Talk:RuneScape/Archive 17

message: * Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used. This rule applies to all articles in the RuneScape Series.
* Fansites- Wikipedia's external links guideline is that one major fansite may be included as an external link. As fan sites all offer similar information, an effective measurement must be made to decide which is the most appropriate to list. The method that contributors believe is the most effective is by Alexa ranking. However, Alexa recently has proven that the difference between two fansites is negligable. RuneHQ.com and  Tip.It are the lowest-placed (most often visited) by Alexa rank and are therefore listed. For more information on this, plase click here and for information on why more fansites than one are being used, see the discussion below or in the archives. 
   
* RuneScape Wiki - Ok, I'm advertising the RuneScape Wiki, but it's probably a good idea.For those of you who get your edits reverted with such nonsense explanations like "cruft" or "linkspam" or whatever, you might want to check out the RuneScape Wiki. To put it plainly, your edits are more likely to be appreciated there. Hyenaste (tell) 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Reminders 

message: I've seen a couple edits of dates being "wikified" lately, and I'd like to point this out.  Try not to pipe the links to appear as a certain way.  The Wikimedia software automatically changes dates to appear as a user has set them in their preferences panel if they're left normally.  Piping the links (eg. December 21 causes them to display inconsistently unless they're all formatted that way.  Here's what one paragraph from the article looks like.  The first date is normal, the last two are piped:
..site started on September 26, 2005 and has since become one of the most accessed pages of the site. From 24 September 2002 through 9 December 2004, players could..
See what I mean?  Either we pipe all the links, or we leave them all for the software to display.  For now though I suggest we leave them unpiped, unless someone has a reason to do so (Does the "This is a British game" reason apply here?) I don't mean to point fingers here, but see this edit as an example on the first line modified - 4 January is the same as January 4 - there's no need to change them in that type of case, as the order in the code doesn't affect the end output to the user.  I know this is a bit nitty-gritty, but we need to have consistency for FA/GA.  Unless anyone objects, I'll unpipe most of the dates sometime tomorrow.  Agentscott00(talk) 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops... That would have been me. Go ahead and change them back, I didn't know it appeared differently with user preferences. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 04:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unpipe them - • The Giant Puffin • 10:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked through all the linked dates in the article, and I think Agentscott00 unpiped all of them. Now I'm going to try making all the linked dates consistent between each other, i.e. all XX Month Year instead of Month XX Year or Month XX, Year, just so they all look the same. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of the nitpicky people might point them out though while looking for consistency during a GA/FA nomination though.  Just for consistency, not much else.  Agentscott00(talk) 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits of dates 

message: It has, this article used to be good, about a year or so ago, but it's just been getting badder and badder.. Now it's garbage. It's a horrible article now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.190.37 (talk • contribs).
:And what do you suggest we do to improve it, o wise and all-knowing critic? J.J.Sagnella 08:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a lot better than before. Mainly because vandals like you havent been able to get your hands on it as much - • The Giant Puffin • 10:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anons make me laugh...  → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS     12:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's amazing how far this article has developed in one year. What was an ugly duckling page has finally become a truly briliant page. J.J.Sagnella 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for my brother writing that, He doesn't know what he's talking about, you can just go ahead and erase this useless talk. Roast Beef God 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is getting better every day. Really, we've seen remarkable improvement over the last year. I don't see how you can honestly believe that it's gotten worse. If you think we don't have enough info, go to the RuneScape Wiki!!! --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 05:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. We have had significant improvement since the first request for FA in June.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 05:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, remember to at least be CIVIL to everyone on Wikipedia, even if it is some anonymous IP user. Nishkid64 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor article 

message: ...Have A Happy Christmas and a Joyous new Year. 
J.J.Sagnella 11:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you too. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merry Roast-beefmas.  ♂ Roast Beef God ♂  10:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merry Christmas! Everyone who has contributed to RuneScape deserves a Christmas present (anonymous vandals excluded)! I'll post a new section on what needs to be done before RuneScape becomes a GA. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reducing the size of the photo. It still serves its purpose anyway. =) Happy Holidays, everyone!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 14:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Merry Christmas, everyone. And a happy new year too. :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Get RuneScape to FA. :-) Happy New Year everyone! CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To everyone helping this article being so great... 

