Talk:RuneScape/Archive 20

message: I am creating a "Criticism of RuneScape" article at my sandbox. Please feel free to edit it as it develops; I am in desperate need of some good sources. And please, don't add a bunch of pro-RuneScape junk to the article until the main points of criticism have been established, it makes it much easier to write. Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism of RuneScape 

message: I'm trying to find a source for the information on the first paragraph onRuneScape#Interaction. Can this particular piece of information be verified?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try some of the fansite monster guides. I think the official kbase has a monster guide now, too, though I could be mistaken. That area of the site is down at the moment, so I can't check and see. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I practically checked all of the bestiaries. I might have searched for the wrong keywords, so I'd like to know who added this info and where s/he obtained it.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable? 

message: I saw a comment in the article that I should go here before changing any fansite links, so here I am! I brought up a valid point here about the current fansite links in the article, and I feel that we should act on this. The 1 fansite link was just a guideline, and we can be flexible with that, if necessary. I personally would like to see a 3rd fansite EL (Zybez) because Tip.it, RuneHQ and Zybez would definitely round out the top 3 most useful, and largest RuneScape fansites out there. Zybez has been consistently doing equally as well as Tip.it and RuneHQ week after week, and I feel that the site's performance should be taken into account. 
Also, note that the traffic rank compiles data from the last three months, and Zybez had the domain change for its forums less than two months ago. 
I think we definitely can handle the number of external links if we add just one more, and I see no foreseeable problems with doing so. Nishkid64 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think we can limit to these three fansites alone. They are the top 3 RuneScape fansites, and there really appears to be no others really close in contention (Sal's RuneScape Realm is pretty far off). Also, this should not be an issue to be brought up at PR/GA, because the 1-fansite statement is only a guideline, not a rule. In fact, it's been moved from WP:EL to WP:NOT, which was a bit odd to me at first, but it makes sense, since the main point of that 1-fansite rule is to prevent people from adding whatever fansite link they please. I think using these three alone would be fine, and would keep us conflict-free. Nishkid64 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, many of the people had previously objected because were using WP:IAR when we kept the 2nd link in. No one really seemed to mind my request at WP:NOT talk page, so I'm taking it as a good sign that this is a general guideline, and in certain cases, such as RuneScape, we can make exceptions. Nishkid64 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I have added the Zybez link. I think I made some perfectly valid points at WP:NOT and here, and so I think adding the Zybez link is appropriate. Reply here if there are any questions/comments/complaints. Nishkid64 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomorrow i'll update the fansite linkspam templates to reflect this new arrangement. They've been needing an upgrade anyway, being based on year-old versions of the standard  warnings. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upgrade complete. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansite link changes 

message: I have noticed multiple problems with the sources. Some of these sources do not seem reliable. Some may not even support the claim made! The main problems come from citations 2, 8, 16, 24, 25, and 26. 
Citation 2 "supports" the claim that Runescape is one of the most popular online games in the world.  It comes from 2004! Wonderful, 2.5 years ago. Claims like that should probably have recent sources.
Citation 8 comes from a fansite that does not seem reliable enough to support the statement it goes with. Please tell me where in the heck citation 16 tells us the capacity of Runescape Classic servers. Citation 24 is a review on GameFaqs made by some user. If it belongs as a citation ANYWHERE, it is in reception. The same problem applies to citation 25. In 26 it does not say we can turn off each sound if we feel like it. 
Now that citations are out of the way it is time for a section that just seems to be horrible. 
Criticism and response
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.[55] RuneScape chat filters have the ability to censor words and letter combinations that may be offensive to players. Players are often able to use intentional misspellings, also known as 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.[56]. In addition a number of Player Moderator's have been appointed by Jagex to assist the Jagex staff in reporting rule-breakers.
Business aspects of the RuneScape organization 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.[22] Jagex increased the size of the customer support team and expanded the online Knowledge Base to alleviate customer service problems.[57]
As with many similar games, RuneScape has been criticised for its repetitive nature, particularly in regards to building experience points.[58] Jagex has since introduced random events to help combat this.
The first paragraph is just how Jagex handles rule breakers. Paragraph 2 descries the business aspects of Runescape and that they have been criticized. My problem is that there are PRIMARY sources just describing the business aspects. Neither of those sources indicate that Runescape's business aspects have been criticized. Nothing seems wrong with paragraph 3...other than the fact that the sourced site is down right now so I can't check if it is appropriate. 
Also if you think I was a bit harsh in this review it would most likely be because of this from the GA crtieria:
Length
For articles longer than about 25 kB, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is often more appropriate than the process here.
Here is the checklist:
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
This article has failed to get promoted to GA. Funpika 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section you cited is horrible, and have removed it (I have contemplated doing so for some time). Ed has removed some of the dubious references you mentioned. Since the article passes all other GA criteria, perhaps a GA review is in order? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Passing article now. Funpika 14:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YAAAAY! :-D CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally! The mission I started last July has been accomplished! Good work, everyone! (I can finally boast that I have significantly contributed to a GA.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I miss the party already??? Well, I was busy...now on to FA!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I'm with Ed.  → p00rleno (lvl 84) ←ROCKSCRS 11:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA fail 

