Talk:RuneScape/Archive 12

message: All recent material sent to Archive 11.----Edtalk c E 17:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Please take the time to read what I just did to the Feedback section before you make any rash decisions.  I have combined the positive and the negative into the same section.  Almost all of what was there is still there.  It looked heavy on the negative and light on the positive, when in reality a lot of the "negative" that was already there was already both positive and negative, as our intention was to give both sides of every story, thereby avoiding POV.  
I would like to take out or completely revise the Sounds and music section, however.  It sounds like a pet peeve or personal rant, and although it is cited, I feel (IMHO) that is needs major work.  I think we are getting to where we need to  be.  It is just a process and, like all processes, takes time.  Xela Yrag 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does need some work. Perhaps some more citations could help and improve that statement. Whereas to the part about combining player feedback, that's a great idea, since it's promoting NPOV. And I will be sending a request for a peer review as soon as we fix that sound statement.----Edtalk c E 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added more, what do you think?----Edtalk c E 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback Section 

message: K, you guys, you all know that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Then care to explain all this?
*Magic (RuneScape)
*RuneScape Skills
*RuneScape economy
*RuneScape weaponry
*RuneScape gods
*RuneScape locations
*RuneScape dungeons
*RuneScape monsters
*RuneScape armour
*Runescape barrows
*RuneScape combat
*Wilderness (RuneScape)
*RuneScape random events
*RuneScape holiday items
*RuneScape mini-games
*Castle Wars
*TzHaar Fight Cave
About 80% (or all) should not be here. There's a RuneScape Wiki, that's for these things. There should be a note somewhere on the RuneScape article (even on this talk page) that any new articles about RuneScape MUST go to the wiki. Now, I've got solutions for you guys:
#Delete them all/almost all. Many of them suck. They don't belong here.
#Move them to the RuneScape wiki. However, they got most of these articles, so moving them would only hinder them.
That's all I could think of. There's no point in keeping them, as if a wiki covers them all, then they do not belong on Wikipedia of all places. If some of those articles aren't on the wiki, then I'll get someone on it right away. So, what say yous?
I apologize for the \s, I'm on a proxy. Wanna know who I REALLY am? Wikipedia:Long term abuse#RuneScape Vandalism.208.68.210.177 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these have been nominated for deletion and survided, so they will stay.But thanks for telling us about the barrows article. It is stray. J.J.Sagnella 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We'll work it out in our own time. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the editors of this article well aware that some of these articles will be deleted, but we are current in the process of restructuring(please read previous discussions) this article which will affect what those article contain and how they are use. Gnangarra 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GET RID OF THE CRAP

message: There were some ongoing discussions on how to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, and someone archived all of them. While I understand the need to archive to prevent the page from becoming too long, please don't archive sections where there is an ongoing discussion about an issue with the article that needs to be addressed. You can archive sections about minor issues which have already been addressed.
The sections you should NOT have archived:
*Who wants to work with me to make RuneScape a good article?
*Edits to lead section.
*The Fansites Debate
*Structure and organization of the article
*Finding references for this article
*RuneScape Reviews
Archiving means "end of discussion". If you archive a section with an ongoing discussion about adding references, that means you aren't interested in adding references. Please don't rush with archiving - we want to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, and we need to address these issues.
In addition, please don't rush with the Peer Review. Address the issues we are aware of first (e.g. by adding references) before sending the article for Peer Review.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ++ to it all, it really peeved me off that debates were just stopped midway through. --Maitias 09:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLease return these discussions, each discussion should be archive when finished and not the whole page, that as a guide even completed discussions should be left at least 7 days after the last entry to enable other less regular editors the oppotrtunity to review whats happened and why.  Gnangarra 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that if the current ongoing had been left on this page the suggestion of wrongfully deleting all of the above articles could have avoided, now editors will spend weeks chasing their tails trying to protect these article instead of improving them. Gnangarra 10:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, my computer is slow, and I have a hard time posting comments on long talk pages.--Edtalk c E 17:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  And also, I thought we already addressed the issues with this article. Every statement already contains a citation. We changed the criticisms to ensure a NPOV. I'm just looking for more issues before we try FA.--Edtalk c E 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did you archive everything? 

