Talk:RuneScape/Archive 9

message: Three general things which you should know when editing the RuneScape articles:   
* Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used. This rule applies to all other articles in the RuneScape Series. 
* Fansites- Recently all fansites have been deleted excepted RuneHQ becuase this is what Wikipedia's adminstrators and the rules say. For this reason no fansites can be added whatsoever apart from RuneHQ.
* All players of RuneScape are members.  There are two types of members - free ones, or F2P and paying ones, or P2P.  This is used consistently throughout the RuneScape series of articles.  Xela Yrag 08:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then place a clarification early in the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three general reminders 

message: Would a link to the RuneScape wiki be appropriate? I understand that it's a fan site and that only one fan site may be listed per consensus. However, the wiki is hosted on Wikia, which has some official connection to Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 00:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, only 355 articles?  It's not very big- perhaps later when it's bigger? --Rory096 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: When it's bigger, We'll consider it, but for now, no.J.J.Sagnella 06:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that - • The Giant Puffin • 08:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i also agree Rdunn 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  However, by posting and thus giving it more attention it may grow faster.Eugene0k2 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a vrystal ball, if it's not good now, it's not good enough to be put in J.J.Sagnella 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Jagex doesn't want people telling links in-game.  Wizrdwarts (T|C) 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wizrd, we are talking about linking to the Wikia from RuneScape's wikipedia article, not from the actual game itself.  Third party sites may link to other sites, but we cannot advertise the link ingame. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I meant. o_o 80.162.85.79 apparently thought Jagex did want people liking to sites anywhere. Wizrdwarts (T|C) 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia have nothing to do with Jagex rules, try quote wikipedia polices if you like to object GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me or is everyone misinterperting my posts? I have nothing against the addition of the RS Wiki link. Wizrdwarts (T|C) 02:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to ''RuneScape'' wiki? 

message: Lets talk about spliting the community section becuase it takes up a lot of space on the page. The main page of a topic should only include a breif overveiw of evrything. Not evrything in one page down to the last period.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Good (talk • contribs) 
# Agree Article needs shortning, and there's a lot more info that could be added to that. However, leave a link + Description to the page. p00rleno 14:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split community section discussion 

message: The Link on the bottom right corner of the RuneScape page to the RuneScape Wikibook is no longer valid, the resulting page states that the page has been 'transwikied' to the Stragity Wiki. I'd change it, but I don't know the proper page. It needs Fixing.... Poorleno 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Wikibooks Link... 

message: In the point about the chat filter, it says that misspellings like fauck and gai are common.  Both of there are no longer possible since the update, so I think there should be different examples.  There is no way for gay now that I know of, but the newest one with the advent of symbols is using l{ for "k", only it looks much better on RuneScape.  I still feel like this section needs more NPOV work.  IMHO, it still sounds like someone's list of pet peeves.  Xela Yrag 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So they're supposed to get your permission before they change their game?  Does GM get your permission before it changes its cars?  Does Sony get your permission before it changes the PlayStation?  They own it; they can do whatever they like with it.  You have the choice of playing it or not, based on their decisions.  Live with it or get a job at Jagex.  Oh, and sign your posts.  It's so immature to hide behind supposed anonymity.  Xela Yrag 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that criticism, perhaps more in the terms of "without considering the effect on players", such as the ill-feeling around pure essence, when honest free players had a good source of GP disrupted and members lost a cheap supply of essence. Other common things are the loss of favoured training spots due to safe-spot removal, or changes to the stats of monsters that used to be good training. Ace of Risk 14:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Error: That comment IS NOT accurate, users with member status have the ability to vote in the polls, which often define future updates. p00rleno 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Revised" Criticisms section 

message: I have removed the introduction to the graphics section - most of it is duplicated in the 'Criticisms' section. Also, parts of it seem questionable, with references to lack of support for 'next-gen graphics', or an inability to achieve a high standard of graphics as it doesn't required 'a download or a CD', and is played 'on the desktop explorer'. Cloak Reaver 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you upload graphics to this article? I'm a member so I would love to provide lots of pictures. (My second week here)Eugene0k2 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At one time, it had "lots of pictures" - unfortunately the only available pictures (other than Jagex's own "press pack") are "fair use" screenshots - though if Jagex had any problem with this, most of the fansites would be very dull places. Ace of Risk 12:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics 