message: This guy made a request at WP:AFC, and has since created the article (actually, taken the redirect), despite the problems I had with it. I don't really feel comfortable doing anything, seeing as the AfD was a year ago, so if someone else could? -Amarkov blahedits 06:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "this guy"? Andrew Gower himself? I doubt that Andygower is Gower himself. His contributions include vandalism to Jagex and Andrew Gower. As for the article, if Gower's notability is established, keep his article; if not, AFD it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can try a WP:PROD--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "this guy". I meant just the article creator, I wasn't associating him with anyone. -Amarkov blahedits 17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Andrew Gower]] 

message: As I have previously mentioned, before aiming for GA status, we must establish consensus and make binding decisions on the following three issues:
*The Criticism section: press reviews or player criticisms?
*The External links section: how many, and which, fansites should be listed?
*Should the article be permanently semi-protected?
Even if consensus already exists, it must be established, and a binding decision made based on that consensus. For example, I believe there is a consensus to permanently semi-protect the article. We should, through a straw poll or other means, establish this consensus, and then make a binding decision that this article is to be permanently semi-protected. Then means to enforce the binding decision should be implemented, such as having "Please don't unprotect" warnings on the talk page and in the article itself (in the form of hidden comments), and having several admins watch the article so that, should it be unprotected for whatever reason, an admin can immediately reprotect it.
I understand that consensus can change. For example, consensus for listing only a single fansite, RuneHQ, was previously established, and a binding decision was made, and enforced by having any violations reverted. When someone presented evidence that Tip.it was catching up, consensus changed. Therefore, after consensus is established and binding decisions made, we should introduce a process whereby consensus (and binding decisions) can be changed (or re-established). To avoid vexatious litigation, after consensus is established (or re-established after a failed attempt to change consensus), 3 months (arbitrary time limit) should pass before anyone is allowed to file another request to change consensus. 
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Surely the degree to which the article has improved since the protection speaks for itself? Before everyone was too busy reverting to actually improve the article. Now we dont have to worry about vandalism, and progress has sped up substancially. We were also in the top 6 edited articles on Wikipedia because of the vandalism - • The Giant Puffin • 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joystiq published an article on the vandalism. Surely this is enough to convince you of the severity of the vandalism? Since it "prevents us from improving and maintaining the article", do consider ignoring the semi-protection policy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Straw polls aren't the only way to determine consensus. Would you like to suggest a better way? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, that was what I meant by "permanent semi-protection". Once RuneScape reaches GA status, I don't mind you unprotecting it, but don't be surprised if it gets delisted shortly after unprotection. With this clarification, do consider your vote. Remember, after 3 months, you can request that consensus be re-established. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 1st -- Sorry to the IPs, that can go away, totaly my bad.  2nd -- This straw poll is simply to show any admins who commonly view this page what the situatuion is, and what we the Wikipedian Community think should be done, sorta like writing to your Congressman.  3rd -- This was not simply for fun, it is fun, but it is mainly useful, and i'm rambling now, so I'm just going to type 4 tildes and sign off.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS     19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards [[WP:GA|GA]] status 

