Talk:RuneScape/Archive 7

message: Do not edit or reply to comments on this page.It's an archive of discussion from Talk:RuneScape from 7 May 2006 to 23 May 2006.If you'd like to comment, do so on the current page.
:Hyenaste (tell) 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

message: I posted a TON of stuff on scamming in RuneScape, as it always happens and is a Major problem. Next thing I know, it's gone. Where'd it go? Post response on User:Poorleno p00rleno 21:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scamming is something not important, and hence shouldn't be wrote about. J.J.Sagnella 06:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense.  I can't see how you could justify such a statement, unless you approve of scamming.Cain Mosni 05:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Methods of scamming are not noteworthy enough to be placed into the RuneScape page. Note WP:BEANS for another reason. If you would like to include a small sentence or two (not a whole section--this is not required), you're welcome to do so, provided it is informative, NPOV, and especially does not cause a lot of controversy. Hyenaste [citation needed] 06:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They cna do it by themselves. Just foucus on this one article here. J.J.Sagnella 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where'd my stuff go? 

message: do we need to put it in the artical? Rdunn 19:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. J.J.Sagnella 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dont really need them, no - • The Giant Puffin • 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No. A compilation of various glitches may be useful thoughp00rleno 14:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, since glitches aren't notable. However, if there were a glitch that caused massive long-lasting effects, it could deserve a sentence or two in some article. Hyenaste [citation needed] 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  A list of glitches wouldn't really be useful, but as stated above, we could possible put a small snippet in about huge bugs which occured in the past. Current glitches, however, should not be shown if a section like this is put in. See WP:BEANS for why not to display current bugs. Agentscott00 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it hurts? - • The Giant Puffin • 18:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment No, it could give other people ideas as to how they could abuse glitches, among other things. Sorry if I wasn't too clear on that. Harmless bugs, like the egg "rolling", could have one or two words in the Holiday drops section beside the easter item, but anything which could be considered harmful shouldn't. Sticking beans up your nose would hurt though, I have to agree with you there :P Agentscott00 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  glitch in the eggs 

message: Just thought I'd let everyone know there's a RuneScape Wiki at this address. 
http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
::Should we add this to the links? ~~ RZ heretic 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, and resolve the issue the The Wikibooks reference is no longer appropriate, as that one transwikied to strategywiki, for which there does not seem to be a simple template link available. Maybe "other wikis" should be in a portal box. Ace of Risk 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuneScape Wiki 

message: i need to know where to find the links for the stratigy guides are.  for the reason that me and my friend were thinking of making one ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!
just add the link to the end of this disscution thx steven user: flare mage22
:The fansites were removed from this page, but they remain at the bottom of the RuneScape Portal. Note that the link in the heading just above this one is a link to an in-development guide to RS. Hyenaste [citation needed] 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where are the links i need them 

message: Image:Runescape monsters kingblackdragon.gif
Image:Runescape monsters kalphitequeen-1stform.gif
Image:Runescape monsters kalphitequeen-2ndform.gif
Image:Runescape randomevents swarm.gif
Image:Runescape randomevents drilldemon TEMPORARY.gif
Image:Runescape randomevents piratescombinationlock TEMPORARY.PNG
This time, I have managed to create some of my more very challenging pieces to add to the animating collection.  I believe that my King Black Dragon and Kalphite Queen clips can entirely replace what images are in their corresponding articles right now.
Also, I have seen that articles such as Dagannoth, RuneScape holiday items, RuneScape monsters, RuneScape random events, and especially at this moment, the main RuneScape article, amongst others, can use images and clips from my gallery or other sources.  There are many un-used images in my gallery that could easily fit into such situations, and if not that, can be created by someone else to fit in these situations.
I appreciate all the work that Hyenaste has done in spreading these images around, but I have yet to see at least one other person doing the same great job despite the opening of my gallery.  There were those that were still complaining about the lack of images, so this gallery was supposed to solve this problem.  Is there anyone else alongside Hyenaste who will spread these images around, seeing as how I'm refraining from adding them myself?
I still also take image requests in my talk page in case something specific is necessary for the job.
Please keep either my gallery and my talk page in mind, as it is very discouraging when it comes to the serious activity of the RuneScape article images to only by dealt with by one person.
TarikochiGalleryCriticize 05:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New images in my [[User:Tarikochi|gallery]] for May 14, 2006. 

