Talk:RuneScape/Archive 21

message: Forgive me if this comment was misplaced, misformatted, etc., but on MMORPG.com it lists runescape near the lower middle most popular online game, yet in the article it mentions that it is toprated.  Hope someone changes this/metions this.  --Darkfeline 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be in a new section at the bottom, but other than that, it's fine. The article says that it is rated "among the most popular", not top rated. It is currently the fourth largest MMORPG in terms of subscriptions - second largest if you were to count free players. "Highest ranked" on there means highest ranked among their users, which probably doesn't include many RuneScape players. Comrade Tux 04:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Um... why would we want a seperate article? "Criticism of" articles should be avoided like the plague, unless absolutely necessary to reduce page size. We don't really have a problem with page size. -Amarkov moo! 03:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it merits an article as much as Criticism of World of Warcraft does, as RS has even more active players, and a notorious reputation for being a less-than-perfect "starting point" for MMORPG players. --Hojimachongtalk 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But WoW is a lot larger, and thus has a lot more criticism. Creating a seperate article woul just lead to another AfD and perhaps another wave of scrutiny towards the RS series. Just extend the current section. If it ever becomes too big, then maybe look into making it a seperate article - • The Giant Puffin • 12:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WoW has 8 million players, while RS has 9 million players (according to the article). It doesn't merit an article (yet, mwahaha), but I'll be building an updated criticism section in my sandbox. thanks for the input by the way, --Hojimachongtalk 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About that... WoW has 8 million players, because having one account lets you create as many characters as you want from that account. Since each account is $15 per month, almost no one has multiple accounts. RuneScape, however, has 9 million characters, but many people have more than one character. (I myself have about 6, and my cousin has around 40.) Pyrospirit Flames Fire 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Runescape contains bad graphics, bad gameplay and is an all round bad game - why, given that people crticise the game, can we not mention that in the article? Waffle247 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who criticises it? Care to provide a link or two? And no, Gamespot-style player reviews aren't good enough because they ain't reliable sources, and half of them admit they've just been banned for rulebreaking. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You placed a sexual predators section in your entirely unformed criticism area?! Why in the world is attacking nonexistent areas of RuneScape so important to you?! This is BS! --SuperLuigi 31 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: TwitchGuru just released an article containing only critisism of runescape  slup 12:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but pure criticism isn't neutral at all, and criticism sections should be avoided in general. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, so Wikipedia has articles containing criticism in many of their articles. Heck, they even have one on Criticism of Wikipedia. While Runescape might not have as many users as something like World of Warcraft, it has some serious problems as a MMORPG and contain many implications and social consequences. Also, Runescape aims at a much younger age group, making it particularly dangerous to those young people with things like language abuse (don't tell me that the filter does anything, people just come up with new words/way to say things.); promotion of ideas such as violence(against other human players), gambling and stealing; a large portion of unfriendly/dishonest players that trick others for wealth(this is huge, having experienced it firsthand as a Runescape player for almost 2 years.) Those are just some of the points against Runescape. I agree that criticism might not be considered the most neutral thing to do, but with something like this, I think it will be a very informative addition to the article itself. Mad Munky838 04:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe RuneScape has been given (informally) the same age rating as WoW, et al. Much of the criticism you cite can be applied to any MMORPG, so that article is where you'll find it. There is absolutely no point in repeating it here. Same for PvP combat, I can't think of an MMO that doesn't have it somewhere, and the violence against humans is getting into the video game controversy debate (again, no need to repeat here). RuneScape-specific criticism must be cited to a reliable, peer reviewed source ("Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" - Jimbo Wales, on citing sources), such as a games magazine, and not random blogs, forum posts or Freewebs sites. So far, we've incorporated all we can find, and this article is rated as a Good Article, which requires compliance with the NPOV policy. This article is not supposed to discuss video game philosophy, just present an overview of one game. MMOs just aren't everyone's cup of tea. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to say somethings before I make my main point. 1)I apologize for sounding like a some kind of Jack Thompson (attorney)-esque video game critic, due to poor wording. 