message: I've been absent for months now, but I thought I would enquire as to why an article that is striving for NPOV is allowing fansite links?  Mike 06:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Section 3. J.J.Sagnella 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also on the subject of Fansites what happened to yours Shadowdancer? Wasn't it called something like Black Hole Experience? I can't find it. It was a very good site. J.J.Sagnella 06:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: That blank spot next to the top infobox is REALLY annoying me. Is it possible to insert a picture of the RuneScape main page in that spot as to make the article more visually appealing? If anyone has an image or knows how to insert it in that spot, post it both here AND on my talk page here. p00rleno 14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. MUCH nicer now. --Richard x 20:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugly White Space 

message: I was wondering if there could be a section for how to make money or merchant items in the game. For example, a copy of all the major companies in Runescape. It would fit under the economy section.Eugene0k2 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Way too specific for encyclopedia, we don't want to make any article sound like a game guide. J.J.Sagnella 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then is there any wikipedia related game guide for this article?Eugene0k2 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Like JJ said, we don't want to make any article sound like a game guide, no matter where on Wikipedia it is. If players want information for making money, they can visit the fansite we have listed. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merchanting Guide 

message: "making RuneScape the most popular online Java based game in the world. Jagex maintains 133 international servers, or worlds, for RuneScape and RuneScape Classic." It should say there are only currently 2 worlds availabe for Runescape Classic. Also the servers are seperate so it should say there are 131 servers for Runescape and 2 servers for Runescape Classic.Eugene0k2 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a player mod for about two years, and we do NOT have access to ingame materials (money, items, etc).  Even if we do contact JMods asking for ingame materials, we will be given a definitive "No".  Player Mods recieve no sepcial benefits ingame.  Second, Player Mods CAN be actioned against if they send in bad reports/mutes, and if it is done too many times, can have their player mod status removed.  Player mods are succeptible to punishments just like any other players. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am also a mod. But I think you misintreprteted what I meant by game materials. Perhaps I should of said game resources. Moderators do have better access to game resources since we are able to send queries to jagex. I also meant that if they send in a few bad reports here and there like once a week, they will not be actioned against. A normal player who would send in bad reports at the same rate would be actioned against.Eugene0k2 18:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, from what you had said I thought you were referring to actual materials ingame.  However, we should keep what the article currently has, as it is more correct than saying player mods aren't punished for incorrect reports - they are if it happens too often, just like any other player. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 02:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: Maybe there should be a link for all the forum moderators as well. We should try to incorperate as much of this article as possible with links because then it would better tie into the game. Eugene0k2 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would the benefit be of having a link to the page of forum mods? Players must be logged in to the forums and have membership to access the list anyway. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that kind of link is not allowed on Wikipedia. Dtm142 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link for all the forum moderators 

message: Shouldn't there be a section for quests?Eugene0k2 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It got deleted a few weeks ago, without going into incredible detail what could you say about it? J.J.Sagnella 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was one of the oldest aritlces we had, and I dont think it should have gone. But I dont want to bother to recreate an article only for it to be deleted again - • The Giant Puffin • 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that there should be a section for quests just summerizing what they are and what some of the major ones are. Quests are a moajor part of the game and are included in almost every update.Eugene0k2 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before it went, it had been condensed to just a list, after long battles over the amount of detail (eg. req's / rewards). Quest detail is well covered by fansites and the KB, but peraps room in the Community page for a "love quests / hate quests" item. Ace of Risk 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was fine as just a list of quests organised into difficulty like it was before. If there was any assurance it wouldnt be deleted I would make it again - • The Giant Puffin • 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section for Quests 