message: Shouldn't there be a section on the criticism that MMORPGs [not just Runescape] hinder teenagers social development in the outside world, and that such games can cause teens to 'have no life', or be so wrapped up in their online lives that they fail to notice their family. ><Lubadoo 12:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find all that elsewhere, such as in the MMORPG article. There's no point repeating it here. This article is about one individual MMO, not all of them. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It wouldnt be completely relavent - • The Giant Puffin • 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actuallly... Runescape is a very social game. The whole friend system only leaves losers without any friends.--X giva 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But can either you or Lubadoo cite any of this? It has to have reliable sources and follow a neutral point of view to be included. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 14:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hey should some one (perhaps me because i dont mind) put some or all examples of them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scrat55 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been pages on random events, but they were deemed Crufty and deleted.  → p00rleno (lvl 85) ←ROCKSCRS 12:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, going into too much detail will just lead to deletion - • The Giant Puffin • 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Events? 

message: Shouldnt runescape private servers at least be acknowledged of its existance?--Henry 21:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph about them needs a reliable, independent source (IE, not from the private server's own website), ASAP. I don't think anyone would want this article to be delisted so soon after getting GA status, so we need to get rid of that  tag, urgently. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Private servers isolate you from the rest of runescape, unless you get people to join the server. Whatever wealth you may just make appear, you cannot take into runescape proper. Private servers are really only useful for people to make videos showing off their ill-begotten bank accounts on Youtube. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.177.59.95 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest immediate deletion of that private server paragraph until factual evidence materializes. --SuperLuigi 31 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private servers 

message: I recently put a Navframe around the citations, open by default, that can be hidden by a viewer. This way, if a reader dosn't want to see all 60 citations, they can collapse them down to 1 line. Any arguments?  → p00rleno (lvl 85) ←ROCKSCRS 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navframe Citations 

message: i think a list of rules should be added to inform people that runescape is not a game deviod of law.
pures are not mentioned as i saw and maybe worth a word or two(i'm not a pure, just lame to me, i am a pmod though=) )Eatbetter 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, a list of rules wouldn't have any meaning to people who don't play RuneScape, and it would just be a random list. The article references rules already, anyway. As for pures, they're discussed in either Wilderness (RuneScape) or RuneScape combat, maybe both. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stuff that could be added 

message: if this game was never realased to the public how do we have pics....(btw, i'd like to play it)Eatbetter 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember right, Andrew Gower had a page (the URL of which I can't remember) that had information about his personal life and works. This was before RuneScape, and most of his older works (such as DeviousMUD) were showcased. Also, I believe it's one of the only instances a real-life picture of him was shown. If I remember the URL for this page, I'll link to it. EctoplasmOnToast 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeviousMUD 

message: Has anyone seen this?
I had no idea such a thing existed till I did an ebay search on RS out of curiousity. It might contain some info not found elsewhere? Then again, it might just be more of the same. Thought I'd raise it here anyway (and considering how cheap it is I think I'm going to order a copy anyway). QuagmireDog 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've bought it. It's ok, but focuses only on f2p and has no members info. I suppose the only thing it focuses on more than anywhere else is on the main rules. Woot. J.J.Sagnella 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well :( Even though it's not helpful for this article I'd like a copy for my shelf anyway, thanks. QuagmireDog 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape handbook published Jan 2007 - old news? 

message: I am quite unfamiliar with creating proper citations.  I have supplied a link to each one in this section that applies to the statement, but I think they need to be formatted differently.  Shimdidly 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Notable Users section should be deleted, how would this infomation help people who are researching on RuneScape? Firejunk 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good. or may be like a new page labled Famous Runescape Players. or something along that line /Firejunk 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user subpage would probably suffice, yes. The articles are intended for those who don't play, not those who do, and the notable players section wouldn't really help someone who doesn't. Comrade Tux 17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what's the point in the first place? Wikipedia isn't for cruft about trivial aspects of the game. Shadow1 (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, we dont need unreferenced cruft - • The Giant Puffin • 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Users 

message: The quests section has some sentences that look similar to those in this. The original quests section looks even closer to that link. It might be that the site has taken content from the article, but there is no mention of that on the site. Comrade Tux 06:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we reword the section a bit, then it wont resemble the link. The text was probably added ages ago, especially in the oroginal Quests article - • The Giant Puffin • 09:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issue? 

