Talk:RuneScape/Archive 22

message: I'd like to note that it's difficult to archive much here because old discussions are brought up a lot. Please make a new subheading for the new discussion unless it's directly related to the old one. Thanks, Comrade Tux 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

message: i think there needs to be a storyline about rsc, and everything its been through, theres a petition going around, many people re-developing, and how rs2 has effected rsc.
rs2 players seem to forget graphics aren't everything...
this is runescape, which includes rsc and rs2...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.221.99 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you suggest in more detail how we could expand? Keep in mind that we have to avoid original research and everything has to be verifiable. And sign your posts! Comrade Tux 05:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSC 

message: I've done an SVG version of the RuneScape logo in Inkscape by bitmap-tracing it (I also corrected it a bit to make it look more similar). Is it acceptable to use it on this article? And if so, what template should be applied - Template:non-free logo or Template:trademark (I probably will never understand all of these anti-legal-trouble templates)? Also, I suggest that the logo could go to the "title" field of the infobox and the "image" field could contain a screenshot, perhaps of a new character on Tutorial Island. [ Litis :: Talk to me ] 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if converting it into a different format constitutes "modification" or not - if it does, then I guess it's not allowed on here, although I'm not all that familiar with copyright law. It would use the non-free logo template if it were allowed, as the trademark template is only for instances where there's trademark protection but no copyright. Comrade Tux 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: it only says good things about runescape, like how it is free to play and educational, but never says any bad things, like how many players scam and insult others and how bad the graphics are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Level 3 river troll (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scamming and insulting is common to all games, not just RS. The graphics are mentioned in the reception section. If there's a review out there that has RS-specific points, feel free to provide a link, as we need to be comprehensive anyway. And sign your posts! Comrade Tux 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Lack warnings about scamming and player behavior? The most I could see being written on those topics without going into original research or a game guide is two generalized sentences that would read similar to "scamming/hacking/immature behavior occurs in RuneScape." Comrade Tux 03:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The bot point is invalid, as RS is the fourth biggest MMO out there in terms of subscriptions, probably second if you counted free to play. Bots are going to go to RS over minor games because RS has way more players, and therefore, way more people to buy gold from them. There may be some substance to the scamming point - but it can't be included, because "every player seems to be..." is original research. As for the game's younger player base, who says it was always like that? From what I understand, back when the game was small, there were many more older players than there are now. Comrade Tux 03:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: True. Another reason is reliability. I've seen player reviews on Web 2.0 games sites that give RS 1/10 (or something) because the reviewer admits that they were scamming, and were banned for it. A professional games review, either in a magazine or a staff review on one of the big gaming sites (ie, not freewebs.com/nn-person123) will be peer reviewed; proof read and edited by fellow professionals to ensure factual accuracy, reliability and so forth. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is so biased 

message: I would like three new subheaeding
1)   The creation of a DeviousMUD subheading and paragraph in the article Runescape.
2)   RS Classic - It's a different game, seperate article. Otherwise create a subheading and paragraph.
3)   Future, Runescape 3, however not officialy confirmed from Jagex, include future speculation. Fan hopes. Jagex unconfirmation, e.t.c.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.185.102 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2007
:# DeviousMUD is only three sentences, not worthy of a subheading in my opinion.
:# RSC doesn't need a separate article or subheading. It is the same game in essence, even if there are many changes to the way it's played. Mentioning all that falls into a game guide or fancruft.
:# RS3 isn't happening. Would be completely unverifiable anyway. Comrade Tux 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeviousMUD, Runescape Classic, Runescape 2, Runescape 3... 