message: *Straw Polls are FUN.  → p00rleno (lvl 80 ) ←ROCKSCRS     12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Surely the degree to which the article has improved since the protection speaks for itself? Before everyone was too busy reverting to actually improve the article. Now we dont have to worry about vandalism, and progress has sped up substancially. We were also in the top 6 edited articles on Wikipedia because of the vandalism - • The Giant Puffin • 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joystiq published an article on the vandalism. Surely this is enough to convince you of the severity of the vandalism? Since it "prevents us from improving and maintaining the article", do consider ignoring the semi-protection policy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Straw polls aren't the only way to determine consensus. Would you like to suggest a better way? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, that was what I meant by "permanent semi-protection". Once RuneScape reaches GA status, I don't mind you unprotecting it, but don't be surprised if it gets delisted shortly after unprotection. With this clarification, do consider your vote. Remember, after 3 months, you can request that consensus be re-established. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 1st -- Sorry to the IPs, that can go away, totaly my bad.  2nd -- This straw poll is simply to show any admins who commonly view this page what the situatuion is, and what we the Wikipedian Community think should be done, sorta like writing to your Congressman.  3rd -- This was not simply for fun, it is fun, but it is mainly useful, and i'm rambling now, so I'm just going to type 4 tildes and sign off.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS     19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll per J.L.W.S request 

message: Yes. The article stays good when sprotected, and only bad comes when this is removed.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS     12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: You're not allowing IP votes to count? That's very thoughtful. Having a one-sided straw poll to promote response bias was a great idea. I am one of the few admins who patrols this article, and I feel that semi-protection on an article should never be permanently implemented. As per WP:SEMI policy, Semi-protection should not be used: To prohibit anonymous editing in general. By the way, what the community wants is not always what's best for the article in general. We're at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. If a page is being vandalized by many people, just revert to an unvandalized version. Nishkid64 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Surely the degree to which the article has improved since the protection speaks for itself? Before everyone was too busy reverting to actually improve the article. Now we dont have to worry about vandalism, and progress has sped up substancially. We were also in the top 6 edited articles on Wikipedia because of the vandalism - • The Giant Puffin • 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joystiq published an article on the vandalism. Surely this is enough to convince you of the severity of the vandalism? Since it "prevents us from improving and maintaining the article", do consider ignoring the semi-protection policy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Straw polls aren't the only way to determine consensus. Would you like to suggest a better way? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, that was what I meant by "permanent semi-protection". Once RuneScape reaches GA status, I don't mind you unprotecting it, but don't be surprised if it gets delisted shortly after unprotection. With this clarification, do consider your vote. Remember, after 3 months, you can request that consensus be re-established. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: You cannot have straw polls, nor can you discriminate against anonymous editors just because they don't have an account.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1st -- Sorry to the IPs, that can go away, totaly my bad.  2nd -- This straw poll is simply to show any admins who commonly view this page what the situatuion is, and what we the Wikipedian Community think should be done, sorta like writing to your Congressman.  3rd -- This was not simply for fun, it is fun, but it is mainly useful, and i'm rambling now, so I'm just going to type 4 tildes and sign off.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS     19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netural 

message: This article has recently been edited by Subatomicguy. The information about the system requirements has been altered. The old information was true but the new information was false. I dont know how to revert and I don't think i'm allowed to edit s-protected articles. Would an established user please revert this change.
Joshua1995 04:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism/Misinformation 

message: I believe this qualifies as a good article, but I'm not sure. Does anyone agree with me?Exarion 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nearly there, and we're working towards it. As it has a long history of instability, we are in the process of coming to a consensus on several controversial issues. Once that is done, all we need is a copy-edit and peer review, before I submit a nomination for GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wont succeed at GA while RuneScape#Membership has a stub tag on it. The article is in need of a copy edit. Gnangarra 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say nix the stub tag, its new and that section  was made smaller  previously. If any1 has a problem with this executive descision, they can put it back.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS     13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an important aspect of the game; Gnangarra is right, the GA nomination would not succeed with the current status of certain sections in the article. Nishkid64 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA? 

message: Put all your anything not good for the article here, i dont care.  RS ANYTHING GOES PAGE Note, this is off my User Page.
  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS     13:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on impulse... but i'll see what it does.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS     19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place for Cruft! 

