Talk:RuneScape/Archive 18

message: I hear that there is a runescape project on wiki 
how do i join and how do i place on my user profile that i am part of this project if it is available thanks Maverick423 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: goto WP:RUNESCAPE and add yourself to the list.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll add you. You are already there. Aparently you did add yourself... or something.  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 12:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info 

message: Jagex is starting to get big on these things. Are they now notable for a subsection, or still just cruft?  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it's not worthy of a subsection yet, just a brief mention in the article. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 14:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - • The Giant Puffin • 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if we get into the gallery, we'll have to cover all the fan stuff outside of the actual game: God letters, stories, historical texts from Reldo, wallpapers, and everything. I don't think they're notable enough yet. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh boy, xiao you are the second to copy my sig, Puppy441 being the first. I would ask that you modify it, as to not make it look like we are related or something. Tvvm,  → p00rleno (lvl 82) ←ROCKSCRS 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player's gallery etc. 

message: hey guys well 
basicly i notice that we tend to chat quite a bit here depending on what the subject is. the last thing we need is someone comming in here and starting something because we are doing some POV type stuff (which i really dont understand at times since all comments are POVs) anyways if we want to be chatting we can start a group to start chatting in runescape world. if this is not possable then we can use my own website to do the chatting (even then we wont have to go directly to my website) i can place a link that when clicked on it will produce a popup chat link that can be seen and we will be able to discuss better on it. i dont know what you guys think but well if it sounds good so far tell me and i will explain it more 
for those intersted right now place your name here. i didnt really know how to place this anywere else but if we can put this on our project page well it would prob be better.Maverick423 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: The lower the ranking the better. Please discuss the subject in the topic above or create another, leave this one for just the rankings. 
26 January:
*RuneHQ - 4,005  
*Zybez - 4,536 
*Tip.it - 5,421 
QuagmireDog 15:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily Alexa rankings

message: ok guys 
Basicly Runescape has Tons of weapons right
well i checked out Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series and it had a whole list of all the weapons. I know that it might just be exssesive information but seeing as how that one article still exsist maybe we can start one up ourselvs. a list of Runescape weapons. its just a suggestion cause i know that once we start doing this everyone else is ganna want to do this for the other games. but like i said its a suggestion. it would be pretty darn cool. 
although i know we more then likely wont be able to do it.Maverick423 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We did once have a pair of articles like that:  and  (review the histories) - they were merged and redirected to RuneScape combat last November, after six or so AfDs. A lot of articles like these have been deleted for being 'fancruft': information only a fan of a certain franchise will have any use for. It's best left to fansites and specialist wikis (like the RuneScape Wiki), really. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, not really. The articles effectively don't exist, since searching for them or following a link will just give you the RuneScape combat article. See Wikipedia:Redirect. The problem with them is that a massive list of fictional weapons isn't really what Wikipedia is for. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: People argue that they wont wnat to know unless they play the game - • The Giant Puffin • 10:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: On RuneScape#Critical_review, the term "boot" is used. I checked the disambig article for boot, but there are so many computer-related terms. Can someone please clarify this?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a slang term.  I'll just remove it.  (For reference, the phrase was 'and it's fun to boot'.) DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is POV, and not enough detail to warrent such an opinion. Removing it, or replacing it with a more NPOV sentence is a good course of action - • The Giant Puffin • 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The boot thing was originally part of a direct quote from a review. What happened to the quotation marks? I thought quoting a third party with a citation was OK anyway...? Also, the EverQuest/"half again" bit with the Guardian review could need rephrasing. It means that RS has 50% more players, IE: EQ has 500,000, RS has 750,000. But take out the 'again' and it means RS has half as many players as EQ. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: People come in and vandalize it anyway... But about the 'boot' thing...when I got rid of it, it had no quotations around it.  Sorry if that causes any problems; it can be re-added, right? DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK, it looks fine as it is. No harm done. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague term 