message: It's been 9 months since this infamous massacre on 6/6/06 and still no news of it on wiki.
May I ask when we will get this on runescape's wiki?
User: Guest
:Its not notable enough to warrant a place in the article. A minor sentence about it might be apppropriate, but nothing more. Once you start including information on that event, you open the door for more and more cruft, which ultimately leads to more AfD's - • The Giant Puffin • 09:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally in the Construction Article, but that lead to the construction article's cruftness and deletion. J.J.Sagnella 09:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 6/6/06 massacure is something Jagex does not want people to know, becuase, in fact, it was caused by THEIR own staff. Im not sure we should publish it on Wikipedia because it is impossible to get the truth on what really happened, im sure some people would disagree with that Jagex staff caused the massacure. I disagree with publishing it on Wikipedia. /Firejunk 16:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Falador massacre wasn't a conspiracy, it was just the mother of all bugs. You could say it was caused by Jagex staff in that they didn't test it enough, that's all. The day after, one of the Jmods posted on the forums apologising and explaining what happened, so it's not exactly a coverup. It is true however that without reliable sources (we might need better than fansites for this), it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, fan sites will not suffice, and I doubt any reliable sources can be found about the event. Until at least one is found, I dont think that the event should be mentioned in the article - • The Giant Puffin • 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been playing since ?-12-05 and never heard of a 'Durial Massacre'. What are you reffering to? --SuperLuigi 31 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Durial Massacre" was an infamous glitch in POH dungeons (if I remember correctly) that surfaced on June 6, a week after construction came out. Several players went to Falador and Edge and killed loads of people without retaliation. The name comes from the player who originally found the bug, "Durial321". Comrade Tux 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Stay on topic, please. Remember, this page is not a forum; it's a page for discussion of the RuneScape article itself. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durial Massacre 

message: Down the page a bit. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it doesnt say anything new...but maybe Eatbetter 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good source for RS being one of the most popular online MMORPGs.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, at least its reliable. An extra source cant hurt - • The Giant Puffin • 10:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New BBC News article

message: Should we file for one? It might help for FA (crosses fingers)... Opinions? Personally, I think we should always be filing for reviews...  → p00rleno (lvl 85) ←ROCKSCRS 12:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mission (getting RuneScape to GA status) has been accomplished. If you wish to collaborate to improve the article to FA status, count me out. Working on this article has caused me considerable stress, and I don't have the time to push for FA status. In addition, I wish to seek a fresh challenge: getting Neopets to GA status. This will be more fun, and will involve more writing, as I have played Neopets since 2001 and am pretty knowledgable about it. If you wish to collaborate with me on this mission, please contact me. I wish you all the best in your endeavours, and hope RuneScape eventually reaches FA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think another peer review is a good idea. We are closer to FA status than before, and a peer review might help us achieve the last few steps towards it - • The Giant Puffin • 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it. No point saying "lets get it to FA!" without knowing how. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, so it's decided, we'll get another... but call me a newb... I have no clue how to get one. oh my...  → p00rleno (lvl 85) ←ROCKSCRS 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PR nom has been filed!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Peer Review? 

message: If you look at the recent history, you will see that the GA template that Pyrospirit made was recently deleted. There's a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#GA_template if you're interested.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recently added GA template 

message: I've noticed a lot of not vandalism, but not good posts here in the past few days, and I'm sure you guys have, too.  How can we prevent it?  Protection would be going too far, in my opinion, besides a few of these people have accounts.  Any thoughts? DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are simply losing interest in editing this article. There really isn't anything to do until we get that PR in.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't lost interest in it at all. I've just been busy with school and homework and stuff. Now that I'm on spring break, I'll get back to editing a lot more. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 01:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have lost interest, for reasons stated two sections above. Nevertheless, I may leave comments in the peer review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping the talk page clean 

