Talk:RuneScape/Archive 10

message: An article RuneScape_Private_Servers is currently being written by myself and others from a large Private server community - I propose we add a link to this on this page as it is fully legal and a very popular thing to do.
it would have to be at the bototm of the article, to be non-intrusive.
--MasterEagle 05:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Servers link 

message: The Construction article is up for deletion. Its an important article and needs to be kept - • The Giant Puffin • 07:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I voted for keep. Nathan M 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I beg to differ. Sorry, but an article for an individual skill is a little unnecessary, it would be much happier in RuneScape skills. We really have to get some of these subpages reorganised, no wonder we're getting hit with AfD's constantly. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article RuneScape skills is already heavily oversize, i cant see how much "happier" it could be suit inside. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure some stuff can be cut out. There is no need to describe in minute detail everything that can be done with construction (indeed, such would violate WP:NOT). I have yet to recieve an objection to using the RuneScape.com knowledge base as references in RuneScape armour, so we can link to that if anyone wants the details. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is perhaps the most important skill in recent times, so I think it deserves its own page. The sheer amount of information means it cannot be put in RuneScape skills, which is alreayd too long. People keep moaning about the articles being too long, so we make sub-articles and then summarise the main article. People then nominate the sub-article! How are we ever going to sort this out if this keeps happening? - • The Giant Puffin • 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As skills are not worthy of individual pages per skill, divide up the skills into the sub-categories listed and use the sub-categories as pages. That would be COMBAT Skills (attack, mage, strength, defence, hit points, range, pray), GATHERING Skills (mining, woodcutting, fishing, farming), COMBINING Skills (cooking, smithing, firemaking, runecrafting, construction, herblore, fletching), and MISC. Skills (slayer, agility, thieving).--Nuke-Marine 01:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction AFD 

message: I am suggesting that we should relink the RuneScape Wiki back.
Many RuneScape skills article are being deleted for a reason "there's an even better article on the RuneScape wiki", however there is hardy seen a link to the RuneScape wiki is found in runescape related wikipedia articles. As those articles are already being deleted, therefore i proposed to add this link. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I havn't seen anyone really objecting to linking the RS wiki when it has been mentioned before, its not really a fansite, so you might as well. You might consider using one of those funny inter-wiki links (eg, Meta Main Page is m:Main Page) rather than an external link. Unfortunately, I have no idea how do do this for the RuneScape wiki. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it: Main Page linked by wikia:runescape:Main Page. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see a problem with linking to it - • The Giant Puffin • 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with linking to it.  In my opinion, it's better than linking to a fansite. Dtm142 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So to sum up, we're having the RuneScape wiki link and RuneHQ? J.J.Sagnella 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "RuneScape Wiki" link 

message: Where are we getting the information that the realm that RuneScape is set in is called "Gielinor"? Did Jagex release this?
24.229.135.128 20:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's some theory of different realms, such as demonic etc, I don't think it is officially confirmed, and therefore should be taken out. (It was discussed on the RuneVillage forums a month or two ago, it may have come from there). Anyone else agree? Nathan M 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was wondering about that. Not me or anyone I know has heard the name Gielinor. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, disregard my last comment. It is officially confirmed, by letters 16. From the official site: This realms name is in truth Gielinor, yet is called RuneScape in the common tongue by it's inhabitants. Each kingdom hath its' own name such as Misthalin, Asgarnia, and so forth. (Letters #16 - Guthix Dispels Rumours). Nathan M 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure that the name "Gielinor" is also mentioned in game, although I'm not sure where I heard it. Probably some of the quests involving Guthix or gnomes. 88.9.75.142 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup, talk to the void knight in port sarim who will take you to the island. J.J.Sagnella 18:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just noting that during the new quest (Lunar Diplomacy), First Mate 'Davey-boy' says the phrase "What in Gielinor are you talking about?" Nice touch by Jagex there =)  Nathan M 08:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gielinor? 