message: The community section seems to have been copied to RuneScape Community, as the template at the top of the section say. However, that article is up for deletion. Should the information be kept here or on a seperate article? - • The Giant Puffin • 15:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure on whether to keep it or not... It would save space.... If the article gets deleted, get the text back here. J.J.Sagnella 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we remove most of the text from the RuneScape article, shouldn't we be allowed to keep the second article since it was a split? It would remove the duplicated data from the main article, which looks like a main reason for it's deletion, although it's possible to condense most of the material and shorten it. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 02:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community page 

message: see WP:WIAGA, rule 5 states a GA must be stable, and with a lock on the page, that is an automatic fail.  When the Lock is gone, contact me via my talk page and I'll take a look at this article.  False Prophet 01:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Locked article to prevent vandalism isnt a sufficient reason to prevent GA status. I have lodge a disput of this review. Gnangarra 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Gnangarra. However, I do see some reason in keeping a locked page off because of the high vandalism potential, making it a 'bad article'.p00rleno 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, see WP:WIAGA, rule 5 says a GA must be stable.  A lock to prevent vandalism means the article needs protection to keep it stable.  If the lock is removed, and the article stays stable, then I'll reconsider my decision.  False Prophet 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Darned Vandals!!! :p p00rleno 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  To be blunt, you're wrong.  An article being stable means that it doesn't change from day to day and isn't a subject of edit wars.  Vandalism is irrelevant; since it's almost always reverted right away anyway, it doesn't change the article. --Rory096 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was just a joke... (hence the :p) p00rleno 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: thats true but when being reviewd for GA the fact the article was lock was the reason, GA is current reviewing criteria 5 . Gnangarra
There reason given for failed GA was in sufficient. After discussions on the GA/disputes page this article has been reinstated in the nomination list for GA at the same position it previously held Gnangarra 13:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: How do you upload images to the Runescape article or to any article for that mattee? I would love to put some images or video's into construction.Eugene0k2 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prepare your image for upload (crop, etc), then click "Upload file", on the left, in the toolbox section. See Help:Contents/Images and media. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Upload Graphics 

message: In the "History and Development" section, these lines are at the bottom in the Version 5 section:
...This is the current version of RuneScape being promoted by Jagex.
I have removed the hidden text, as it can be proven here, fifth paragraph.  If there is any reason to keep it there, please say so here and re-add it. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden line in "History" section 

message: Fixing the old ugly white space caused a new ugly white space next to the TOC...  I hope that one can be fixed without creating yet another ugly white space... The Saga Continues... p00rleno 16:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit Wars: The White Space Strikes Back. I'm so very sorry. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Theres now a gap at the top, before the writing starts. Looks a bit ugly, but better than the first white gap. Episode III: Return of the Gap. Hopefully we can solve this and get to Episode IV: A New Hope - • The Giant Puffin • 19:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a few years, we may end up with Episode I: The Phantom Formatting Error. Thank goodness there is no Wikipedia:No bad jokes policy. I moved the portal link so it occupies the white space next to the TOC. Looks OK to me but I'm using an odd resolution on the monitor i'm borrowing until I can get a new one of my own, so it may look horrid to everyone else. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me, good job. No more star wars jokes now though =( - • The Giant Puffin • 19:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right: let's get back to writing like Ben Stein speaks. :p p00rleno 18:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ugly white space... 