message: C'mon people, we all know there are many people out there who love Runescape, but there are also many out there that hate it and there are many flaws in the game that are not mentioned. It's competiters all have negative critasism scetions (or most of them do) but runescape dosn't. I feel really tempted to put up a nutrality desputed notice on this article, as it is extremly biased.--68.192.188.142 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , then. It's lacking criticism because nobody has yet found criticism in a reliable source, not because we like it that way. -Amarkov moo! 16:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We've included equal negative commentary alongside positive, and linked to all the reviews we've found. WP:NPOV does not require an equal number of positive and negative reviews - what if there are more positive than negative (or vice-versa)? It only requires that comments implying an opinion be cited to a reliable source, which they all are, and that we make no judgements of our own. We don't make our own commentary, we simply remark on that by other people. It would in fact be an NPOV violation to present our own negative criticism without a source. Just making a quick check of that section, I see negative opinions of RS's graphics (from a couple of sources) and unoriginality in some gameplay elements (from PCGamer). I'm sure I added in Just RPG's criticism of the magic system being "really annoying" once. Hmm. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rection scetion- reads liek an add for the game 

message: Im surprised at the lack of infomation on early runescape. Specifically, i find no early mention of Ian Gower (The 'Gower brothers' is mentioned but is regarded as just Andrew and Paul). Being an original beta tester of Runescape, i can remember Ian being around and contributing. Also there little to no infomation on the actual development of Runescape. I would like to see some sort of timeline incorporated to demonstrate how Runescape literally started as a 1 town game and then progressed. Currently the article implies the game VERY quickly went from beta to a massive membership game with loads of towns. This was not the case with development trickleing along at a rather slow pace initially. 
Further mention could be made about how ossible future updates have been continually half-added to the game only to be later withdrawn. Examples include new skills which appear in the player skills section only to never actually be implemented and also the original Player Owned Houses which were added pre-membership era but in a fenced off area before eventually being removed all together. 
I miss the days when there were only 50 people online, and seeing Paul or Andrew ingame was a daily occurance. --Reue --
:Do you have reliable sources for these things? You know they are true, and I happen to know that too, but content has to be verifiable by anyone. -Amarkov moo! 00:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try some of the news archives. They go back quite a while. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll be glad to see some of this. I only started playing in June 2005, but I've always wanted to know more about early RuneScape. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little infomation on early Runescape 

message: I am considering moving the page RuneScape locations to the name Gielinor. I'm posting this here since this is the most active RuneScape discussion page. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:RuneScape locations#Move to Gielinor so we can get an idea of consensus on the move. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible move of RuneScape locations 

message: A valuable and sensible resource for players, parents and educators may be found at http://www.truthscape.com Don't be deceived by the simplicity of the temporary page. A simple link at the end of External Links would be sufficient. 71.193.98.110 03:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, if we allow every link someone wants on the page, it would have like 200 of them. We're limiting it to the official site, and the fansites with the highest traffic. This is a new site that most people have never heard of, so it's really not significant enough. -Amarkov moo! 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request external link to be added 

message: should we add that leet is spoken by some players from time to time?
:No.  It's not that noteworthy in my opinion. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leet is spoken in lots of places, its no more apparent on RS than on any gaming forum. Its not notable enough - • The Giant Puffin • 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1337  

message: I've seen that the page has been protected for like how long, FOREVER. Are you considering unblocking the page? You should unblock the page for about a week and see if IP user induced vandalism is kept to a minimum. Sincerely,Wik2 15:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the page protection log. Whenever it's unprotected, mass vandalism starts almost immediately and it quickly needs protecting again (once within just two and a half hours). Nothing we can do about it. Don't even know why we're such a target. I mean, its just a computer game, not George W. Bush. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We tried many times. Each time, the results reinforced the belief that as long as the article is not semi-protected, vandalism and fancruft will overwhelm it. Since the article has already achieved GA status, and I am no longer working on it, I would not object if the article was temporarily unprotected. However, if you wish to aim for FA status (which I think is impossible), don't even consider unprotecting it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You will be able to edit the article in a few days, after which your account will have been around for long enough to edit semi-protected articles. However, a section on minigames would be overly detailed and uninteresting to someone who doesn't already play the game, so the section would be removed as fancruft. The small reference to mini-games that's already in the article is sufficient. However, the RuneScape wiki would certainly be interested in such detailed information, so you may be interested in creating an account there. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about article being semi-protected

message: Along with the RuneScape Wiki, we have launched the Dark RuneScape Wiki, a wiki devoted to the scams in RuneScape. Feel free to guide people there on scams or if they want to talk about them.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark RuneScape Wiki 

message: I t hink this is avery good article. It tells the exact info i wanted to know. I didnt know how to play runescape and i looked it up on wikipedia and then i became very good at runescape all because of this article.
--Zman564 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear it. =) Pyrospirit Shiny! 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runescape