message: I see a new frame appeared onto the section regarding rules and cheating, and this frame shows the pictures of all the crowns of the moderators found in Runescape.
However, the image doesn't look like a good point of use from my point of view. It just has white background, and the quality isn't a charm either.
I was thinking that maybe we should move the crowns next to the words stating about moderators. White crowns should be moved next to "Player Moderators", green crowns next to "Forum Moderators", and gold crowns next to "Jagex Moderators".
Comments? ~IS7 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's my image =S. The crowns are each only 13x11 to start with, which doesn't result in a very high quality when they're enlarged. We agreed not to have more than the present amount of material on mods, however, so as to avoid going into a game guide, and inline insertion of images probably wouldn't work. A different image could be put in - maybe one of a J-mod and P-mod talking at the same time? A J-mod in the game would be hard to find, though. Comrade Tux 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might work, since I have seen an employee moderator in game before, and I probably took a screenshot.  But what purpose would that serve? (I might just be missing the obvious though) SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would show how moderators are identified (at least in-game). Would probably be cropped to show two or three lines where mods are talking. Comrade Tux 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but we would need to make edits onto the picture anyway. All the names would need to be cleaned out, and even the discussion by them must be somehow not very personal or private, otherwise the picture won't be accepted. ~IS7 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderator crowns on Rules and Cheating 

message: I've noticed that many of the supposedly 'reliable third-party sources' cited in this article (in fact, more than half) are from Jagex (the owner of RuneScape) or the RuneScape site, as well as a few smaller fan sites. Many of these therefore are not valid credible sources for the RuneScape article as they are not impartial or third-party. Onionguy92 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a problem with that. If it were material in the reception section that was cited to Jagex or a fansite then there would be a problem, but would you suggest how else we are to cite things like server location or combat mechanics? Comrade Tux 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What Tux said. Ignore all rules, use common sense. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I've heard some rumours about a third version coming out with wayy  better graphics. True?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.21.1 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There's always "rumours" about this, and Jagex always denies they are doing it. I'm certain I saw an article in the Knowledge Base saying that once, but I can't find it now, and seeing as it doesn't search for the number 3, I doubt I have much chance of doing so. I'd go on about reporting people who say it and crap, but I can't be bothered. --86.137.118.240 12:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't going to be an RS3. It was posted on their corporate site some time ago they were looking for people to work on their "new, undisclosed game" and that "an interest in sci-fi was a plus". They took it off their site a few months ago, though. Comrade Tux 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The "RS3 beta" trick is a rare password scam. I saw a few links to an "RS3 beta click here lololol!!!!1" site spammed over a few articles a few days ago . That's the problem with browser games or browser-based transactions; anyone with MS Frontpage can create a convincing hoax site at a free web host, but the truly frightening thing is people fall for it after being repeatedly told not to. Actually, anyone think Jagex would like to hear about it? CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Runescape 2 was created after Jagex made major upgrades to the game engine itself. Runescape 3 would probably need a new game engine, and Jagex is no way going to mark a Runescape 3 as a milestone, due to graphic updates. Runescape 3 is just a rumour at the moment, and there is currently no given information by Jagex about it. ~IS7 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RS2 was considered a new "major version" because it changed gameplay, graphics, and the engine. The engine has already been upgraded again since release, and they're slowly implementing graphical updates, but the gameplay is fairly stable. I don't see the triangle and such being done away with any time soon. This is supposed to be a discussion about improving the article, anyway, not about future/speculated updates. Comrade Tux 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape 3? 

message: I think that this article needs a section for http://www.runescape.com website itself. What I have came across onto, that this article is mainly talking about the game. Many people interested onto MMORPG information, might be also interested no, how is the website managed along with the game, or does the game have a website at all. ~IS7 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, the official forums and Knowledge Base are mentioned, which I think are the most important parts of the website. The community section as a whole might need some work, though. Comrade Tux 22:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A section about Runescape website 

message: This article could definatly use this section added, as others (The_Realm_Online) have it. Loads of things could be mentioned. The 6.6.06 House bug, Item copying (Story of P.hat), etc... Just for another little interesting section. --Iatchi 19:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a section would be unencyclopedic. Other than of the players of the game, no one wants or needs to know anything about glitches. Wikipedia is not a game guide; however, the RuneScape wiki would welcome such information (at the articles World 111 Glitch and party hat duplication glitch). Comrade Tux 19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, there are no reliable sources for glitches in this game, so they can't be included anyway. -Amarkov moo! 20:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What they actually did was to encrypt the traffic between the client and server. Not sure if the extra detail is necessary for the article. Comrade Tux 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug, Exploits, & Glitches 