2) This is my first time editing a "good article", so I might be making a few fundamental mistakes here. Now, the criticism that I pointed out are significant because RuneScape is different from a lot of other MMORPGs out there. One, it is browser based requiring only a Java plug-in; two, it doesn't have anything to stop certain people from playing it (other MMORPGs require a purchase to start, installation on computer, high speed connection(for enjoyable experience), etc.) What this means is that anyone on any computer can access this game from anywhere with a connected PC/Mac. Which means that despite the "informal rating" (which I agree with), people younger than, say, 13 can access this game and are exposed to the content. The other thing is location, while other MMORPGs pretty much require you to play on computers installed with its software(often large for modern games), you can play RuneScape from any random computer. Thus, I think these criticism are relevant as RuneScape is an unique case. The thing is, I have been a RuneScape player and I have experienced some of those things that I pointed out. And I have seen 4th graders going to the local library to play RuneScape or playing RuneScape at school. While the reader will probably disregard my personal experiences, as Mad_Munky838 is not a reliable, peer reviewed source, does that make it less true? 193.3.95.240 gives a very good site from TwitchGuru, a part of Tom's Hardware Guide, I'm not sure if it is a reliable, peer reviewed source, but if it is (by opinion of other Wikipedians), I'll gladly cite it. Mad Munky838 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RS isn't the only free, browser-based MMO. Your points about being accessible from anywhere and so forth are valid of course, but mass RuneScape-specific criticism of this hasn't materialized. Most of the points raised in the Tom's Hardware Guide article are moot - it criticises features and trends present in pretty much every online game, such as monster fighting, levelling, PvP combat, gratituous hurling of the word 'noob' (ever played Counter Strike?), bypassing chat filters (rulebreaking), cheating (rulebreaking), scamming (rulebreaking), bug exploitation (rulebreaking), expensive rare items, internet addiction - sorry, but I don't see anything not present everywhere else, and i've never found it anywhere near as bad as the author claims, even though the game isn't perfect, IMHO. And one might as well blame Wikipedia for being vandalised whilst blaming the game for having rulebreakers. Oh, and none of us editors are reliable sources by ourselves. If we put our own theories in the article, that's original research. I'm not expecting my opinions here to be included in the article and i'd remove them myself if they were. The THG article does look to be peer reviewed, so if there are any RS-specific points to cite, go ahead. We're after Featured Article next which has a "comprehensiveness" requirement, so we need as much cited content as we can get. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with criticising this article, regardless of rating, just nobody's raised any concerns that the article is unduly positive. And tell your friends to get off RuneScape and finish their work! :-D CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently we are not getting anywhere with this discussion. Problems that I see: 1) As Runescape is featured as a Wikipedia:Good articles, people are reluctant to change anything dramatic about the article. 2) reliable, peer reviewed sources are extremely unlikely to focus on something like Runescape. 3) As there aren't enough sources on the Criticism of Runescape, any criticism about it is obviously irrelevant and should not even receive a mention in the Wikipedia article. Frankly, I give up... Time to stop wasting time on anything relating to Runescape. @CaptainVindaloo, thanks for the concern for my Runescape-addicted friends, but no amount of persuation can get them off of it. Sadly. Mad Munky838 00:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can see every other gaming article at some point mentions the quality of the graphics, except for Runescape which has a section for graphics but doesn't actually mention the fact that they are out dated. It seems very, very peculiar to me. Whatever the issue is, as Mad Munky838 has pointed out, it's not worth this much time and effort. Waffle247 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of it is the programming that RuneScape runs on.  the reason that games like WoW and Flyff have vastly superior graphics is that they are running on software that allows it.  Since RuneScape is Java-based, the polygonal shapes are probably all that can be achieved or allowed without breaking their user's computers. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, even though the java programming language page has a criticism section in it with negative points, we still can't add those applicable into this article. Well I give up. Read this article at your peril peeps - it's full of crap. Waffle247 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to provide a link to a negative review. Read the discussion above first, though. And sign your posts! Comrade Tux 04:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen a lot of reviews and discussion on Runescape and I must admit, the vast majority of it is very positive. The only negative item that keeps coming back is the Java-based graphics which, granted, have nothing on C based graphics but are needed to give the game one of its more positive elements - its online interface which is accessible from everywhere (barring firewall or port blockings). Nothing about age or anything at all comes up (when you think about it, some of the stuff on Newgrounds is more violent and disturbing than Runescape and is equally accessible... not to mention having better graphics). I do think the graphics are covered in the current article though - there is a section in there which gives several quotes: (paraphrased) "not the best graphics, but awesome game play and/or very easy to get at from anywhere". Darkelfpoet 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of RuneScape 