message: I nominated RuneScape for Good Article, along with three other articles: Chelsea F.C., Criticism of Microsoft and Gmail. Of the four articles, this was the only one which failed. Someone else had previously nominated RuneScape for Featured Article, but it failed, and several objections were raised. I hope to collaborate with other editors to address the objections raised so RuneScape can become a Good Article.
One of the main objections was the Criticism section. At the time of the failed nomination, the section was too short. I have since expanded it, and several others have expanded and improved the section. The section has been criticised for lacking references. However, most of these criticisms are player opinions of the browser-based game, and are unlikely to be documented in reliable sources.
Other parts of the article have also been criticised for the lack of references/citations. I think we should try and find some sources. Besides information published by Jagex on the main site, external reviews and news reports will be appreciated. Although fansites and player reviews are not reliable sources, they do have some merit.
Stability is another major issue which caused this article's Good Article nomination to fail. Things improved after semi-protection, but after it was lifted, the vandals returned. I propose that we permenantly semi-protect it, or semi-protect it at least for the duration of the Peer Review and the Good Article nomination. Most high-profile articles are vulnerable to vandalism and edit wars unless semi-protected. With the article semi-protected, established editors can work on turning RuneScape into a Good Article without worrying about vandals.
The article was criticised for having various POV issues and on occasions sounding like a how-to guide. I hope to work with others on resolving these issues, to ensure the article remains encyclopediac. It is currently comprehensive, but the information is badly presented. Hopefully, after the article is semi-protected, we can peacefully collaborate to clean up this article.
Other unresolved issues involve fansites and subarticles. The administrators decided that only RuneHQ should be listed. However, in the Neopets article (which I have also sent to Peer Review hoping to make it a Good Article), there are three major fansites listed in the appropriate section: PPT, Nothing But Neopets, and NeoItems. As an experienced Neopets user, I agree that these are the three major Neopets fansites. For RuneScape, most will agree that Tip.it and Sal's Realm are also among the major fansites, as well as perhaps RuneVillage and Zybez. In fact, other editors (some anonymous) have agreed with me and are re-adding links to those fansites. In addition, a link to a major RuneScape forum would be nice. Meanwhile, others have criticised the sub-articles, mostly for sounding like how-to guides, and being of much lower quality compared to the main article. I propose we work on them as well. Having played RuneScape since early 2004, I can certainly help with fact-checking and contributing information in an encyclopediac manner.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved this section to the bottom. New sections to the bottom please. And somehow I doubt you would believe this, but it's me and Aysz88 who made the decision on fansites on Neopets (I'm all about!)! We decided on actually four fansites, but the rule states one so we're slowly trying to get that number. (Or maybe just stalling at 3, Aysz88 agrees on the current way it is). The problem with fansites has been sorted and should be left at that. If we say take it up to 5, why not say, 6? And who is to say which 5? We can clearly say which fansite is #1 without any POV, so we should really stick to that. J.J.Sagnella 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sent RuneScape for Peer Review. This new section was intended for the Peer Review page. Could you possibly help with the Peer Review? I'd like to make RuneScape a Good Article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "We can clearly say which fansite is #1 without any POV,"  No, we can't, see the discussion above about the contestion of RuneHQ being chosen. --Snake712 01:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. They both need work.J.J.Sagnella 06:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Now could you participate in the Peer Reviews of Neopets and RuneScape? And could you possibly get more people to Peer Review it? We already know what the problems are. Now we need to figure out how to sort the problems, and work together to solve them once solutions are suggested. Many hands make light work. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape sent for Peer Review 

message: Most of the series of articles is basically a game guide. Also there are far too many pictures, I don't even know if it's fair use.
Remember, making inflamitory comments isnt going to help ANYTHING whatsoever, and it contains info, not How To items like RuneHQ. p00rleno 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More like a game guide than an enclyopedia 

message: Since prayers like Retribution can do damage, should it be noted in the combat section? p00rleno 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prayer in Combat? 