message: See: special:Mostrevisions
Right, protection for this article is positively needed now. The article passes Hurricane Katrina on the highest edit list to 6th. This is just getting silly now. J.J.Sagnella 15:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is awful. RS is going to overtake Hitler and then Jesus Christ. Does this now qualify RS as the most vandalised article, since the top 5 articles are about more well-known and researched subjects? Hyenaste (tell) 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand it. RuneScape isn't massively controversial like Jack Thompson (attorney) or Scientology, nor is it an obvious target like any Featured Article, or Wikipedia. Not even the other MMORPGs have a serious problem;  is only hit maybe once every couple of days,  has been hit only twice in the last month (not counting a linkspammer) and  has had five attacks in the last fortnight. All of those are just as well known, if not more well known, than RuneScape. But this article is still vandalised much more than any of them; I count 7 attacks on the 9th July alone. Fortunately, the Tawkerbots got most of it, but it still makes a case for permanent semi-protection of heavily vandalised articles. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aye, aye captain! totally agree with you. Semi Protect, Semi Protect, Semi Protect!!!! p00rleno 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops i tought it was the names of the editors, it was the articles. Irfanfaiz 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape article 6th most edited on Wikipedia 

message: Should we add sub pages for this new feature? Irfanfaiz 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's a good idea. Its just a quest, and a minor one at that; an article would be AfD'ed quicker than you can say OMG. It certainly deserves a mention in the security section in this article, however. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One, its a minigame so a mention should go in RS minigames and i agree bout the security section. p00rleno 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't class it as a minigame. In the Knowledge Base, it's found under the "Safety & Security Guidelines" section, but it's not mentioned as a minigame. I would just add it in the security section. 88.9.123.245 20:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stronghold of Security 

message: It seems there is a sort of misplaced link directing to an article relating the RuneScape fishing skill just above the box with all the other RuneScape related articles. Considering that currently those articles are being considered for deletion, what should we do with this fishing one? I'm new to editing Wikipedia and clueless on this. This article has been created today and only has revisions by one user. Banim 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what frustrates me. All the stuff in that article is already in RuneScape skills. That user has also created Runescape Cities, a clone of RuneScape locations. There's no wonder the subpages are out of control. I'd actually go as far as including those articles in the AfD, and pointing the editor in the direction of the RuneScape wiki, where he/she would be happier, and their obvious expertise not wasted. Someone else also created Stronghold of Security, after it was brought up here (see above), included in the main article and in RuneScape locations. In preparation for the new subpages, I'm going to make a quick guide to what is and isn't fancruft in template form, based on Wikipedia:Fancruft. I'll throw in a reminder not to use shorthand spelling  while I'm at it. Judging by this incident, a template message for directing users towards the RuneScape wiki may be sensible too. Sorry if this rant was a bit harsh on anyone. :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The article had already been deleted afd, so i speedied it. While I was at it I went for the other article as it was just liftcruft. J.J.Sagnella 15:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishing article 

message: The RuneScape series has gone up for deletion again.  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination).  I encourage all of you to vote on this. Dtm142 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, the nominator has a bloody (sorry) good point saying they are mostly unencyclopedic fancruft. The subpages are completely out of control. We should really start pointing people towards the RuneScape wiki. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, some are way too specific. Theres even a Security Stronghold one! I really think that people should have to ask the community before creating new sub-pages in this series. It just makes it look worse, and doesnt help when it comes to afd - • The Giant Puffin • 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series up for deletion again. 

message: Crossposting at Portal talk:RuneScape and Talk:RuneScape
In preparation for new subpages to replace these fancruft filled ones, I have written a template message to be placed on the Talk: pages of the articles (with maybe a commented message at the head of each article). As this is potentially controversial, feedback and opinions are pretty important. The message is located as usual, in my Sandbox, although I may shift it to another subpage sometime. If you can see anything wrong with it, go ahead and change it. I am making this to try to prevent a situation of an overwhelming amount of fancruft, as we have seen with the current set. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you starting this back up?  Wouldn't this be better left up to fansites instead of an encyclopedia?  Makoto 20:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this article needs some subpages, just not as many and not as fancrufty as the current lot. The template's purpose is to cut down on the fancruft by reminding people to avoid it, if and when new subpages are made. The RuneScape subject is a lot bigger than most people think; its history at least goes much further back than most contemporary MMOs. A couple of subpages are needed for exactly the same reasons as other MMOs. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: History is one thing, and that I will agree on.  Guides for each skill, item, and NPC is another thing entirely.  Personally, I don't think it would be worth all the effort to go and create more subpages for much of it, since that really isn't Wikipedia's job.  It may need one or two, but I wouldn't want it to get all preachy like it is now.  Makoto 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of this template is to try to prevent the problems you have just pointed out, so no worries! :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fancruft template - need feedback!