message: Someone archived by moving the page. This needs to be fixed. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would need the help of an admin, see section 7 and 9 at WP:MOVE and/or WP:CPMV. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up - I was the one who archived the page. I've just looked over the situation but I cannot determine what I have done incorrectly. Initially I waited a bit for someone more experienced to archive this page, but when nobody did, I decided to read WP:ARCHIVE and fix it myself. I carefully looked over the last five archives for this specific page, and the edits , , , , and  led me to believe that I should use the move procedure. It never seems to end up right when I do these things, but with WP:ARCHIVE and the conventions for this particular article, I am confused and would appreciate an explanation. It may have also been useful to have dropped a message on my talk page when you discovered the problem. On a side note, perhaps some sort of notice that explains how that specific page has previously been or is archived would be useful? Thanks - Audacious One 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems to be fine, although we should probably maintain a consistent method to avoid confusion.  Although I would like to note that the oldest archived were cut-paste archived. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: The following content was removed from the article:
:==Criticism==
:
:To combat cheating and the use of macros, Jagex has taken measures such as introducing random events that require immediate human response and providing safety warnings in the player trading system. In response to automated scripts, Jagex has banned over 20,000 accounts through a macro detection system. RuneScape chat filters have the ability to censor words and letter combinations that may be offensive to players. Other times they may block words that are completely irrelevant and harmless which may not be offensive at all. Players are often able to use intentional misspellings, leet, or symbols to bypass the filter. To combat this, changes are continually being made by Jagex to the filters to block offensive language and to prevent non-offensive words from being accidentally blocked. 	 
:Business aspects of Jagex have fallen under criticism. RuneScape has been criticised for not having enough free content or not updating the free content often enough. While RuneScape does have a considerable amount of free content, most updates and features for high-level players are limited to paying members.Jagex increased the size of the customer support team and expanded the online Knowledge Base to alleviate customer service problems.
I do not think a "criticisms" section is justified, though some of these arguments are valid, and could be incorporated in to the article, in other sections. --Hojimachongtalk 02:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content 

message: Well, as that last peer review didn't bring up much - Ed handled it nicely himself - I think it may be time for a Featured Article attempt. Checking the criteria, I can't see anything wrong, and there's nothing to lose of course. Thoughts? CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go For It! What's the worst that can happen? We find out what needs to be fixed? If Anything? Try it!  → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 12:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, definitely! On to FA! Pyrospirit Shiny! 14:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was kind of expecting people to call me insane, but oh well. According to Tony1 and Yannismarou, criterion 1a (well written) is a bugger to satisfy, and it's the only one I'm not completely sure about. They suggest getting in touch with experienced copyeditors or asking WikiProject League of Copyeditors for help (requests page). Again, I'm just not sure, and I know we went through this prior to GA, so we are probably fine. I'll give the article a read through, but someone else should too. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I gave it a read through, fixed some language issues (couple of redundancies hiding in there), made some clarifications, fixed a citation. Looks good, but it'd still be a good idea for some other people to have a look too. One thing I noticed; I think we could do with one more screenshot, for the graphics or community sections. I'm thinking the middle of one of the cities; Varrock, Falador or Ardougne; to show what the graphics look like in cities, the variety of player appearences and what interaction is like. Possibly even one from Castle Wars or something. Not essential though, just a thought. Any volunteers? CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Screenshot in Falador, World 2 would do nicely... let me go get that. Comrade Tux 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would hold that thought for a few weeks. Could you guys contact other users who may be of help peer reviewing the article, and possibly consult the League of Copyeditors before going for FA status? The FAC process is quite grueling for certain groups of articles, and that could potentially happen to RuneScape. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't mean to make people think I'm planning to add the article to FAC in the next couple of days or anything. Just that we've always been after FA, so I figured that we might as well get on with it. Not going to get it by sitting around firing SAMs at passing vandals. Now there's a thought... CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer one of your questions, yes, British English should always be used in this article. Pyrospirit Shiny! 02:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed Quests para 1!  → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: All that we have not tended to is the issue of the "original focus." If anyone can fix this...  → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be a problem with that, because not many people were around in 2002 (to know what the "focus" was), to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps it's better to get rid of the "focus" bit altogether, as it can't really be cited anyway. Comrade Tux 13:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to call in the copyeditors and sort out this Zezima thing ( tag, urgh) first, but yeah, we're looking good. Here's the diff since we got GA. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA?

