As a rough guess, I would conjecture that the servers would run on a Linux variant, Unix or Unix-like, Windows NT or Windows Server 2003 operating system. However, recent complaints about the difficulties of Linux players lead me to believe they more likely run on Windows. Then again, I don't keep very good track of the Linux/Unix family. As for hardware, to accomodate 2000 players we are talking big, probably of a similar physical size and power to an ISP server, or the Wikimedia servers. Of course, until we can get a cite for this, such as Jagex's reply in the Postbag, this is OR/Speculation. It's simply what I'd expect them to be. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Servers 

message: Is this sentence needed?
:"From 24 September 2002 through 9 December 2004, players could submit questions to the RuneScape gods;   however, the gods will no longer communicate so directly with mortal beings.[36]"
I don't think it really contributes to the article but I thought I should ask before deleting it. --JCGracik 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The god letters were quite popular back when they were still being run + posted, it definitely deserves a line in the article.  Agentscott00(talk 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runescape gods 

message: What about runescape cheating and rule breaking? It's history is almost as long as the game itself, and players with automating programs are not as rare as you might think. Plus most cheaters sell their profits for real cash to other players which is against the rules. To test this, i myself made over 120 euros in 2 weeks just by leaving my pc on at nights. And i wasn't even trying that hard, i've heard about people who made thousands of dollars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.248.219.9 (talk • contribs) .
:There is an essay on Wikipedia: Don't stuff beans up your nose. No doubt if we give too much coverage to cheats, people are going to go off and try it. Obviously, some mention is necessary however. Maybe a more lengthy study, and the relation to Random Events in Deckiller's RuneScape gameplay article? Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very important we don't reveal too much info about cheating. You see, if we post information about how RuneScape players item scam, the following would happen:
*Jagex sees this info, prevents the procedure mentioned here, and most cheaters are foiled =)
*People who read this article would be discouraged to play, learning that numerous cheaters lurk around =(
*The information provided implies that Jagex's cheating prevention tactics don't work, and is bait for a lawsuit against Wikipedia =(
EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 01:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runescape cheating? 

message: I found the orig. Press Review section:
===Press reviews===
*Lessons on labour: According to BBC News, playing RuneScape as much as working on homework is not necessarily a bad thing. It can instruct players about working hard to achieve goals. Studies show that the nature of most games, including RuneScape, can teach teenagers vital skills as they enter the labour market. 
*Fastest growing: The Guardian stated that Runescape is one of the fastest growing out of all of the MMORPGs. Online RPGs are one of the few internet businesses that can entice people to pay for online content. 
*Free, with no strings attached: Just RPG, an organization that reviews online role-playing games, says that "It's rare for something that's free to come with no strings attached, and is actually fun to boot." RuneScape does just that.
*Great entertainment: The Yahoo Buzz Log states that the unrealistic roles of the characters in the MMORPG Runescape can provide good entertainment when people need a break.
*RuneScape 2 a huge success: According to PC Gamer UK, RuneScape 2 should be a great success. "Available via your browser, the game can be fired up on a narrowband connection, in just a few minutes."
:We just need to make minor adjustments to this, and we're ready to go!!!EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press Reviews 

message: *Lessons on labour: According to BBC News, playing RuneScape as much as working on homework is not necessarily a bad thing. It can instruct players about working hard to achieve goals. Studies show that the nature of most games, including RuneScape, can teach teenagers vital skills as they enter the labour market. 
*Fastest growing: The Guardian stated that Runescape is one of the fastest growing out of all of the MMORPGs. Online RPGs are one of the few internet businesses that can entice people to pay for online content. 
*Free, with no strings attached: Just RPG, an organization that reviews online role-playing games, says that "It's rare for something that's free to come with no strings attached, and is actually fun to boot." RuneScape does just that.
*Great entertainment: The Yahoo Buzz Log states that the unrealistic roles of the characters in the MMORPG Runescape can provide good entertainment when people need a break.
*RuneScape 2 a huge success: According to PC Gamer UK, RuneScape 2 should be a great success. "Available via your browser, the game can be fired up on a narrowband connection, in just a few minutes."
:We just need to make minor adjustments to this, and we're ready to go!!!EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Press reviews

message: The Runescape Article should have some information on the "educational" benefits of Runescape. More information can be found in the Parents' Guide about this on the Runescape Official Site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjgone2 (talk • contribs) .
:We are currently working on expanding the Criticism section to include press reviews of RuneScape.Several of the press reviews mentioned the educational aspect of RuneScape. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational Benefits 

message: RuneScape weaponry is up to the Butcher's knife for a third time. Just so you know. J.J.Sagnella 08:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To All the haters of the RS series : Wikipedia:Ignore all rules RULES!!!!!!!!!!!p00rleno 11:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't, it sucks. People try to use it too much to protect fancruft. -Amarkov babble 13:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Heads-up

message: I have removed the following from the external links section:
; Official affiliates
*Miniclip (runescape.com)
*Mofunzone (runescape.com)
Because they are not needed per WP:EL. I can't see any additional information these websites give that runescape.com doesn't. Though if I am wrong, please revert.--Andeh 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article were about those sites, it might be good information. But affilates aren't really important on Runescape. -Amarkov babble 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official affiliates links removed