message: Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:RuneScape"
As so many people are saying things like "if not this one, then none", I have done my research and found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Occasionally_acceptable_links this. It states linking to the largest site is acceptable. As this is Wikipedia's rules, I suggest we have a lengthy discussion on which Link, (yes link is meant to be singular) should stay. This Idea is enforced by Wikipedia's rules and will be able to bring a fansite back to the main page. J.J.Sagnella 21:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Idea for Fansites 

message: So we're finally dropping this debacle?  At last, this issue can come to a peaceful end.  I'll go ahead and start a minor straw poll since there's a bit of confusion as to what has to happen with the links so vote below.  My vote is...
Delete.  Three reasons for this:  1.  They raise tension as far as controversial advertisements.  2.  They raise tension when it comes to account security.  3.  It feels like the larger sites are only being acknowledged for being the largest, and the smaller sites are snuffed out due to low ratings on search engines or stat engines.  Makoto 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A comment may be placed to the effect that it says something on the lines of this:"Other Fansites do exist,Use Google to find other fansites. These are only the main 2". J.J.Sagnella 06:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment:  Those two fansites are not 'head and shoulders' above all the rest.  They're concise, complete but nothing is absolutely perfect except the information from the Knowledge Base.  None of the fansites belong to me.  At all.  I don't own a single one of them, and I have no intention of owning a fansite, so that rules out, "You may not host your own website/blog/wiki on Wikipedia."  You also say that fansites should be added.  Should.  Not it is mandatory for you to add at least one link to an article.  That's your misunderstanding of the rule, since we don't really have to link to anything at all.  You also state that Tip.it and RuneHQ are the 'main two' fansites.  Yes, while a majority of people may use them from time to time, they are not the primary two for everyone, which brings up NPOV.  You've got to factor in the actual policies and not suggestions based on links here, and that's what I think is the only barrier between a concise and peaceful resolution.  I will be happy to let an administrator decide whether or not to allow fansite links on a Portal, and how many fansite links is permissible is up to them as well.  Makoto 14:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I must first say, I wish to see that the decision on the main page be setteled by an adminstrator. I feel as there is an argument on each side of the fence, that an adminstator should come and say what is right. Secondly,  I did not include everyone I said: "just because some people". And when you said "since we don't really have to link to anything at all", I think the rule states, you should and here on Wikipedia, we try to make perfect articles. Also, in many ways they are the best without me even giving my opinion. Usinga lexa We KNOW they are the best. If you do an independent survey of people in RuneScape without a preferred fansite asking them the question "Name a Famous Fansite" those two will be top (I have done the survey on 100 people myself) then you will KNOW they are the best. If however an adminstator decides the claim against my opinion, only then will I step down from this argument. J.J.Sagnella 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Who cares what some administrator says?  They are just regular users like us that have been elected by the community.  They are not gods.  Just because they say something doesn't make it law.  We (the community) make the rules here.  One of us could just go to RFA, run to be an administrator, get the majority vote, then "settle" this argument (not trying to give you ideas or anything).  Wikipedia might not be a democracy, but it certainly isn't a dictatorship. Dtm142 18:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment No not because of their title, but because of their knowledge. They know or at least have a better idea as to what is the right thing to do in Wikipedia's Rules. J.J.Sagnella 18:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment:This is NOT about the Administration making a decision based on rules!  This is pure opinion!  We think that the links don't belong on Wikipedia, so what's wrong with deleting them?  There is NO rule that says it's mandatory for a Wiki to link to a fansite, I don't care even if they have all the information.  You have to hear me on this...only the Knowledge Base's information is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  This means that while a fansite strives to be the best and have the most accurate info, unless it's straight from the source they cannot compare.  This debate's going back and forth and it's seriously exhausting, so let it come to an end already.  (By the way, if you can find the rule that says it's mandatory to link to a site, and I mean that verbatim as in absolutely required, then I'll show you the Knowledge Base and that'll be your mandatory link.)  Makoto 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed Ok then, I have decided there is no way my argument can win and even though there is an argument, I will take your point of them not being appropriate for the main page and instead back down and see if an agreement can be made for them on the Portal. J.J.Sagnella 20:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: What do you mean?!  This issue was for the links on the Portal!  We can't go back and forth on this you know...it's childish.  Come to a reasonable agreement and just take the links down already!  Makoto 03:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Final comment Okay, then they're not going back up on this page.  But if we want to discuss the links on the portal, discuss them on the portal page or take them to MFD.  Or hopefully we can reach an agreement there. Dtm142 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Idea for Fansites (Straw Poll) 