message: It's messed up. Bad. Very bad. I have no clue how to fix it or what went wrong. Someone fix it... NOW!!! ok, now on an unrelated note, i feel the need to tell you all that at 8:30pm et yesterday January 23, ima member =)  → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKSCRS 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone forgot to add a closing ref tag. I've added the closing tag, but I hope no information was lost. By the way, congratulations on becoming a member! What's your RuneScape username? (Mine's Hildanknight.) I need several members to help fletch me arrows - are you interested? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  unrelated: man i just got screwed. i wore my sara into zammy portal at castle wars... IMP!!  → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKSCRS 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My RuneScape name is just p00rleno, ill open my friendlist for a few days, but so we can be organized, put your usernames here:  → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKSCRS 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:REF and other policy pages. It's actually not that hard to handle once you get used to it. I too was afraid of the deadly reference monster when I was a new user here, but I gradually started to incorporate different styles of referencing in all articles I was involved in. Nishkid64 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation #41 

message: ok guys well like i said we were getting out of topic up there ^^^  anyways we should start a team on Runescape itself and chat there as pals and whatnot. we can keep up with updates and eachother this way
add your runescape name here if your intrested in a runescape wikipedia team or just basicly haveing more runescape friends!!!
(RS Name: Maverick4230)  Maverick423 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the rest of this convorsation to User_talk:Maverick423#Runescape - please continue it there.  Article talk pages aren't discussion forums.  Agentscott00(talk) 21:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runescape  

message: I would like to make a general note for editors to read WP:REF. Before I had to close the ref tag, the article had a reference problem.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference tagging 

message: well guys as we know the size of runescape is increasing greatly lately. do you think we should add this to the article in a breif paragraph or just mention it on the graphics area or something like that?
Maverick423 14:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not worth noting, I think, but we have been thinking of creating an image of the map that shows the differences between the free and member worlds.  Unless they have a huge map update, it's probably not worth mentioning on its own. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, we'd just need a thumbnail.  Wikipedia's got images that dwarf the size of RuneScape's map by a lot, you know. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Size of picture and file size go hand in hand, you know.  Once again, size is not a problem. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 01:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would we get the map from? I doubt the tip.it map cannot be copied - • The Giant Puffin • 10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We could do that, but then we'd have to check what the copyright policies and stuff are for it since it's the official map. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Size 

message: I have reworked this for grammar and consistency with the rest of the article, but I am not sure this is needed here.  All this information should already be in the Combat article, so I think we need to decide how much is actually needed in this, the Main article.  I would like to get some of the rest of the major editors' opinions, tho, before I delete it.  So, what do you think??    Xela Yrag 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there seems to be a lot items/play-styles within combat which could be brought back as a sumary, possibly increasing the size of the combat section in the main but at the same time keeping the 'under the microscope' combat details in its own articles but giving readers of the main article a more rounded picture. QuagmireDog 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The RuneScape article is meant to give readers general information about the video game. That's where readers get their general reading. Now if they want to delve further into more detailed information about combat, then they go to the Combat article. I really think that the information in question should go to Combat.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 22:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The main article should as a summary of points, any in-depth information should be put in the appropriate sub-article - • The Giant Puffin • 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, reduce the 6 sentences to 1 - something like: "Players die when their hitpoints to fall to zero; they also lose almost all of the items they were wearing or carrying."  The parts about respawning, skulled, protection, numbers, and what they keep/lose can go to the combat article. Petersam 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death section 

