Talk:RuneScape/Archive 4

message: The Below is old Discussion. If you feel anything below needs to be commented on, bring it up in the RuneScape Talk Page. J.J.Sagnella 08:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Please Peer Review
Place Comments Below
RuneScape  is an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role-playing game) implemented in Java, with over 4 million active players. RuneScape was launched by Jagex Ltd. on January 4, 2001 and offers both pay to play ("P2P") and free to play ("F2P") membership options to players. RuneScape allows players to develop many different non-combat skills ranging from runecrafting and mining to cooking and crafting. The large range of non-combat skills means that RuneScape has an expansive, dynamic player economy. Being implemented in Java, RuneScape requires no installation and can easily be accessed from the official site.
RuneScape is set in a medieval fantasy world, similar to "Guild Wars" or "EverQuest", where players control character representations of themselves. As with most MMORPGs, there is no overall objective or end to the game.  Players can explore, form alliances, earn gold coins, perform optional tasks, and complete quests for rewards and to build character's skills.
During peak hours, it is common to see around 170,000 players online across the 115 international servers located in five different countries, with a peak in excess of 185,000 simultaneous logged-in players reached in early February 2006. Up to 2,000 players may be on one server at once, allowing a maximum of 230,000 online players at any one time. These servers are called "worlds" in RuneScape. These servers are located in the United States (79), the United Kingdom (18), Canada (6), the Netherlands (6) and Australia (6), making it the most popular online Java based game in the world. RuneScape is usually updated once a week, with the addition of new skills, quests, areas of the map, items, or other details added to the imaginary world.
Nominated By:H-BOMB 21:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I believe RuneScape is not even close to that level and may never be due to the fact that the article is not that stable with many anons adding information in poor grammar and spelling which some of the time is not even right. The whole article still needs cleanup, needs to cite more references, and right now it reads like a game guide due to the fact that it constantly assumes the reader plays by using "you" rather than "players" and many spots that will be completely unfarmiliar with people who do not know the game added by people who do. The article also needs to be made smaller and the whole what articles do we need and what do we not need sorted out. I am going to create a To Do... list soon which I hope might help. SandBoxer 02:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Runescape Featured Article Idea

message: The whole of the RS series is up for deletion here. I encourage all you scapers to vote Keep with good arguments and reasons to do so. We provided a good series of inforamion for Wikipedians, and it shouldnt be deleted -  • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • T | C 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series deletion 

message: * I really don't give a flying frisbee what J.J. Sagnella thinks; I will be readding the link to the Black Hole Experience at regular intervals.  I do not agree with the so-called "decision" to keep the vaunted "top 5" fansites only, as stated below there have been issues with some of those sites trying to steal passwords and cause other problems with its users.Mike 22:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I'm sure that quite a few fellow Wikipedians play RuneScape as well, so I made that template. :) --Ixfd64 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new Babel template - {{tl|user rs}} 

message: As Jagex who produced the game are British, and Runescape was created in Britain, shouldn't it have British Spelling throughout? J.J.Sagnella 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: any good sites? Shadin 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i need a map 

message: Just have a look at this and see, Runescape Community. It is a stub about a website which fails to get a mention here. J.J.Sagnella 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created an AfD entry. You can express your opinion about it here. Someone42 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we can't, because Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote.  They'll probably be able to express an opinion, though. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneeded Runescape article 

message: *In "Weapon specials", this user added "25% of special", "100% of special" etc. Not being a RuneScape player, I did not understand what this meant. If someone could explain to me exactly what was meant, then I'll re-add a clarified version.
*In the same section, a paragraph claimed the Dragon Hatchet was a non-combat weapon, although it could be used to fight. This seemed like a contradiction to me. So is the Dragon Hatchet non-combat or not? Or is there some RuneScape definition of "non-combat" that needs to be added to the article?
*About the Dragon Hatchet: "the price outweighs the risk of carrying it into the Wilderness" - is the price high, or is it low? Specifically, how does its price outweigh the risk of carrying it into the Wilderness?
*About the Seercull bow: "This rare weapon is not to be found in the wilderness as the risk is greater than the reward." Is obtaining the bow in the Wilderness too risky, or can the bow simply not be found in the Wilderness?
*From "Ket-Zek": "Reaching this monster requires either using many prayer potions and wasting a bit of time, or ranging the 180s from the "Safe spot" conserving prayer potions saving food and time." I'm not really sure what "ranging the 180s from the Safe spot" means.
*From slang section, "Baiting": "wearing a valuable item/asking to take into Wilderness." What does "asking to take into Wilderness" mean? I'm guessing it means wearing the valuable item and going into the Wilderness, so I'm editing the statement to reflect this. I might be wrong, so feel free to correct it (or me).
Someone42 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some weird edits (by 65.2.135.217) 

message: At a resolution of 800x600 in Firefox 1.5.0.1, the RuneScape series box mashes into the table of contents and confines it to a small, thin box. This creates a lot of whitespace below the infobox. I've tried experimenting with using , but this just squashes the start of the first section (Overview) in the small space between the contents and the RuneScape series box. What other ways are there of arranging the TOC/series/infobox boxes to be slightly less conflicting? Someone42 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrap that, I figured out how to force a break. Someone42 10:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of TOC/series/infobox 

message: Seeing as it has become clear that there are people who do not agree with the RuneScape series (enough for it coming damn close to being deleted), I thought a practical solution (as merging the articles into one would be impossible) was to create a RuneScape Portal. I put a request for it on Wikipedia:Portal, as I do not feel capable enough to create one myself. Plus I thought we would need a general concensus to create one, as the RS series would have to be moved there and extended. Comments? -  • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • T | C 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape Portal? 