message: I saw CaptainVindaloo's comment on WP:MMOG and thought I'd check it out.
* Possibly move the fourth paragraph of the lead section up? The first sentence of that paragraph is followed by the similar reworded sentence in the next paragraph, just three sentences away. 
* "On 27 February 2002, a membership service was made available, allowing players who choose to pay a monthly fee to access a variety of additional features including new areas, quests, and items. This service significantly changed the focus of the game." -- What was the original focus?
* "...however, they lose all but three most valuable items that they were carrying at the time of death." -- This isn't exactly true, as proven by the reference itself. 
* Move up the fourth paragraph in the combat section? preferably before "death." It seems out of place where it is currently. 
* I'm not exactly sure what, but everything after the membership section doesn't seem to flow well and reads a little boring. However, one such instance occurs when several consecutive sentences all begin with the same word. (RuneScape#Membership third para, RuneScape#Quests first para, possibly others with the use of "The")
* Is this article supposed to be in British English?
Good Luck on FA.
Squids'and'Chips 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer one of your questions, yes, British English should always be used in this article. Pyrospirit Shiny! 02:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed Quests para 1!  → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: All that we have not tended to is the issue of the "original focus." If anyone can fix this...  → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be a problem with that, because not many people were around in 2002 (to know what the "focus" was), to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps it's better to get rid of the "focus" bit altogether, as it can't really be cited anyway. Comrade Tux 13:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions, Comments, and Suggestions

message: We've dealt with all issues brought to us. 
We are satisfied with the quality of the article.
But do we try for FA yet or no?
If we're going to I'd say now is certainly a good time.
But Thats Just Me.
Share Your Thoughts With Me
 → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 11:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to call in the copyeditors and sort out this Zezima thing ( tag, urgh) first, but yeah, we're looking good. Here's the diff since we got GA. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is It Time?

message: Hey there! I've noticed that someone has created a Castle Wars article, titled Runescape castle wars. I've read a bit about the deletion policies but am confused as to whether or not it qualifies for speedy deletion (G4). I'm sure many of you are familar with these situations, so feel free to take care of it as needed. Thanks! --Vaporization 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes more sense to just put it in a minigame article. I don't think people reading this encyclopedia will need to know every aspect of the game. Mamyles 13:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a minigames article? If so, I can undelete the page and move castle wars to that page. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was. You get alsorts trickling in over time. That's why I patrol for rogue subpages as well as vandalism: search for 'runescape', and prod anything that isn't a redirect, one of the "approved" articles or about something else entirely. Try this one for size. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't realize it then, but it was a WP:CSD#G4. I have deleted it accordingly, and closed the AfD. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation of RuneScape-related page 