message: Not sure if I'm overreacting, but someone put links to "Cheating websites". I am removing that sector (which was near the bottom) now. Kang227 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No overreaction. Cheat sites are not cool. They damage the article, send readers to probably malware-laden sites and will look to Jagex like we are condoning cheating, which'll give them sufficient reason to order us to remove the screenshots. They were added by Jeremybub (talk • contribs). CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have the power to order us to remove the screenshots, they are not really fair use, so we shouldn't have them in the first place. -Amark moo! 02:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought fair use was based on the assumption that the copyright holder wouldn't mind, as long as it doesn't harm their profits or anything? And judging by that license in the fansite kit, Jagex do mind about cheating. CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to check with a Wikipedia lawyer on that one. If it so happens that Jagex wants the images removed, then what shall we do? We need to make sure that we know what were doing here.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair use, at least in the United States, is conditions under which you may legally use copyrighted works, regardless of the wishes of the copyright holder. It is based on what they won't care about, and one of the criteria is that it doesn't infringe their ability to sell the product, but a company can't just say "You can't use my picture" if it's legal fair use. And if we are using copyrighted pictures in any other way, they need to be removed and deleted as soon as possible. -Amark moo! 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gotten any results yet from the people I asked, but I think Amarkov is right. WP:FU says that we are permitted to use the copyrighted images for educational uses. I guess that's why fair use images aren't permitted outside of the mainspace, since the other mainspaces aren't for the benefit of the rest of the world.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 14:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no big deal. I'm not saying this is going to happen, its just that Jagex might just take offense if we have more links to cheating sites than official/fansites, and may not see it as educational. It's the images from the fansite kit that I meant really; the license with it forbids use for promoting cheating. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What is this fansite kit, anyway? I keep hearing about it, but I've never seen actual information on it. -Amark moo! 22:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Behold! The fansite kit! :-D It's a pack of screenshots, logos and so forth. Jagex supply their own special license with it, which could even allow us to use images from it outside of the article space, just as long as it isn't being used to scam people or promote cheating or anything, otherwise Mr. Flibble will be very cross. That's what's getting me worried, as for starters the RS logo at the top of the article is from the fansite kit. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should be using images under that license at all, or under any license which can be arbitrarily revoked for certain people. Unless we can make a decent fair use argument... -Amark moo! 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? We've got no reason to alter them (a), WP:IUP says we have to cite runescape.com as the source (b), acknowledging cheating exists is fine, as long as we aren't promoting it (and WP:NPOV forbids that), and of course the last person who made a serious attempt at scamming was indef blocked and checkusered (c), we're obviously not pretending we are an official RS site, we're Wikipedia (d), and as we won't be misusing them, Jagex won't have any need to withdraw permission (e). We're supposed to favour free over fairuse, correct? Well, whilst these aren't truely free images, they're free-er than a simple screenshot. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: i think there needs to be more said about this, possibly another article.  whenever i try to edit anything, it gets reversed, so someone who is more knowledgeable should write on the subject.  it is very prolific, and readers should not be left in the dark Jeremybub 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have reliable sources for it being so prolific? If you do not, we can't include it. -Amark moo! 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is, those sources are not reliable. -Amark moo! 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The only thing that any of this would reliably source is the statement "Some users will use cheating tools to obtain goods in the game". Something like that is already in the article, I believe, and if not, it should be. -Amark moo! 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you try getting a runescape macro at any of those sites and many more, you will find it's very easy.  there are thousands of accounts being banned, and jagex pretends that it is catching all the macroers, when in reality, there are many more that go uncaught.  thousands of people are doing this, and vast networks and programs have been generated just for this purpose... i think it deserves more than a sentance, also considering that jagex spends a considerable amount of time trying to catch macroers.Jeremybub 04:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if it deserves more than a sentence, unfortunately. What matters is that you can reliably source the more than a sentence, and you can't, really. -Amark moo! 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, if you look at it from perspective, you are getting informationm from the source... and if you go to the websites, and test it out, you are getting information from yourself... what will it take for you to trust a website? if you get informarion from the masses, you will see, cheating is very prolific!! Jeremybub 04:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Testing it out to verify it would violate WP:OR, and "the masses" can be wrong. Please read WP:RS. -Amark moo! 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It hasn't blinded me from the truth. I believe you fully about cheating being a problem. But two people's opinions do not mean that it is true. For all anyone else knows, we're both blowing it out of proportion, and maybe we are. -Amark moo! 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is cheating mentioned anywhere on a reliable fansite or on the official RS website? The knowledge base or security section of the official website must have something on it because of the risks its poses to new players - • The Giant Puffin • 10:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section explaining the rules on the official site would be your best bet.  I'm not sure how much of it would be useful though. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 16:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not really about cheating, it just says not to cheat and to report any bugs you find. I suppose this could be mentioned somewhere in the article, but its not really relevent to what Jeremybub brought up - • The Giant Puffin • 16:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, sorry, fansite forums don't count as official research. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That really doesn't matter either...Wikipedia, though it's nice for telling people about stuff, is not meant to be an advertisement for anything.  We tell everyone, and by everyone I mean anyone that can access the internet, what they need to know.  In this case, they don't need to know how bad the cheating is or how it's done, just that it exists.  We also should have no control over how much they like the game, and we shouldn't try to change that. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True I understand what you are saying but im just stating that to post the links and methods of cheating is just going to promote critisim on the article. Mentioning it is ok as long as the ways of cheating are not emphasized. Maverick423 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which they won't be for the reasons mentioned above. Don't worry about it, we know what we're doing. ;-) DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  runescape cheating 