message: Do people think the 'official affiliates' and the 'reviews' sections of external links actually add to the article? The reviews are massively out of date and are in fact reviewing a game which doesn't even exist any more, and to be honest there are many other better written reviews of RuneScape out there. (although also sadly out of date). Furthermore I'm really not sure how the official affiliates links are helpful at all, as they are just rebranded versions of exactly the same page as the above link. I'd vote to get rid of those two sections and so just have links to jagex.com and runescape.com at the top, and then the top 5 fansites already listed. What to people think? Note this isn't a discussion about which fansites to link to, but about the other 4 apparently abitrary links. Runefire 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other external links 

message: Wikibooks is in need of your help. The article Runescape is in need of a cleanup. Guides have insufficient information, some guides have no info even. If you want to write your own guides or quest walkthroughs, go to Wikibook's Runescape article.
* And this I why I don't want the RuneScape Series to go to WikiBooks. J.J.Sagnella 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibooks Runescape 

message: *I would like to propose that the criticism section be deleted. There is no way that a criticism section sould be written in NPOV, and it has no actual bearing of the core information of RS. --Driken 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section? 

message: Can we have a final consensus on what fansites you want on the list.  We have many people posting fansites and I really don't know what the consensus is. Tawker 14:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: * I do not see the need to list the highest level monsters in Runescape. The single highest monster would be understandable but the current top 8 seems to be a bit pointless. The section continues to list 8 of the more well known monsters in runescape. This should be a summary of monsters in general and perhaps a single list instead of descriptions of the particular monsters the write seems to fancy.
* My apologies if I did this incorrectly. (first time "talker") Ciao. --Christn 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monsters 

message: * This section seems to be a mess. While it is helpful, it's lack of proper capitalisation and consistency makes it a bit of an eye-sore. Perhaps making the terms bold and sticking to all lowercase letters for terms and uppercase letters for abbreviations would help.--Christn 22:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-game slang and terminology 

message: I think a new section listing helpful players or players telling about themselves or: a new section having links to runescape players user talk should be created. Either way the should be a new section.--Hilotsunami 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. J.J.Sagnella 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Have already made hard work to their website getting high-traffic and high Alexa ranking. J.J.Sagnella 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It just simply wouldn't work. It would be too long, people will lie, it is not helpful, it is not appropiate for an encyclopedia. J.J.Sagnella 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I got an idea. I'll add the category of Wikipedians who play runescape to the Runescape category J.J.Sagnella 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This way you can find out people who play Runescape and Wikipedia. J.J.Sagnella 20:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I linked it to.... J.J.Sagnella 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you go to the Category Runescape, there is a subsection called "players who play Runescape" or something like that. Click that. J.J.Sagnella 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't think of any way of doing it better. If you have a better idea, do say though. J.J.Sagnella 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nah. If people are that dedicated to finding other people the least they can do is do another click. J.J.Sagnella 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Think logically. How many people would want to do that? Anybody who would, would probably know where the link is. J.J.Sagnella 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And they can. The list is now linked to the category and is easier to find than before. J.J.Sagnella 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section? 

message: Anything specific that needs to be cleaned up? Or do we need to clean up pretty much everything? - • The Giant Puffin • 21:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: Do we really need these sections? Having a miscellaneous section means heaps of writing because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of miscellaneous items in RuneScape. This also applies to useless items. There are loads of items that are useless for one reason or another. I was going to remove these sections, but I would atleat consult people on this page (seeing as more people look here than the RS items talk page) before doing so. I propose their removal because:
#Both these sections can include hundreds of items, causing the page to be way too long - which is exactly what we are trying to prevent.
#With the miscellaneous section, all the items do not fit anywhere. If there was a need for a listing of the items there, we would have a relavent page or section within a page about them.
#In regard to the useless items section - if they're so uselss, why would we need to know about them? And how do we decide if they are useless? If an item has a single relatively-useful use, is it automatically not useless?
#The list is currently, and probably always will be, incomplete. Having an incomplete list isnt much help - especially if it is about something that is literally useless.
I'm for a "RuneScape quest items" page, as long as there is a lot of information about the items - and that only important items are listed - • The Giant Puffin • 20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's a fairly pointless list, and half the things on there aren't even useless. Vimescarrot 07:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree also, it's a very useless list. J.J.Sagnella 07:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape items - Miscellaneous/Useless items sections