message: In the latest bullitin on cheaters from Runescape.Com, JaGEx asks that people DO NOT endorse sites feeding sweat shops in China. So, If anyone sees and ad for buying gold on any of our 'fansites', I think it should be removed per Jagex's request. It is their game we're talking about here.  → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"></Font> 12:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RuneHQ tried their best to rid of all rulebreaking advertisements, though it is near impossible. Every day another 10-20 ads are put on the site. They have now essentially given up, with over 500 sites on their banned list. If they could, they would. It's not our responsibility to be worrying about it anyway, this is just an encyclopedia Mamyles 13:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RuneHQ's ads are from Google, aren't they? Try complaining to Google and asking for non-RuneScape related ads. Even the damn frog is better than RS money laundering ads. This reminds me of the idea brought up here a while ago of emailing the IP addresses of scammer vandals to Jagex.  CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the fansites seem to be making an effort to remove the cheating ads. I can't see any on tip.it or runevillage. On runehq they are at least dramatically reduced and they say they are trying to get rid of the remaining ones. The only fansite linked here which seems to be DELIBERATELY running cheat ads is Zybez. Therefore the zybez link should go. It will help them anyway since they claim the reason they have to support cheating is because they are too big, and their bandwidth costs are too high. 85.211.177.190 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people profiting from Runescape are gold sellers. That's why Runescape-related sites are forced into a choiceless decision to either show gold-seller adverts or shut down due to server costs. There are of course adware, pop-ups, and racy (near-nude) advertisers who will advertise on any website- but those are mostly on TribalFusion (the advertiser network that Tip.it uses). All other fan sites use Google AdSense. Google AdSense has a 'block list' that we've repeatedly attempted to fill, but it only allows 200 URLs; and gold sellers change their URLs very easily and quickly. It's impossible to keep up with 50-or-so gold sellers who work full-time changing domain name urls to get past AdSense blocklists. And of course, legally Jagex Ltd has no say in what another independent website advertises. That would be breach of freedom of speech laws everywhere. --Zybez 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The ELs are for the top fansites, and Zybez is a part of that. The link shall remain. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; the point of an encyclopedia article is to provide information on Runescape, not provide information on Runescape minus the parts which the creators discourage. -Amarkov moo! 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict with Amarkov)Nishkid, I respect your opinion, but I think that your tone of voice (or your tone of writing) sounds a little bit too authoritative or absolutist. While I realize that Zybez is one of the top fansites, Poorleno et al. do provide good points about the endorsement of cheating sites on Wikipedia. Personally, I think that the site link should stay, since Wikipedia is not obligated to fulfill the wishes of other companies unless legal action is being taken. This is definitely something to think about, though.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for that. It's suspicious when I see an IP come to the discussion here and try to slander Zybez. Just to mention, Zybez is against cheating, as well. Zybez does not "support cheating", and the only reason why the ads are there are because of bandwidth costs. There have been a number of announcements telling users to just ignore the ads. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless Jagex actually says "it is illegal for sites to advertise runescape cheating" (which would never happen), there can't be any lawsuit, I think. There would be no grounds for a case. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about international or British law, but American law does provide for freedom of speech in the Constitution. Can someone help me out with figuring out British law?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL (especially not a British one), but I'm almost certain that Jagex can't possibly ban people from advertising cheat sites. They may be able to sue the cheating sites themselves, if they can make a plausible reason why the sites are causing them harm, but I don't see what couse of action there would be against people who just advertise the sites. -Amarkov moo! 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And off on a tangent, I apparently live under the least restrictive free speech laws on the planet. Yaay. -Amarkov moo! 22:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent plea from Jagex 

message: quote from http://news.runescape.com/newsitem.ws?id=789
It’s true... RuneScape has surpassed the Million Member milestone!!! 
It has been amazing to witness the growth of such a diverse and varied community of people. To have over a million individuals enjoying the members’ game for all kinds of different reasons is both hugely humbling and gratifying. It tells us our efforts are appreciated and we have you, the players, to thank for your support. 
We are excited by the challenge to continue to develop the game so it simply becomes better and better. Five years on and we are more passionate about RuneScape than ever. We’ve come a really long way and whether you’ve been with us from the very start, or if you’re fairly new, the incredible impact you have all had has helped shape the game into what you see today. 
As the world of RuneScape has grown, so has our desire to make it an even bigger, better and more entertaining experience. We are always looking to bring fresh new ideas to the game, and RuneScape’s development continues at full swing. We already have some very exciting development plans for 2007 and beyond! 
Thanks again for your support. Here’s to the future and the many adventures still to come! 
Andrew, Paul, Constant and the whole team
i think this is something that should be added?
--Zeebaah 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been added - the number was changed from 900,000 to one million yesterday in the article (the news was on the Internet before on the RS site). Comrade Tux 19:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What?!? I have long thought that the article read it as 9,000,000! What is the problem with wikipedia acuracy? Or, is it because I read it incorrectly, or the number was vandalised? Ok then, well, you learn something new everyday. I can now confirm my theory about Wikipedia being extremely popular. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 19:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine million is the number of free players, not members. Comrade Tux 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to JaGeX! Remember, be bold on Wikipedia! There would have definitely been no issues had you inserted the material with a reference in the article. =) Nishkid64 (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  04-May-2007 RuneScape reaches one million members! 