message: Did you know that there are some specific spots for the random events in rs? I have found almost all of them except the Freaky Forester which most people say are from Varrock west bank. An example, you can get full camo easily in the catacombs, so im asking people to retell their experiences of where they got it and what they were doing when they got it. This will help me to improve the data on Random Events on runescape wikia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.178.86 (talk • contribs).
:Sound like WP:OR to me, which means it shouldn't be included in the article. (Besides, that would be fancruft.) Since it doesn't have to do with Wikipedia's article on RuneScape, this discussion should not be here. By the way, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. Pyrospirit Shiny! 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research isn't forbidden at the RuneScape Wiki, and there's no such thing as cruft (AFAIK). I don't see anything wrong with this, although true; the question would be better asked at WT:RUNESCAPE. Is there a page on RSW where we could answer?  CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Events 

message: I've seen this game ridiculed as often as it is praised, for things like repetitive gameplay, poor community, and having to pay to access the complete game. Perhaps these should be touched on?--209.243.31.233 11:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Links or journal references please. Remember, we can't add our own opinions, we can't add opinions from public comments sections at games sites or from random freewebs pages, repetitiveness is a generic fault of MMORPGs, and complaining about having to pay for the full game is slightly silly, considering almost all MMOs have a pay-to-play service, and many are P2P only. Their operators have to make money somehow to pay wages, bandwidth, server costs and so forth. Poor community is subjective and very hard to judge (I've seen positive opinions of the RS community from professional reviewers). CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "...and complaining about having to pay for the full game is slightly silly, considering almost all MMOs have a pay-to-play service." Actually, look at the Adventure Quest article and tell us that. Free games do have criticism, even if it is silly. It would kinda be biased to not ahve it, just because it's silly, right? I've head this game ridiculed almost everytime it is mentioned. Having no criticism page is like saying the game has none. If you spend time on World of Warcraft, you'll find just about everyone playing that game hates Runescape, the same goes for other MMORPGs, even Maple Story. I've seen professional reviewers ridicule the game, who hasn't? The amount of times this article has been vandalised has shown how much people dislike the game. Now, I can tell you are a fan of the game, I'm not saying I am or not, but I would expect this from any gamer, a slight bias to the game. A criticism section NEEDS to be added to any game with significant criticism, this game, we know has it, and it would glorify the article not to contain it. Here's what we hear, either this: "Runescape is horrible, but it's free," or "Runescape is a game without criticism." The latter, we read from this article. ANYONE will say Runescape, even for it's time, has horrible graphics, sound, etc, and you know people have criticized AT LEAST that aspect. IronCrow 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have criticism. It's not in a section titled "criticism", and it's not the "OMG R00NSCAPE SUXORZ" you seem to want, but it's there. -Amarkov moo! 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I said *almost* all MMOs. World of Warcraft, EVE Online et al charge a small fortune a month to play the game at all. Of course players of other MMOs ridicule every other MMO. It's called rivalry. Part of human nature. A friend of mine is a Sheffield Wednesday fan, and as a result he loathes Leeds United. If you only ask players of other MMOs their opinions of RS, what else do you expect? No amount of telling everyone that all professional reviewers everywhere ridicule the game will change the fact that they don't; the professional reviews we've found have been positive overall, and yes, they remark that the graphics and sound are nothing special; go and have a look at the Reception section. Put it like this, would you rather have mediocre graphics and a two-minute download of the game client, or fantastic graphics and a two-hour download? And the day we start warping articles to the whims of petty vandals is the day I leave Wikipedia. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: This article keeps being vandelised. I think it's been like 5 times in 2 days! Should there be a temporary admin-only protection so the vandals may step off? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 00:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think full protection would do much, as most of the vandals on this page seem to only vandalize once or twice, even if they aren't blocked afterwards. Besides, there doesn't seem to be anything in the Wikipedia:Protection policy that allows full protection for heavy vandalism targets. It could be worse though - the last time the page was unprotected, there were 9 vandalism edits in 16 hours. Comrade Tux 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think permanent semi-protection is the best option for this page. It's very highly vandalized, certainly, but it's not unmanageable. Full protection would prevent us from editing and improving it, too! Pyrospirit Shiny! 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Full protections always work on Wikias when there's a vandal problem. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, it will not happen here. No page but the main page gets full protection or vandalism. --Eyrian 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the RS wiki there are a hundred times more sysops per user than there are here. It may be feasible there, but here there simply aren't enough admins around to full protect everything that gets moderate vandalism. Comrade Tux 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This seems rather annoying... 