message: Hi, everyone.  I would like to take just a few seconds of your precious time to introduce myself and to state my intentions.  LOL.
I am Xela Yrag (yes, it's my RuneScape user name - seemed appropriate), and I am the one who's been making all those little grammatical changes.  Sorry, guys, but it's a real "thing" with me, especially the that/which ones.  My goals are consistency, grammatical correctness (and no, I am not an English teacher), neutrality, and relevance.  I hope that is in keeping with the overall goals of the core people involved with this series of articles.
I haven't done anything really major yet, but I am sincerely hoping that these articles do not get protected.  Some of them need some major work!
I am still learning all the "tools of the trade", so please bear with me until I figure out how to add a description and all the other little things that will make it easier for all of us to see what is going on.
:Don't worry when you're learning, Wikipedia doesn't mind when you make mistakes. When a page gets protected though, like the dicussion here, it is talking about semi-protection, where you must of created an account on Wikipedia to edit the article. Since the release of semi-protection, full protection is becoming more and more scarce. And we think it's brilliant you're making little minor changes, they can be better than big changes! J.J.Sagnella 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introducing Myself

message: [RuneScape]'s article size is currently 33.8kB long, something should be done to make it a bit shorter to fit with the style guide on [WP:SIZE].  Should we cut down on a few sections and split them into more external articles?  We don't need to rush this immediately, since 1.8kB over isn't that big a big deal, but the article size will gradually increase even more.  I have removed the strikeout on the "shorten the article" line on the to-do list for the time being, anyone may re-add it if they feel it isn't neccessary.  Thoughts on the matter? Agentscott00 00:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you said, it's not a big deal at the moment. Whenever someone else or I am up to it, it could likely use a healthy decrufting/cutting-of-information-covered-elsewhere. (I say this without looking at the content.) A page split is most likely unnecessary though. Hyenaste [citation needed] 00:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also other Wikipedians would rather have a slightly oversize page than to have two medium size ones. Hyenaste [citation needed] 00:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I can take care of it. What I have noticed is that there are some unnecessary sentences, and some sentences that can be combined, as well as some other things I can shorten without making the article less informative. I'll probably get to it soon. Wikipeedio 02:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size Getting Large

message: Should sigmaking and its rs market on how they affected RS be involved in this article?
:Has sigmaking affected RS in any way? How? Perhaps someone pays for signatures on forums, but it has not affected runescape other than a few gp moving around because of it. So, no, I wouldn't say its worthy of its own section in the article, perhaps, maybe, a one sentence mention in the community section. Clq 06:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: let alone, selling of rs gp for real life services (sigs) is illegal. RZ heretic 04:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Jagex staff has confirmed that when it comes to sig selling they are ok with trading sigs for gp, as long as the amount dosn't get extremly large. Clq 11:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigselling

message: I haven't seen any discussion about gender neutrality here.  I have, however, seen a lot of the singular "they" being used, along with he or she and he/she.  I think we need to decide on a consistent approach to this, and I propose that we use he/she as it is the shortest (other than s/he, which I despise).  If there is no problem with that, I will set out to make it happen as appropriate.Xela 12:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, I despise s/he too. Generally, I try to use he or she rather than he/she, since the extra four characters in he or she aren't sucking up bandwidth, and it flows better when read aloud. If possible, I would also suggest using a noun (the fighter, the smither) when possible and when not redundant. Hyenaste [citation needed] 12:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion,Either "he/she" or "the player". Not "you","u",", "s/he" or "he" or "she" J.J.Sagnella 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "the player" or "players" depending on the situation - • The Giant Puffin • 17:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's not forget the primary purpose of the article is to inform.  Ease of reading is far more important than style, or dare I say it, consistency.  My preference in these circumstances is to use the plural "players" along with liberal use of "they" wherever possible.  Constant repeated use of "the player" and "he or she" is going to get stilted pretty damned fast.  And remember just who the target audience for this particular article are.  No point having the perfectly written article if no-one bothers to read it.  Pragmatism above all things.  Cain Mosni 19:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please stick with traditional english? The he/she, s/he, he or she, is totally unnecessary as the male pronoun "he" has always been used to describe a random third person in the English language. Unless the reference is specific ("my mother, she is old") there is absolutely no need to type 4-12 more letters to be politically correct. RZ heretic 07:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree whole-heartedly.  Yes, the use of "he" is traditional, but there is already a major stereotype "out there" that only males play video games, especially RPGs like this one.  I am female, I play this game (a lot, I might add - look me up on the hiscores, keeping in mind that I have only been playing since the middle of December 2005, if you want confirmation), and I find it offensive that you think it is okay to imply that the information in these articles applies only to males.  It is certainly worth it to type a few extra letters to debunk a stereotype (although I do not see where you get that it could be 12??).  Xela Yrag 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Stereotypes aside, the reason we shouldn't use he is the reason we don't the word you. We can't assume the reader is male, just as we can't assume the reader plays RuneScape (or, for a more likely example, assume the reader is a member by using you in a section on members exclusive material). Hyenaste [citation needed] 15:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "he" used in the generic sense does not imply or reflect upon the gender of the subject. eg: "he who casts the first stone may only do so if he is without sin" Why dont you GO AND SUE THE BIBLE, for that is "implying" that all sinners are male, and all males sin. This is stereotyping all males as criminals and the stereotype largely holds. Any written language, even the bible, can be interpretted as sexist, racist, discriminative, asserting, rude and uncalled for. Frankly if the bible and the english translation of the koran, the two most widely read books in the world use he as a generic third person pronoun, then I don't really have a problem with it. Aside, the pronoun "you" is discouraged in general formal writting and has nothing to do with whether the subject "plays runescape", and thus has nothing to do with this argument. RZ heretic 04:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for being a tad controversial, but the Sun is the most widely read newspaper in the UK.  Does that justify adopting their sensationalist use of English?  I think not.  Language evolves, as do the rules for its acceptance.  And I hardly consider age-old religious treatises as suitable style guides for modern language.  I do not consider them style guides for life, so they're certainly not style guides for style.  Tradition alone is an argument for nothing but itself, and to be frank when people start appealing to tradition as their justification it gives one cause to wonder whether their position has any other substance to recommend it.  This is a modern medium.  Unlike the immutable printed word, it is flexible.  Can we not see our way to being just a little flexible with it?  Like it or not, there is a strong element of gender perception entwined with the subject matter.  It needs to be confronted - not for the sake of Political Correctness, which I despise with a passion for its inherent condescension - but because there genuinely is a need to dispel a misconception.  And I still think, that as English does not have a neutral singular gender, the next best thing is the universally neutral plural.  Cain Mosni 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Neutrality 