message: A section that lists the guilds in game was added at 19:28 UTC May 3. It has since been removed three times (1, 2, 3) and restored afterwards each time (1, 2, 3). Since this is becoming an edit war, I'm going to open up a discussion on the topic here.
In my opinion, this looks like a crufty list on a topic that isn't of all that great importance (many of those are deserted). Unless something is written about them that is sourced and shows notability, I think it should be removed. Comrade Tux 01:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A guild in RuneScape is not something unique to that particular game. Basically, it's just a certain place a player can go to once they reach a certain level or gain a certain number of experience points. This is not extraordinary. Every game has something like this; it has not received any notable media attention. Try to inform the user about this.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is called cruft which is what Wikipedia is not. Also, due to WP:3RR being broken, I removed it again. This section is not to be added without further discussion. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the fact that it goes against WP:NOT and it's crufty, the section needs to be written in prose form, not in list form. Even if it is decided to keep that (which I highly doubt), it would need to be written with sentences, and properly sourced. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for this list, unless RS is the only game ever that allows access to somewhere with a certain skill level. Let's not let these articles descend into edit warring, please. We'll be going straight to WP:LAME. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it should not be here as it is unrelated. You will receive uw-chat1. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, please see WP:AN/I. Admin accounts were compromised, and whoever was using the password hacker program got into these accounts and deleted the Main Page and blocked Wikipedia users. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[RuneScape#Guilds|Guilds section]] 

message: I know this is completely unrelated and should not be here, but.......
WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE MAIN PAGE?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?
Allhailthepowerofbauerforjackisback 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should not be here as it is unrelated. You will receive uw-chat1. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, please see WP:AN/I. Admin accounts were compromised, and whoever was using the password hacker program got into these accounts and deleted the Main Page and blocked Wikipedia users. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrelated

message: I would just like to point out that where it says...
With over nine million active free players[1] and more than 850,000 paying members
That Jagex has reached its 1,000,000 member milestone so that should say...
With over nine million active free players[1] and more than one million paying members
Thanks
--User:Tom140996 07:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the lead? That was actually changed and cited the day before they announced it. Comrade Tux 12:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly it should say 9 million accounts and 1 million member accounts as 1 player -> Many Accounts and it is the accounts that is measured (no way of measuring players for f2p or even p2p). Just looking for agreement before I be bold 82.13.230.233 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true. Multiple accounts is a common thing, so it would be false to say that there are 9 million free players and 1 million members, when there is some overlap between each. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. I myself have 5 or 6 accounts, and my cousin has around forty or so. Pyrospirit Shiny! 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't imagine many people have multiple members accounts, though. It would be a bit expensive considering that you can't use each one 100% of the time. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that is the case, we do not have any definitive confirmation that there aren't member accounts that belong to a single individual. Without that information, I think it would be safe to leave it as "accounts", instead of players. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members 

message: I feel it is unencyclopediac, but am unsure how to improve it.
~~Lazyguy~~I r needing userboxes plz! 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gameplay sections are encyclopedic when they describe how the game is played and what it is like - a mere game guide, with quest walkthroughs a la GameFAQs is not encyclopedic. I've removed the commenting out, as I can't see what is wrong with the section personally, and commenting out is not the way to deal with it anyway. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I put the Gameplay section in a comment 