message: I am the author and publisher of a website called TruthScape that includes dozens of comprehensive articles on safe game play, and exposing RuneScape scams, lures and other issues. I think it would be a valuable reference to readers of this article, but am not sure if me putting a link to my own site is considered fair, so I'd like if someone more objective could take a look and decide.
For reference (and disclosure), I am the author of the two articles in footnotes #56 and #59 in the main page on RS; I did not add those links, however. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleskoz (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential useful reference for this page. 

message: This article gives a spin on the idea that Macroers and Real-World Traders cannot ever be stopped, with comments such as "Nevertheless, real-world trading and macroing activities will still continue."  It would surely be more correct to say "Nevertheless, real-world trading and macroing activities have still continued."
Secondly, this article mentions nothing (unless I am mistaken) of the thousands of accounts banned due to breaches of the rules in this way.  It almost seems as if those who macro are being left allowed to break the rules according to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last sentence in that paragraph originally read "In the statement, they also said that they were seizing billions of gold and banning thousands of accounts every week for cheating; real-world trading and macroing activities continue, however." It was changed to the current version about a month ago. Apparently nobody noticed the word "will" in there until now =S. Comrade Tux 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a similar vein, can we remove the comment stating which program is used to macro with?  Although a comment relating to macroing itself seems fine, I don't think we have a reliable source stating that they are definitely using SCAR-like programs (after all, we can't be sure what sweatshops use, and they are the main trouble areas).  Also, it pretty much breaks the rules of the game, possibly getting players banned, if we promote the use of, and link to, a specific client.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true, I've done that as well. However, the article (SCAR (programming language)) is still there. Comrade Tux 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules section problems 

message: Gielnor is not the official name of the land that RuneScape takes place in. Gielnor is the name the land is called by the RuneScape God "Guthix", only people of that 'religion' call it Guthix.
Confirmed by talking to a Void Knight and asking about Gielnor.
We should remove this, most of the NPCs in the game refer to the land as "RuneScape", not as "Gielnor".
156.34.186.37 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The History of the World of RuneScape, a knowledge base article with a stated bias of being from the perspective of Misthalin, has the lines "in a world like RuneScape", "in the land of RuneScape" and "the kingdoms of RuneScape" but makes no mention of Gielinor. --Joshtek 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gielnor 

message: I think the page for RuneScape private server needs something done to it. Dude902 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game guide. Unless private servers meet the notability criteria in some way, there is no need for an article about them, or a mention in this article for that matter. Comrade Tux 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I meant someone should probably delete it, which it seems has already been done. Dude902 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RuneScape doesn't even have private servers... ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand, a RuneScape private server is when somebody copies RuneScape and edits it into a private server. They're illegal, breaking copyright laws.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Burn N Flare (talk • contribs) 07:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For our purposes, it doesn't matter whether they exist or not, the point is that they don't get an article. Talk pages aren't discussion forums. Comrade Tux 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Runescape private server" 

message: Well people, after a long break, i'm back. First post in a while: Do we think clan chat will merit anything more than a line or two?  P.S. If the function isnt mem only, im gonna make a group "Wikipedians" for chat. Will confirm after update.  → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might. It all depends on what they decide to do with the chat system; if it amounts to remaking it in an IRC-like model, then it would definitely be worth mentioning. However, if it's just something on the side, say, in that unused space in the interface, then a short mention (if any) should suffice. Details like that are never given in the behind the scenes, I guess. Comrade Tux 22:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to add that during the whole third-party client debacle a few months ago, I believe Andrew said that they were working on major changes to the chat system, so I'm inclined to think it would be a larger change rather than a minor one. Comrade Tux 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think it's important enough to add. We should put in a chat paragraph under the "Interaction" section. Burn N Flare 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia chat group confirmed--SIGN UP HERE Under Username P00rleno... just enter that to get on...   → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to announce this on the Runescape Wiki  → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"></Font> 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RS wiki has their own channel, though. Comrade Tux 21:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. It's "#rswiki". --ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clan Chat *Amen* 