message: Having recently joined the Computer and Video Games WikiProject, and as a member of the Good articles WikiProject, I have a goal of making RuneScape a Good article.
The RuneScape article has previously failed a Featured Article nomination and failed a Good Article nomination. I sent it for Peer Review, raising several concerns, but received no significant responses.
The article needs considerable work to become a good article, and I obviously can't do it alone. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia project. I am currently seeking Wikipedians, such as J.J.Sagnella, who wish to collaborate with me to improve RuneScape to Good Article status. In addition, such Wikipedians are likely to be potential Wikifriends with a common interest in RuneScape.
If you wish to collaborate with me to make RuneScape a good article, please reply with your comments. Please read the Peer Review and the comments on the failed Featured Article and Good Article nominations. In the next few weeks, I expect us to be participating in copious discussions on this talk page, about issues with the article we need to address and how to address them. During these discussions, we are likely to learn more about each other and become Wikifriends.
While we work on improving the article to Good Article status, I hope to keep RuneScape semi-protected to prevent floods of anonymous vandalism. I wish Wikipedia did not allow anonymous editing. Once we have consensus, we will send the RuneScape article for Peer Review, and once the peer review is complete, it should be ready to be nominated for Good Article. Once we achieve our current goal of making RuneScape a good article, we may have a future goal of getting it to featured status.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll offer my services when independent copy editing and sense checking of the article is required, just drop a request at my talk page Gnangarra 07:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Gnangarra, and thanks for offering to help! Perhaps you could fact-check everything - there's lots of vandalism. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now RuneScape is Protected-and should STAY like that, we can get to work to making it better. I'll have a look and tell you if anything is wrong. J.J.Sagnella 07:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Keep it semi-protected. The only people who wish for the semi-protection to be lifted are the moronic anonymous vandals. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've searched throught the article and its revisions and reverted some subtle vandalism (someone changed the price for billing out by 10 cents...) and I removed some things which are either too specific or would be considered as "gamecruft". Now I'd say the main problem is getting sources for all the criticisms. Also the "weapons" section may need a cleanup, because the metals named aren't the only ones. There's granite, blurite, wood, which technically makes the list void. J.J.Sagnella 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I think what we should do is to identify all major concerns with the article, then work out how to address these issues, then actually work on them. We must uncover all problems that would prevent RuneScape from becoming a Good Article. That's where Peer Review would help, except that my Peer Review did not receive any significant response. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll chip in sometime. I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment, but I'll have a go at spelling, citations, and lend a hand with the subpages too. I did manage to get some information out of the last Peer Review, and I added them to the bottom of the todo list a while back. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, CaptainVindaloo! A toast to our co-operation! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ill help when I can. I am a bit busy with other projects at the minute, but Ill try to use some of my free time to improve this article - • The Giant Puffin • 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Let's see how we can improve the article, and where you can help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 
07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand that real life can get stressful. My common tests just ended. I know you're also one of the regular editors of this article, and I look forward to collaborating with you. Let's discuss the issues that need to be addressed and how to address them, then actually address them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My Internet is pretty slow too. Thanks for offering to do fact-checking. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wants to work with me to make [[RuneScape]] a [[WP:GA|good article]]? 

message: :Don't mean to be a bother, but I've not come across said rule that actually prohibits only one link.  If you were referring to WP:EL as your so-called "rule" (which is generally an essay anyway), this link found in the Archives of said essay would prove the consensus of this issue to be the following:
—It appears the consensus is to allow links to multiple fan sites. This seems reasonable. What is not reasonable is the current phrasing of allow a link to ONE fan site. What is there are two that both claim to be the biggest? Do we engage in an endless tug of war? Either you allow both or neither. Not "one".
Makoto 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:EL]] found to have a consensus on Fansites