message: Add things on the scams surrounding runescape and involvement of ebay and real money —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmn (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 January 2007
The criticism section has enough on that. Beyond that, it gets into gamecruft or ranting. Sign your posts! Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scams and real money involved? 

message: It's been nearly six months since I quit RuneScape, and came to Wikipedia, but I thought it would be appropriate for me to give you guys a GA-to-be evaluation of the article.
*Good introduction, maybe needs a few more references. It's a pretty large section, but it has only four references.
*History and development desperately needs copyediting. Some phrasing issues can definitely be fixed here. 
*For DeviousMUD, do you think a possible commentary or review of the game could be added? If you can't find one, that's fine. It just seems awkward when you don't provide a reason as to why the project had been dropped so suddenly. As for Gower, possibly include when he was an undergraduate at Cambridge? I'm assuming it's in chronological order. 
*There's a membership section in the history section of the article; maybe we should shorten that particular section in the history, and add it to the membership to meet necessary expansion requirements.
*Gameplay is very well written in my opinion, minor copyediting probably needed. A possible expansion of Random Events, though (and fixing  problems)?
*Membership needs to be expanded significantly. Maybe include a map of the free vs. member world, to show the differences.
*Criticism and response-press reviews and player criticisms would both be good, I think.
I'll add more things if I can think of them. By the way, you may have noticed that I copyedited some parts of the article while doing my review (couldn't help myself :P). Nishkid64 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, thats useful. I guess these will some of the first things we will work on to get this article to GA status - • The Giant Puffin • 17:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Outside Evaluation 

message: Top note on this page indicates that UK English should be used throughout. Collective nouns are treated like plurals in the UK. Please take note of this. Chris Cunningham 17:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Companies' names, when used to refer directly to the company's actions, are collective nouns in the UK (as are sports teams and bands, for instance). Have a look at a random sample of UK English articles on here and take a look at consensus. As a Brit I find myself grinding my teeth when I see a company referred to with a plural pronoun ("they") and yet be referred to directly in the singular ("is"). Chris Cunningham 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns. Or Google for "* are a company". The singular makes this Brit very uncomfortable.  Thanks for rewriting things to avoid the issue, that's definitely the best course of action. Chris Cunningham 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK English 

message: RuneScape has been unprotected, but has only been vandalised by one IP. With this info, does it need to be permanently semiprotected?Exarion 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's still protected (according to the little lock in the top right corner of the article. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 06:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to edit the article while logged out. Voice of All forgot to remove the protection notice when unprotecting the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  I thought that was an automatic thing (adds and removes itself when there is/isn't protection) or something like that.  Shows you how much I know. -_- DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yet it was POV, not something which should be in an encyclopedia. J.J.Sagnella 10:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see how much damage the anonymous vandals will do before semi-protection is restored. As long as it's unprotected, I can forget about contributing to it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm completely with you. By unprotecting, we have to focus on reverting vandalism not improving the article, so admins unprotecting this article is just shooting wikipedia in it's foot. J.J.Sagnella 16:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting doesn't take a long time. If you have an edit you want to make and you're afraid you'll get conflicted, write it in a word document, and then paste it quickly to get through. With the undo feature and the watchlisting, I would expect you guys to not give up so easily. Nishkid64 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't. But it's not nice to see our article/work being destroyed, thanks to one admin opening the gateway to damage, when they know the risks. J.J.Sagnella 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia. We can't have articles permanently protected just because you guys don't want to see your work get destroyed. Just go back to a previous version. It's not that hard. There's an article history for a reason, you know. Also, the admin in question wasn't me, but what VoA did was right. Anyway, have you guys even contacted VoA? I think he's oblivious to the RuneScape vandalism, as he just unprotects articles listed at WP:PP. Nishkid64 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles, such as George W. Bush and Wikipedia, do receive de facto permanent semi-protection. RuneScape is among the top 10 most vandalised articles in Wikipedia, to the extent that Joystiq published an article on the vandalism. Since semi-protection has been proven to be effective, why not make it permanent? Having to revert vandalism affects our ability to improve the articles, and sneaky vandalism (such as fact-changing) often slips through the cracks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unprotected and low vandalism! 