message: Are you freaking kidding me? I'm sure we can get a better picture of runescape combat then that. It may seem trivial, but the one up now is just idiotic. 66.69.122.185 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always make an account and upload an image yourself. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 03:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat Picture 

message: *Zezima 
 Keep - Last post in 7 August 2007, active.
*Fansites
 Keep - Last post in 5 August 2007, needs to be left open because the comment in the external links is often questionized.
*Moderators
Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, issue solved.
*RSC
Archive - Last post in 2 June 2007, probably not going to have an expected reply.
 
*Images
Archive - Last post in 5 June 2007, probably not going to have an expected reply.
*this article is so biased 
 Keep - Last post in 7 August 2007, even if it wouldn't have a purpose, it's still active.
*DeviousMUD, Runescape Classic, Runescape 2, Runescape 3... 
Archive - Last post in 16 June 2007, solved.
*Moderator crowns on Rules and Cheating 
Archive - Last post in 23 June 2007. Something needs to be done about this, hopefully everyone intending to make the article better already knows that the crowns need a touch of a new image.
*Sources
Archive - Last post in 18 June 2007, solved.
*RuneScape 3?
Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, there is absolutely no need to discuss about a game which doesn't exist.
*A section about Runescape website
Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, I've noted the issue and don't feel a need to keep the discussion open. I'll try to do my best.
*Community section
 Keep - Last post in 4 August 2007, an ongoing issue.
*Bug, Exploits, & Glitches
Archive - Last post in 26 July 2007, it will be rebrought if it is noted again, no need to keep as it is solved at this point.
*Random Events
Archive - Last post in 25 July 2007, and even if worthy, uncyclopedic.
*Criticisms
Archive - Last post in 9 July 2007, a comment from an IP, not going to have an expected reply.
*This seems rather annoying...
Archive - Last post in 12 July 2007. Vandalism is annoying, it is probably noted, and this is at the moment too old to be kept.
*Potential useful reference for this page.
Archive - Last post in 19 July 2007, the current consensus is to allow only the 3 major fansites of the game.
*Gielnor
Archive - Last post in 29 July 2007. We are trying to make the article as valuable to the readers as possible, and it should be not related into any "in-game" religions at all. As far I know, Gielinor is the only description used to view the world of Runescape as. I don't think this needs any further changing.
*Time for another Peer Review?
 Keep - Last post in 1 August 2007, too new for an archive.
*"Runescape private server"
Archive - Last post in 4 August 2007. The article is deleted, no need for this comment anymore.
*Clan Chat *Amen*
 Keep - Last post in 6 August 2007, a recently added feature, worthy of a section for now.
*Combat Picture
 Keep - Last post in 4 August 2007, it's not too old, and there might be a chance for an expected reply.
*My opinions on archival
 Keep - It might be useful for some people, knowing that some comments got just archived. ~Iceshark7 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is though, many of the "keep" sections are the longest ones, so all the "archive" sections only add up to about 35KB. It might be worth waiting a little while so that a bigger archive can be made. Comrade Tux 04:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If we archive Zezima, Fansites, and this (we can just put a little note about an archive being created) along with the other outdated sections, then we can get 60KB off this page, which is good enough for an archive I think. Zezima is just going to generate more comments continually as long as it stays here, and we can deal with the fansites issue as you suggested. It would probably be a good idea to provide links for the Zezima and old fansites discussions for a while in case there are more comments to be made. (Oh, yes, and the whole thing is going to be archived as usual, we're figuring out what should be copied back, sorry about the wording. =S) Comrade Tux 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Perhaps we should archive all of the messages at once - If there is an urgent need to revive a discussion, then feel free to do so. ~Iceshark7 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Random Opinion: We should use Werdnabot !!!Edit: One of the bots created from!!! to autoarchive it by last timestamp.  → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My opinions on archival