message: RuneScape armour is up for AfD . It should be kept because merging it into the main article would make this article far too long, and the armour article is a good one. Any guide-like text should be removed, not the whole article - • The Giant Puffin • 14:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: Rofl what is this? RuneHQ only? As far as I can see, when I search "Runescape" in google, Tipit comes up at the top, along with RSC, and many others. I like the fact Wikipedia gave a monopoly on RS fansite communities all down to just RuneHQ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.79.232 (talk • contribs) .
:Please see the topic at the top of this page. Bear in mind, Wikipedia tends to not use google, but instead traffic. J.J.Sagnella 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was decided some time ago to select one and only one fansite link for the article. Check the archives at the top of this page. This was after a collection of just about every fansite link built up in the article, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, it was decided that only a link to the fansite with the highest Alexa ranking (a measure of traffic) was to be linked to, although there are other deciding factors, for example, Tip.It has security concerns, after the hacking incident where their database was stolen. There is a discussion about this at Portal talk:RuneScape/Major Fansite. Please see also Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: The original comment on the feature article page said there wasn't enough "critical reaction". By that I don't think they meant there wasn't enough complaints, that's not what criticism means in a journalistic sense. I think they meant there wasn't enough citations from press 'critics'. So perhaps what we need is links to journalism articles (good and bad) from respected mainstream media. It's hard to find reviews that aren't just 'player reviews' and are from more established sources, but there are some around.
Here's some to get the ball rolling, this is from the Guardian which is a major newspaper in the UK:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1103882,00.html
Here's an article by the BBC. Doesn't get much more mainstream than this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4774534.stm
Here's a review by just-rpg
http://www.just-rpg.com/default.asp?pid=1209
Here's a short article from yahoo:
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/9096/the-rundown-on-runescape
RuneScape has also been featured in computer magazines like PCGamer, PCZone, .NET, etc.. It normally gets a fairly good response from critics actually, the only particular bad one I've seen was a quarter pager from PCFormat. Unfortunately the above are paper based magazines and whilst I have them in my collection it's hard to find online versions of the articles.
Runefire 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PCGamer reviewed RuneScape? When? Which issue? CaptainVindaloo t c e 10:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *rushes out to buy* - • The Giant Puffin • 13:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the latest issue, i've got that. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well for the UK edition, RS-classic (which was just RuneScape back then) was mentioned in the March 2001 issue, and then there was a longer article about RS2 in the December 2003 issue. Runefire 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Look up critic, critical, and criticism in a dictionary then, and you'll see what I mean. There's more than one possible meaning, and it seems more likely to me they were using the journalistic sense of the word. It wouldn't make sense for them to say the article didn't complain about the subject enough, I can't see how that's encyclopedic. (this is an encylopedia). However the first definition of critic in my dictionary is "One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.", and one of the definitions of critical is "Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment". Both of which would make somewhat more sense for an encyclopedia article. Obviously that INCLUDES analysis of what is bad, but it's more than just that. Runefire 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Reaction / Press 

message: There's somewhat bias appraisals and no critisms section. 
For example calling Jagex's macro detction system "state of the art", with all the macroers I see I'd say it's basic at best.
Superway25 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I doubt it's "state of the art", amount of bypass is not a measure of advancedness(made up a word there), it means that the macroers are as state of the art as Jagex's detection system.
If it is truly "state of the art" it should say so, otherwise change it to a more NPOV so it follows policy - • The Giant Puffin • 13:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jagexes macroing detection system IS quite advanced. Of course I have no source for this, but it has certain properties. I do think it would be correct to call it "state of art". Having seen (not played, so I might very well be wrong) games like FFXI and WoW, one does not profit as much from autoing in those games. And also from what I have heard, it uses the system of seeing if a player responds to a game mod. Of course, only my few cents, but I do know of some features of Jagexes system that are not that well known, and often kills those autoers. Clq 22:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I don't know if you heard the news, but someone found a bug in Runescape that allowed him to kill players outside of the wilderness. We don't have an article on it, yet. I think it would be *really* interesting to do a story on it. It happened on 6/6/2006 in the middle of the night. That meant the programmers had to get up in the middle of the night to work like crazy to fix the bug. Meanwhile the offender use his huge gang to kill everyone in sight. The 4-minute video is amazing-- everyone was running and scattered while he and his gang murdered. Looters came by afterwards to pick up the dropped goods of those killed. Lots of valuable party hats ect was lost. I'm going to work on this article, but if you guys want to help, I'm sure you've had more experiance. See: http://www.tip.it/runescape/?page=durial321_interview.htm
and http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yk1TAKASVco&search=durial
24.124.50.20 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a bug. Nothing more. If you look at previous debates it has been debated if this even needs a mention, yet alone its own article. In the big history of RuneScape this isnt big, and it didnt even affect that many people. Now, the pink party hat duping, THAT was big and had long term effects, and that I think is only just mentioned in some articles. No, we do not need an article for this, its not notable enough to be anything more than an article on a fansite. Clq 22:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There was an addition to the history section but it was removed by general consensus. It is not being ignored, but the Wikipedia community decided it was not noteworthy enough for the article as many users were not aware of its occurance. p00rleno 00:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Falador Massacre of 2006