message: I think that the to-do list is too long and needs to be condensed. Any ideas?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...well, we don't need two sections up there for the fansites (especially stuff that references changes to other pages, such as the portal).  We don't need to include specific stuff regarding Wikipedia guidelines (citing sources, fancruft, etc.) either....just a condensed reminder ought to work. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the to-do list is now irrelevent as its already been done. Some of it also needs editing because of partial progress with some of the points - • The Giant Puffin • 10:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do list 

message: Could you not make a Runescape creatures page? as the bosses and enemies in the game help you alot in your combat skills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.224.238 (talk • contribs).
:There was an article on it,but it got deleted. J.J.Sagnella 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was deemed to specific and crufty - • The Giant Puffin • 10:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runescape creatures 

message: Is there really that much more that could be done to the introduction? It has 7 references, and most of the information not referenced is either referenced later in the article or directs to another article - • The Giant Puffin • 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should clear the to-do list. I'll get to that right now.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, little point in having a to-do list that never seems to be updated, better to add current issues with the article starting now. I'll clean the general reminders section that's under the header, some of these are long out-of-date (any regular contributor who still needs reminding that WP has rules needs a slipper around the face, leading by example will help new contributors). QuagmireDog 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of current issues, what kinds of problems do we have with this article? In my opinion, all we have to do is to improve the critical review section.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 18:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the main problem. There are still some minor problems though. Some of the article needs extending. Its mainly general improvement as opposed to specifics - • The Giant Puffin • 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've renamed the section to 'Response', as in what the outside world thinks of this strange beastie. Obtaining more information from secondary sources would be ideal (if they exist), but then that's always been the case. The 'Criticism and Response' section is awkward, one-sided and IMO is overreaching. It certainly provides citable evidence of RS' continued development in a NPOV fashion, but what's listed is details from the primary source, not secondary sources highlighting problems with RS. Even the title seems a little lop-sided 'they have criticisms but here's how they've responded'. Yet the criticism isn't sourced from reliable secondaries and the 'response' is in effect cherry-picked - this is what they've been working on, not what they haven't. I think the best thing to do with it would be a very slight trim and then a move to the development section. 'NPOV' covers the entire article and everything within, this section adds no weight to the neutrality of the reception/critical response section.  Anybody else see it that way? QuagmireDog 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean - • The Giant Puffin • 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Improve referencing in the introduction section." 

message: I think this is something that needs to be cleaned up a bit.  First off, do we really need a fact tag for the line in Membership about exchange rates?  Second, can we link directly to the player's gallery as a reference for the small paragraph we have about it?  If there's any others we can get rid of or source properly, we probably should do so before we submit this for review again. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think we need a fact tag for the exchange bit - • The Giant Puffin • 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we even need the exchange bit itself?  A price difference of a dollar or two (or whatever currencies it applies to) isn't really that important, and we would have fun trying to cite it.  I've heard it mentioned only once before, so it can't really be that huge of a problem.  AScott00 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should drop it then - • The Giant Puffin • 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It probably does, but the tax is already included in the membership fee.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Even then, we don't need to write much about it.  Maybe just something like "Runescape charges $xx.xx (plus tax) for full membership" or something will do. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Shoukldn't this page contain information about 3rd party runescape saoftware, like swiftswich, and so on?--Stranhorox 04:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from a brief mention that acknowledges that those things exist, no.  We have a discussion a little further up the page on the subject if you wish to contribute. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should only be a brief reference to keep the article tightly focused on the main topic, which I believe is still a FA criterion. — Deckiller 12:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Party Software 

message: Yes I cut through everyone else's articles. Well anyway I was on Runescape before i heard
of Wikipedia. It is a terrific game! I p2p and have a native tribe called the
Runewikin tribe. I am the chief, and my username on there is Joshw26. Hee hee hee...
Welcome to the RuneScape articles on Wikipedia.  I have moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page.  Please post your comments at the bottom from now on.  Xela Yrag 22:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, please use ==level 2 headings==--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joshw26's Comment