message: If you had not noticed yet, the Wikiproject was moved here.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS     12:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project was not moved to this talk page. It was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/RuneScape Task Force. It is now a task force of its former parent project WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games. Although I am not part of that specific task force personally, I am sure that they could probably use some help from other RuneScape players. Greeves (talk • contribs)  16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means "here" as in the link the title points to, which is just a redirect to the project/task force. Agentscott00(talk) 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, that's what I was going for.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RUNESCAPE]] 

message: Anyone knows how to get auto woodcutters or anything like that for runescape?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.178.86 (talk)  
:Since Autoers violate the Rules, We wouldn't tell you anyway if we did know. But, you should not expect to find things like that here, they would be at the RuneScape wiki. Sign Your Posts!!  → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKSCRS 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt the RuneScape wiki would have them either, for the same reasons.  Why not play fairly like everyone else? DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way I'm going to help you cheat. Play the game honestly, it's more fun. Current status: Resisting using WP:IAR as an excuse to violate WP:CIVIL. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autos

message: RuneScape gods is up for AfD for the fifth time. Problems include the usual cruft and game guide allegations, as well as a lack of references - • The Giant Puffin • 12:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for notifying us. However, please don't leave comments about articles here. This talk page focuses on RuneScape. We now have a central task force for this.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape gods 

message: Hey guys well the runescape we know and love has changed massivavly lately
i can put some updates myself but well first i want to make sure its ok with you all and second i want to request that other players make updates as well
we need to put info on like the new graphics that are being used and everything Maverick423 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then. Looks like I'll have to comb through all recent news, since I haven't played RS in a really long time. I'll get to work right now.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 21:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Great! Just make sure that when you add new information, the writing style remains consistent throughout the entire article. I'll start off with all RS news from August.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I recall reading something about them changing the game engine a couple months back.  I'll sift through the news and try to find it after I get back from my class (actually, a meeting, but what it is doesn't matter). I don't remember it saying much about the specs though, but it would be useful anyway since it would say what it would have changed/fixed. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, I didn't find a whole lot, besides a few brief mentions of a coding language they call 'RuneScript'.  Probably not what you were looking for, huh? DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I was wondering if we could somehow fit this image into RuneScape skills (I put it here since this is the page that gets the most traffic). It would show the variety of skills that are availible. I'm not sure what we can do with it, so that why I'm asking :)   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it is cropped to show *only* the stats screen, I can't really see where we can use it, unless it's just used as a multi-purpose screenshot for depicting the game.  The image contains too much to be focused onto one subject, the skills article in the case you mentioned.  I'm fairly sure that one of the (Category:RuneScape_Images) other RuneScape images would be able to replace it instead of using/upladoing a brand new image(s). Agentscott00(talk) 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a cropped version. Exarion 05:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The cropped version is too far cropped in my opinion. I think it should be put such that the various interface symbols are shown. This would be easier to look at, in my opinion.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 12:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cropped version 2 looks fine - • The Giant Puffin • 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yay! That's my version!  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 4th version, showing p2p levels added. better or worse?  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah go for version 4. It can be used in the membership section as well - • The Giant Puffin • 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, good idea. Why didn't I think of that.... J.J.Sagnella 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok then. No probs. J.J.Sagnella 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Done  J.J.Sagnella 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Do we want green boxes? I can do that, if we decide it is beneficial.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question about an image 

message: i did a small edit on the quest part that states that there are (well over)100 quest in the member world
you know just fixing it up where ever i can hope thats ok Maverick423 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just fine. Actually, I was planning on editing that myself, so I might still make a few changes to it. In general, you don't need to check with other editors on the talk page for small things like that, though. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey yall