message: While I continued to lood for game reviews, I found the citation for most of the entries in Criticisms, including: Graphics, gameplay, and free play limitations. If you look at this page], you would see that most of the criticisms come from this page. What should we do now? Should we add this site in as a citation, or delete the content since the site looks unreliable?--Ed 19:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GameFAQs? I can't think of a much more reliable source. That would do nicely as a citation, although it seems to apply to RuneScape Classic (see the date). As that is not a professional review, it may not carry the same weight. I still think the uncited claims in the criticisms section should go, as they are just player rants. Urgh, i've just looked through the Gamespot player reviews, the first one I read was someone ranting about being banned. Read the rules, people! CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So maybe we should just try to deleted those criticisms (the ones without citations). Is that what your saying??--Ed 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are uncited and uncitable rants by players, based upon their opinion. Wait for some more editor opinions before you do delete them, though. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I swapped the press reviews to the top of the section, moved and titled the uncited as Player cirticism. Agree that each needs a cite, it also needs balance if player opinions are used they should be balanced between positive and negative. Gnangarra 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For now, I will use the citation that I found in GameFAQ's. Then we will deal with the rest after.--Ed 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "No game is all horrible"? You do realise someone made a videogame version of Big Brother? :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting you mention My Big Brother—the game was developed by Henrique Olifiers who now works where? Jagex. Hyenaste (tell) 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spooky. Why did you delete one of my earlier posts? CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Every game must have something good.--Ed 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In the Feedback section, there are 2 mentionings of opinions about members content being more than free content. Does this count as a citation reliable for this certain issue?
"We believe that if players are so committed to the game that they exhaust the free part, then they will want to convert to the subscription service." 
When you read it, it seems to imply that the subscription service will keep increasing and that the free part is intended to stay the same.--Ed 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Latency, as a result of Server load, Distance, as well as factors like Noise, Attenuation, Interference and so forth in the communications medium, is inevitable in any form of communications, and pervades any and every multiplayer videogame. This statement is effectively redundant, and can go. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Check Gameplay in Feedback. Should we delete the farming statement, or continue to find a citation??----Edtalk c E 15:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Okay folks, we may want to have a look at the automated recommendations for improvement here. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: The Criticism section is only giving more features of the game, there is effectively no Criticism. This section used to be extensive, but soemone deleted it. Now the article is locked, while RS's competator's articles have mounds of negtive and repeating Criticism. Wikipdia is looking very biased right now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.188.142 (talk • contribs) 
:Oh, you're just biased against RS. The criticism is right below the section to which you refer. Seriously though, you are correct—that section does not belong there. It reads too much like advertisement. Thanks for pointing it out—it must be attended to before this can be a good article. Hyenaste (tell) 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't we just make this into a separate 'Reviews' section? CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still seems a bit like an advertisement. It praises RuneScape a bit too much you know? Hyenaste (tell) 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If its cited, it should be fine. Just place quotation marks where appropriate, to make it clear that the reviewer said this, not us. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, if the newspapers praise RuneScape, then it means that they recommend RuneScape as a good game. Now if anyone can find a negative PRESS review, then we can add it to the section.--Edtalk c E 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: There is none. Wikipedia is looking biased 

message: *Lessons on labour: According to BBC News, playing RuneScape as much as working on homework is not necessarily a bad thing. It can instruct players about working hard to achieve goals. Studies show that the nature of most games, including RuneScape, can teach teenagers vital skills as they enter the labour market. 
*Fastest growing: The Guardian stated that Runescape is one of the fastest growing out of all of the MMORPGs. Online RPGs are one of the few internet businesses that can entice people to pay for online content. 
*Free, with no strings attached: Just RPG, an organization that reviews online role-playing games, says that "It's rare for something that's free to come with no strings attached, and is actually fun to boot." RuneScape does just that.
*Great entertainment: The Yahoo Buzz Log states that the unrealistic roles of the characters in the MMORPG Runescape can provide good entertainment when people need a break.
*RuneScape 2 a huge success: According to PC Gamer UK, RuneScape 2 should be a great success. "Available via your browser, the game can be fired up on a narrowband connection, in just a few minutes."
Hyenaste (tell) 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't we just make this into a separate 'Reviews' section? CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still seems a bit like an advertisement. It praises RuneScape a bit too much you know? Hyenaste (tell) 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If its cited, it should be fine. Just place quotation marks where appropriate, to make it clear that the reviewer said this, not us. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, if the newspapers praise RuneScape, then it means that they recommend RuneScape as a good game. Now if anyone can find a negative PRESS review, then we can add it to the section.--Edtalk c E 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Press reviews