message: has anyone else noticed a problem with runescape??
i cant seem to log in it says login server offline
is it a update or somethign? Maverick423 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this is a tricky one.  Do you think the login server is offline by any chance?  ¬_¬  Error messages are there for a reason, try guessing what it means first time.  This isn't a discussional forum about the game, sorry.  Next time take it to a fansite, the forums, or customer support. AScott00 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please keep any discussion here relevant! You guys could go message each other on AIM or MSN or something, but if it is not relevant to the article, then don't discuss it here. Thanks. Nishkid64 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This page is for Wikipedia-related stuff - • The Giant Puffin • 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the logging in problems can be placed in the Critical Review section???--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not frequent enough (to my knowledge at least), and when there is a serious problem they announce it and it doesn't last long. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 05:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it happens again, or becomes a regular occurance, a mention is probably a good idea - • The Giant Puffin • 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Problems with logging in are not a common occurance, and I see no point in including them in the article. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runescape log in problems? 

message: I put this article up for an importance assessment, as it is currently unrated on this scale - • The Giant Puffin • 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a rating from none>low>medium>high for inclusion in the CD-based version of WP, they're often given along with the page status rank (or whatever it's called, the 'B' in our case). QuagmireDog 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Unfortunately it wasn't in our case - • The Giant Puffin • 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter, since the wonder Internet version is much better than the CD version! It covers more articles are and always updated.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One needs not ask for a rating but sometimes when you are a player, it is hard keeping a NPOV. I rate it mid and on a side note to QuagmireDog, I believe that Core is the level after high importance. Greeves (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, don't remember ever seeing one of those (need to randomly roll around pages more), thanks for the rating. QuagmireDog 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks - • The Giant Puffin • 14:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was still up at the CVG Assessment page, so I'll chime in- I'm agreeing with both the B-class rating as well as the Mid-importance rating recently added.  I'd suggest submitting it to GAC sometime, if, you know, being stable wasn't one of the main 6 requirements.  --PresN 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance assessment 

message: There isn't actually a section in the article about the RuneScape website - all information pertains to the game itself. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to create a section on this?  H4cksaw  (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have a few mentions of other things, such as the postbag and the gallery, in the article.  Considering the game takes up most of the website, how much more can we add that isn't somehow part of it? DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might warrant its own section, with a type 3 header. I doubt much more is appropriate - • The Giant Puffin • 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website 

message: Messages hidden.  → p00rleno (lvl 82) ←ROCKSCRS 12:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Troll Section

message: Do we really need this many sections, or should we revert to this version --Exarion 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert please. Despite best intentions the article doesn't look right now (even the criticism and response section, which shouldn't be there, got its own heading >.<). QuagmireDog 08:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it, looking at the history there's just a load of back-forth-back-forth except that the headers have been kept in. I've rolled it back to Captain Vindaloo's last edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuagmireDog (talk • contribs) 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Over a two week period, the three sites were ranked eight times. 
Totals (all ranks added together for each site):
*RuneHQ - 33,746 
*Zybez - 40,495 
*Tip.it - 34,087
Averages (total/8), rounded up or down to the nearest unit:
*RuneHQ - 4,218 
*Zybez - 5,062 
*Tip.it - 4,261
I have two suggestions based on the above:
*1) If nothing else comes from this, reduce the fansites to one (1, uno) and cycle every month to another fansite. I don't see this as warranted but a lesser evil compared to the current situation.
*2) This issue is a paper tiger, stop running.
The more I type the less interested folk seem to become so I'll try to keep to the point. Zybez has made huge strides but isn't in the running. RuneHQ and Tip.it are very close, but nonetheless RuneHQ came out with the lowest score.
The application of WP:IAR is not sustainable when it comes to linkspam, which is all this boils down to. IAR is specifically for edits which improve the encyclopedia. Adding a second link to another fansite does not improve the encyclopedia by any stretch, it doesn't offer a reader anything new. Switching from WP to google does not cause rupturing of the brain, if someone is looking for fansites then they can use a search engine like the rest of the world.
No amount of pre-emptive text prevents visitors from regularly changing the links. Reverting is easy, a quick explanation is all that's needed if anyone asks, no newcomers need to be bitten, we don't need to fear the paper tiger. Please change to a single link (they both do the same thing, I couldn't give a flying monkey's which), have a straw poll between the two sites if necessary, then stick with it. QuagmireDog 23:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only difficult because the perception has been that we must constantly monitor the situation and that the fansite is a rod for our backs. The task at hand is to build a good article and impart as much relevant information as possible to the reader, it's not our job to constantly monitor websites. The changes to Zybez certainly warranted an extended period of monitoring, but day to day fluctuations between RuneHQ and Tip.it should be their webmasters' problem, not ours. Having two sites is going to get in the way of GA attempts and doesn't benefit our readers. 'Fairness' has been demonstrated repeatedly and thoroughly. If the alexa ranks don't show enough difference then we should have a straw poll, pick one, then get on with improving the articles. The amount of air-time afforded to this non-issue is getting well beyond a joke. QuagmireDog 02:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember though, there are people who come for a basic idea, a large amount of people already having a basic idea. J.J.Sagnella 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But these people wouldn't understand the fansites unless they actually play RuneScape! A fansite is for fans, so people visiting the site would need a basic knowledge of the game and its jargon, culture, and inner workings.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 13:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for those people who played RuneScape before checking it up on here?  I say adding links to fansites for *general* in-game information like quest guides and news is a *must* as these sorts of things aren't addable to Wikipedia and may be of use to everyone who reads.  If the person goes from here to RuneScape to sign up then gets into the game, they might require the added help that a fansite can provide and that Wikipedia cannot.  I personally think fansites should stay SmUX 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa rankings results 