message: One thing has stumbled upon onto my mind... Should we tell something about the inner system in Runescape?
By this, I don't mean how the game works etc. More like that how the trading process is done in-game. As the article only gives out the vital points on trading, where to trade, and that's like all about it. Not meaning to add an enomorous amount of information about just a single bit, but I think that we should tell at least that the trading economy in Runescape is actually very random, as the prices tend to constantly Change.
For example, at the moment, the prices are way different compared to like just 1 month ago. Raw Sharks would be a perfect example of this, but not necessary meaning it's the only one.
As Wikipedia articles tend to be comprehensive to all timelines (I think...), and to use current events in rare case, I think that it might be actually useful to tell that the economy in Runescape is very unique compared to most other MMORPG games. What do I think, is that if a person who has never heard about Runescape, comes to read this article, and would find out something about how the "life" inside Runescape is, it could help him or her a lot. ~ IS7 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added a paragraph on the economy in the community section a little after you wrote the above. It needs work though, as all of it except for maybe the first sentence or two is based on a forum thread that predicts an economic crash. I do agree that we need a bit about the economy, but it needs to be encyclopedic and cited to a reliable source. Particularly, we have to demonstrate that it's unique compared to other MMORPG economies, otherwise it'll hurt us at FAC. Comrade Tux 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That paragraph needs to be cited to a source that won't "disappear" from the forums in the next few days, as the citation isn't really a citation, and it most likely won't be around for long. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if posts to the forum did hang around forever, a player isn't a reliable source. Especially considering that people have predicted the demise of the Runescape economy for years now. -Amarkov moo! 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything needs to be cited, otherwise it's original research. We still need a citation for the economy paragraph overall, though, so if/when we find one, it would probably be applicable to those sentences too. Comrade Tux 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. For a common statement about the economy in overall, it's hard to find a "source" for it. After a reference is found for the vital points in the Community section, I will rethink would my statement fit for the citation. ~IS7 22:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Economy of Runescape 

message: +#1 runescape isnot a mmorgp "(rpg)" that still stands for }Role Playing Game{. as a "X" 4 year player/member of RS I can sure say it is, just a plan java game .No Role to pick.   No class's of player to decide on . some us do still remember 
old pen and paper D&D.
As for there being 1mil members ...no No way even give the GMT time shifts there severs couldn't handle 300k members online at 1 time thats easily proveable(ie player built houses when that update happened jagex had severs crashing left and right. but i can testify it is a highly additive ,never  ending ,java game with childish people playing it. rude and childish .  
on the rune scape mains page at the top it tells u how many people are online f2p and p2p lately it is not above 200k on a prime day and hour("just 1 and only 1 reason to pump these numbers)"Anyway, to your points. From the Wikipedia article on Roleplaying games: "A role-playing game is a type of game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories." In RuneScape, you assume, or rather create, the role of your character, and can follow a set story through quests, or create your own with skills. Being able (or not) to "choose a class" doesn't make (or not) a game an RPG, and even if it did, you could argue you can pick your class in RuneScape, you just have a hugely greater  flexibility in what that class is later in the game than any other game I know about.And 1 million members. To be honest, I'm not even sure what your point is about that. But it looks like you think that Jagex claim that they've had 1 million members online at once. They don't. They say they have 1 million paying accounts. They don't even say whether they mean individual people, or separate characters, some of which may or may not be part of a group of characters owned by one person. Logic suggests the latter.So anyway, looking at it, for someone who claims to be "glad to have somewhat of a mind back from this games grasp", as you put it, you seem to care a bit excessively about things about the game, or from their news pages. I don't know of anybody else who's quit that would claim, truly or falsely, that the number of people "online f2p and p2p lately it is not above 200k on a prime day and hour", or really, anybody that would even care. And what relevance it has to Wikipedia anyway, I don't know. --86.130.24.52 12:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, don't go responding in the middle of other comments please. Respond in your own section. Secondly, Jagex says they have nine million free and one million members ACCOUNTS. This statistic is not shown at the top of the page, and it is completely independent of the "players online right now" shown on there. And sure there are classes to pick, it's just done differently than in other games. Is that so much of a difference so that it's no longer an RPG? Comrade Tux 12:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not an RPG?

message: Where is this image from? I'm sure I've seen it before somewhere (otherwise I'd call it a user-made screenshot), perhaps in an old version of this article. Does anyone know the source, or can someone upload an alternative? CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only uploaded three weeks ago by a user named . In any case, it's a game screenshot, so regardless of whoever created the image, the tag would still apply. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K. I'll just call it a "cropped screenshot from in the game". My concern is that it's from some fansite. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even if it is from a fansite, I don't think they can copyright as their own. It comes from a game, and without that game, there'd be no image in the first place. Anyway, the image does look like it is in poor quality, so possibly re-uploading a new one and replacing it in the article would be a good idea. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I think about it, you're right. It's Jagex copyright and only Jagex copyright. A fansite would be using it under fairuse too. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Treespirit.jpg]]