message: there is one thing that i found that has gotten past the eye of jagex!!!!
if you were to put *** in front of a "foul language word" and then *** after it then
it does not star the word out. i know this because a player calld imteman45 put (***gay***)
and it did not star the word out. i think someone should make this known in the language
section!! thx  flare mage22
:No, see WP:BEANS. This bug isn't particularly important anyway. Hyenaste (tell) 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isnt exactly major. I think we can afford to leave this out - • The Giant Puffin • 10:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is moot, since I tested it quietly last night, and no longer seems to be the case.  Cain Mosni 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  things about language section 

message: Everytime I add a Cricism even if its well founded it get deleted. Whats up? Cant legimate argument get in? (Koolsen 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not for your personal opinion. If you have a sensible opinion which people agree is true of RuneScape, then add it. You'll find we have virtually all the cons of RuneScape. J.J.Sagnella 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't object over putting criticism, but what is there is repeating itself.  I have removed the second line of the criticism, we can debate about the first later. --pevarnj (t/c/@) 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The criticism you are adding is too specific and is unverified, uncited and rarely heard of in the game. All criticism on the list are criticism even RuneScape players would agree that it is one of RuneScape's downfall. J.J.Sagnella 19:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People in game wouldn't say that the game was boring and they weren't playing anymore, they would stop playing if that was the case. --pevarnj (t/c/@) 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I'm afraid it really doesn't meet the need, it's too specific and not useful. J.J.Sagnella 08:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The criticisms you are adding reflect your point of view.  You are being biased by saying it is boring, as not everyone shares that opinion.  Even though many people do, a majority do not, and find the game fun and enjoyable.  An encyclopedia should show facts, not opinions.  What you are doing is showing an opinion.  If you restate what you had put in, it may become appropriate, but for now, you should not edit something back into an article in unless it follows Wikipedia's guidelines.  Agentscott00 18:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to second that. J.J.Sagnella 18:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third - • The Giant Puffin • 12:09, 22 May 2006 (U
Wait so how is saying "RuneScape is an MMORPG comparable to Guild Wars and Everquest." neutral? Many people would not find it comparable to these games. It doesnt even have the same playstyle as combat oriented Guild Wars. IT should say something like similar in style to Everquest. Sheesh. (Koolsen 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In that line, the word comparable means the similarities and differences can be examined and noted. So by naming a difference, you've shown that the two are comparable. Hyenaste (tell) 23:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critcisms 

message: Well ever since the page got sprotected, it seems the article has been improved greatly. It should be semiprotected more often, hahaha. Too bad its against Wikipedia rules. Wikipeedio 14:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a pity that as soon as people are able to vandalise, they do - • The Giant Puffin • 20:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow cool 

message: Hi guys.  I have made a proposal for a decision about fansite links.  It applies for this article, the portal, and the rest of the series.  Please help me by voting on it.  Thank you. Dtm142 23:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal talk:RuneScape#My proposal for fansite links.|My proposal for fansite links.]] 

message: Since i can't really edit it, i was wondering if some can... If some one can add that "You can freely change from any of the three combat styles anytime you please." why? since i thought this is one of teh aspects that makes runescape stand out of other games
:Just added it underneath the three forms.  Also, if you wish to have a Wikipedia username and be able to edit semi-protected articles, feel free to create an account.  Agentscott00 02:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more thing to add in the combat section 

message: I would like to add Runescape video as one of the external link . see http:// runescapefanclub.com/video.html . I think viewers will appreciate that they can see an overview of Runescape. please advice Dina der 10:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [Indefinitely blocked as spam sock. WikiProject Spam case - (permanent link) Femto 11:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The videos are bad, use copyrighted music, and the site in general contains LOADS of information that is highly untrue. No. The article should be encyclopedic, and it currently gives a good enough impression of the game. If anyone wants to experience gameplay, they can make an account. Clq 10:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add Runescape video ....