message: Could we please archive this page? IMO it's a little bit long--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should only archive when everything is ettled. Is everything settled on this page? J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. I was going to archive a few days ago but there's too many things left unfinished. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there are still discussions going on - • The Giant Puffin • 09:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, i put the archiveme tag on, its the thingy that looks like this.   → p00rleno (lvl 83) ←ROCKSCRS 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there's an  tag doesn't mean we *have* to archive the page.  Once the majority of the discussions have settled, we can archive it and copy continuing discussions to the new talk.  AScott00 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive? 

message: the macros banned list since the begining on rs (before it was renamed rsc) has reached a total of 78,000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.106.218 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a lot of macroers in RSC, but they disallowed new members from joining that version to prevent them from getting in. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macroers banned 

message: Just noticed this now:
http://www.runescape.com/lang/de/aff/runescape/title.ws
We should start updating the article now to accommodate the new version of RS.  I'm trying it out now, but I sadly only know one word in German :(  AScott00 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you folks know, when they get around to making a Spanish translation, I'm ready.  My grammar is not too good, but I can get a draft of a potential article to the point where someone who knows more than me can clean it up. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about transferring information over to the Spanish Wikipedia? If so, I would be able to help out. I speak a little bit of Spanish, but I can try my best to help in translation.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Using an online translator too much wouldn't be smart, they don't have the accuracy of a human speaker.  Few free online translators are able to recognize grammar & sentence structure.  They may do simple sentences such as "My hair is brown," however with longer, complex sentences that we would see in an article, they would be inadequate.  We can use them, sure, but we shouldn't just input a bunch of paragraphs and take what they put out; if we have a native (or experienced) speaker of the language look over them afterwards it should be fine though.  I updated the link on :de:RuneScape yesterday to point directly to the German site now, however I don't speak German and couldn't do much else. AScott00 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The page isn't fully protected, only semi-protected, so logged in editors with accounts older than 4 days can edit. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: wtf you guys translating for. just say theres a german version available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakeeshbaba (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances are they're going to stick with German and English for now, we don't need to get worked up about translating the game if other versions come out - if they do, they won't be coming for a long while yet. AScott00 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There have been no major changes, other than this beta testing thing. -Amarkov moo! 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German translation now into beta testing 

message: Moved to my talk page thanks for the awnser Pyro Maverick423 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: Is it known for sure whether the German language servers are actually in Germany? In the English news update, they're called "German servers/worlds", but it doesn't specify whether with this it means German language and location, or just German language. Also, on the German world select page, it gives a title of Sprache (language), rather than something such as Platz (place/location) or similar, which would correspond better with the English language version. And, maybe unrelated, World 84 (a UK 2 server) was recently taken offline, and looking through the list, there are also gaps at 38-41, and 45, 46, any two of which could have become 139 and 140.The only place I would otherwise expect a definitive confirmation would be the German news update, but as my German language skills don't extend as far as being able to read that, I wouldn't know. Thanks. --81.129.213.167 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is no indication that the servers are actually in Germany, so any statement that they are in Germany is unverifiable. I'll switch back the server map/locations until we have more information. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: German Language Servers?