message: Would it kill anyone to go through the entire wiki and start adding quotations for what you know to be fact/findable on RS?  Kind of depressing to see such a huge article with only 13 or so citations.  I've started to do a handful, but there's a long way to go.  Makoto 22:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already had a go at that, on RuneScape armour. Why is everyone so scared of the Knowledge Base? Not like there is any better source anywhere. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Beats me.  Besides, that's the only place that I really have been using for citations, so the flags that say  would be ones that I couldn't find there.  Makoto 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Inline Citations and References 

message: I know I have fixed this at least 20 times.  I even added a hidden text message to explain why there are 133 servers and not 132 or 134.  What do we have to do to keep this correct???? It is driving me crazy.   Lord, love a duck, people, please!  There are 131 RuneScape servers and 2 RuneScape Classic servers.  There is no world 126.  I don't know why this is true; I only know that it is true.  Can we please STOP THE INSANITY, before I lose my everloving mind?????  I apologize in advance if I step on anyone's toes, but Jiminy Christmas, people, just read before you edit.  Xela Yrag 08:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, any time someone changes it, a little bot should activate that corrects it and sends a stern message to the person's userpage alongside a picture of Xela cackling wickedly with a large butcher's knife in her hand... Hyenaste (tell) 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a plan to me.  Hye, you set that up, okay???  Xela Yrag 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''RuneScape'' Servers 

message: i think that the entire series on RuneScape should be moved to the Runescape Wikia...
--Jontsang 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few people share your idea Jonathan Tsang and have sent the whole lot to afd to be deleted and sent to the wikia. Fortunately they have survived both AFDs and will stay here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination)J.J.Sagnella 15:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to runescape wikia 

message: I bagsy the term rogue subpages. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape glitches. Why on earth do people create separate articles on the most minor of RS subjects, that are already covered in other pages? CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you wikilinked the word bagsy as I had no idea what it meant. >_< Hyenaste (tell) 23:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And another

message: In the begining it states that characters can travel though coal carts but in reality they can't.
:They can be used to travel to Keldagrim. Banim 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Traveling Error

message: The fan site link to RuneHQ should either be removed so only official sites are linked, or other major fan sites such as Rune Tips and Zybez should be linked to. Why does only RuneHQ have a link? Mathias-S 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've said this time and time again. Wikipedia's rules state only one fansite can get linked to FULL STOP. (Or PERIOD if you're American). J.J.Sagnella 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, only one fansite can be linked to.  Not "one fansite has to be linked to.  But we've been down that road one too many times.  Makoto 21:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan site link(s)

message: I remember adding that a while back, and now it's gone.  Any reason why?  (On top of that, the 13 fledgling citations that this entry had is down to nine.  Any reason for that, too?)  Makoto 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would be surprised to learn that for years, people were told by Jagex that there would possibly be a system to allow players to submit their websites, and possibly earn an offical status.  This was in the old version of the FAQ on the website.  Since RuneScape is currently declining the Wayback Machine's services right now, I can't find that exact source. But many other players have seen it and know it to be fact.  Makoto 19:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I can second that. I saw that in the deep corners of the old runescape main page manual. J.J.Sagnella 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also remember a J-Mod posting in the official forums that this system is not going to be implemented as they don't manage those websites and don't want problems with players' accounts. Seeing as how some of the most visited fansites had have several problems regarding hacks and passwords issues, I'm not surprised. This is one of the reasons of why Rule 11 is so strictly enforced in game and forums. I think it was also mentioned that players would think the selection of fansites is biased. I don't think the post in the forums is available now, as I saw this some months ago, but you can trust my word. Banim 22:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism:  Fansites

message: There is some pornogrpahic vandalism that I would love to fix but I am not qualified. WOuld someone else be able to do that ? Kevlaw
:At a glance, I don't see it. Could you please be more specific? Hyenaste (tell) 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been removed by the looks of the page history, another 'clever' anon. making 'witty' edits. Oh well.  QuagmireDog 08:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornographic Vandalism 

message: *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape Private Servers
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape Items
-- Chris 73 | Talk 06:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For once, I think these two articles should be deleted. RuneScape Private Servers is possibly cheating, and even if it wasn't, a small mention in the RuneScape article would be sufficient. RuneScape Items is just a horribly-formatted list copied from a website. If one can create an encyclopediac article on RuneScape items, all the best to them! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree to that. Rogue subpages sums them up quite nicely and reposts probably sums them up as well. J.J.Sagnella 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't the RuneScape 3 beta server or Private Server story a popular password scam? CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: AFD