message: I've noticed a lack a consistency regarding the way the free-to-play and pay-to-play aspects of RuneScape are presented in this article. For example, when referring to players who subscribe for membership, I see the words "paying members", while just "members" and even "P2P players", among others. This is the same with players who use the free options. Even when describing content I see things like "F2P content" and "free content".
I think it's important for us to decide on specific terms to use consistently throughout the entire article, especially if we want RuneScape to become a Good Article. I personally prefer "paying members", "free players", "subscription content" and "free content", but it's not only up to me to decide. Audacious One 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. People who read might not know the meaning of words like f2p. J.J.Sagnella 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you everyone for the support - I appreciate it. I really like your suggestion Ed with "free content" and "subscription content" with links to P2P and F2P - but only when they are first mentioned. I originally planned on suggesting "free content" but couldn't find a good term for the - well, subscription content. Thanks -  Audacious One 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I just fixed all of the links for P2P and F2P. I also noticed that the article uses the term NPC, instead of Non-player character. In the mean time, I placed links to non-player character, but should I actually change its text?--Edtalk c E 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Contrary to what you might have thought, I am definitely not berating any terms. I am not angry or even upset whatsoever that multiple terms are being used for these things. I'm merely trying to present the idea that consistency is important and it can help us bring RuneScape to be a Good Article. I strongly disagree that writing out simple words and keeping tmers consistent is pretentious. It is a professional way of writing. With regards of how to spell things, there are correct English spellings for all such words and usually the Wikipedia article corresponding with such terms are spelled correctly. And I agree with you about the links - I didn't mean to say there should be a link with every single mention of these terms; only when they are first mentioned. Audacious One 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPC is linked no less than six times in the article, two of them in one sentence and a third on the next line.  Pay-to-play and free-to-play are linked twice each in one paragraph, along with multiple other links for both throughout the article.  Three-dimensional graphics is linked twice in the same section.  That is just examples of what I mean by overkill.  I didn't check to see who made all those links; it could be one person or several.  And should we even be linking to some of this stuff?  The guidelines say that you should only link to relevant articles.  At one point, we had a link to clouds and the colour lavender in one of the daughter articles.  Some of these may be reaching a little to get relevance, but I am not sure enough to remove the link yet.  Xela Yrag 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just going to be bold and remove the links. And take a look at this. Improve the graphics of the entire free world??? Sounds like President Bush talking about uniting ourselves into a community of freedom...lol--Edtalk c E 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: whoever added the citation needed in the graphics part of criticism really has problems —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimRepr39 (talk • contribs) .
:Could you clarify that accusation? Hyenaste (tell) 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the old "RuneScapes graphics are the worst" arguement again, they're not. Have you ever seen the graphical quality of the first Empire Earth (for example)? Any claim that RS's  graphics are the worst of any game will need to be cited. One other thing that puzzles me is why games are often judged merely by their graphical quality. Gun Metal has easily the best graphics of its time, yet has a plot which is wafer thin and narration that makes me want to bang my head on a wall (due in no small part to its creation for the sole purpose of showcasing nVidia's GeForce FX cards). Empire Earth, despite its ugliness, is one of my favourites, hence my frustration at not being able to get it working. Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: When leaving posts, please add details as to why you are leaving them. Leaving short posts on discussion pages makes it hard for us to address your situation.--Edtalk c E 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no offense 

message: Placed in error at top of talk page - moved. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation #15

message: In this article, it is mentioned that there are 9 milion players, however, the article about Jagex states there are 5,5 milion players. Can someone verify what the correct number is? - Redmess 15:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the different figures are from different times? The  figure is cited, so i'd be inclined to believe that one.  doesn't recieve as much traffic, so maybe the Jagex figure is out of date. I'll change it to reflect this article's figure and citation. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of RuneScape, it is very important to draw a line between number of players and number of accounts. One of the numbers might be accounts, one may be players. On the Jagex cooporate website though, Jagex states "Jagex has a large audience of over 5 million unique users who play our games every month." I would therefore say its safe to assume that there are at least five million -players- of RuneScape as, lets face it, the other Jagex games are not that popular. Clq 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I saw the 5 million figure on the Jagex Corporate site a long time ago. The recently published (last month) 9 million figure makes sense to me. I'm not sure if either of the reports take account of multiple accounts, so that may well be a systematic error. Maybe we could change the wording to say 'accounts' rather than 'players' if necessary? CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of players

message: Although useful if there are no other reviews, the article will never pass a FAC if the source of criticisms and review come from a bunch of anonymous amateurs at GameFAQs.  Anyone can write for gameFaqs, but it doesn't mean that their point of view matters, I could write a review saying how amazing I thought the 3D engine was and the great lighting effects in Runescape, but it'd be all wrong.  Gamefaqs wouldn't know that.
So whereas as a stopgap measure, critique from GameFaqs is OK, you should be looking for more professional publications in which to source the critical commentary.  Problem is, most of the gaming press ignore browser based games, and many of these sources will be offline so you can't use Google either. - Hahnchen 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did have a look through my vast archives of PC Gamer magazines, particularly those issues from around where RS2 ended its beta run. Apart from the brief mention in the 'Netgamer' section in one issue (see my transcription above), nothing. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameFAQs is not a reliable source - [[WP:RS]] 

message: I have unprotected this page. While I understand that this article may get a lot of vandalism, permanent protection or semiprotection is not something done on Wikipedia, not even to George W. Bush. Protection is a temporary measure only, and the only pages permanently protected are protected for the reasons listed on this page. —Cuiviénen 17:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuivienen, please try to understand this article is trying to be featured. I challenge you to find 10 edits which have been constructive to this page by anons. Most of the edits are either vandalism or edits which don't help the article being featured, but instead hinder it's chances. Could you just leave semiprotection back on till we have our good/featured article debate? It really would help this article, or we may find ourselves reverting our way through tons of edits. J.J.Sagnella 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does being on FAC have to do with anything? Articles are not semiprotected when on FAC, and this article is no different. Ask for blocks of persistent IP vandals, or, if it gets really bad, the article can be reprotected, but protection is not meant to be a permanent solution, and this article had been semiprotected for nearly a month. —Cuiviénen 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RuneScape is one of the top 10 most vandalised articles on Wikipedia (6th, I think). There is just too much vandalism from anonymous users, and it is severely degrading the quality of the article. It was once a huge mess - we've only just started saving it, so please don't destroy all our hard work! If we want to make RuneScape a good article, it must be semi-protected from all the moronic anonymous vandalism. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got downgraded to 7th. The Israeli conflict has overtaken us by around 200 edits. J.J.Sagnella 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason that this article is so heavily edited would be the Fansites debacle.  No one likes it, and (almost in general) it could very well be the single reason that this article is targeted so frequently.  Fix that, and you won't need semi-protection.  Makoto 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fansite debate has been raging for months, see above. --Maitias 11:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I don't know if this would even affect the article from reaching FA status, but let me voice my grievance with it.  Where do I begin from here now...
*The RuneScape armour and RuneScape weaponry guides should be merged.  If that were the case, it could fall under RuneScape combat, and one would safely ignore the second bullet.
*RuneScape skills can be merged with RuneScape combat.
*RuneScape dungeons and Wilderness (RuneScape) could be merged with Runescape locations.
*Castle Wars would fall under RuneScape mini-games, no doubt about it.
The rest of these:
*RuneScape community
*Construction (RuneScape)
*RuneScape economy
*RuneScape holiday items
*RuneScape random events
could just be safely deleted, as they contain more fancruft than usable information.  Makoto 01:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, except for RuneScape Community. It got created to shorten the main article. J.J.Sagnella 01:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If it were to be kept, then it should merit an overhaul, such as citations and a newer structure.  Makoto 02:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you there Makoto. I hate that horrible Construction article. However, I think that maybe Economy and Community can be merged, decrufted and kept. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Captain Vindaloo--Edtalk c E 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I believe that the Ecnomomy is the largest fancrufty thing in this Wiki, since it does talk about specific prices frequently (which are always subject to change).  If there would be a way to cut out all of the fancruft, talk about ways to bring in amounts of cash, steady supplements, then maybe it could be viable as a merge.  Makoto 16:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pricing information can be given the heave-ho, of course. It may be better for that article/section/whatever it ends up as to discuss what drives the economy, in the same way as national economic articles (for example, Economy of the United Kingdom), namely; the sale of weapons and armour (which is rather worrying! :-) ) and food. I believe there has been some writeup stuff around the internet discussing the RS economy; if not, we can throw in some general MMORPG economy theory. BBC News has tonnes of that stuff, particularly related to World of Warcraft. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parts of the RS Series

message: I'm seeing lots of anons in the article history. Should we be worried???--Edtalk c E 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If they aren't vandals, they're usually packing the article with cruft. Hyenaste (tell) 16:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Xela, this article is not going to get permanent protection.  It probably doesn't need it.  Let's think about this from an "outside-of-the-box" point of view...Why are vandals targeting this wiki in particular?  I can think of three things right off the top of my head:
*They disagree with the content, so they modify it.
*They believe that an amount of RS users view this Wiki to help them ingame, therefore frequently it is packed with "free item" links, etc.
*They wish to be reckless and believe that their information is factual.
Now then, let's look at the specific targets for vandalism.  I've noticed a few in the recent months, namely the Community, Skills and most particularly the Links section.  What must happen here would be an agreement as to what goes in those spots.  Make it stick, too.  What's up there right now is great, but this article is far from GA status, let alone FA.
Vandalism—relating to links of free stuff or obviously false claims—is all about the opportunity.  Make this Wiki so factual that the opportunity is a lot smaller, and you'll be getting a lot less vandals.  Makoto 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In short.....make this a fantastic article so that others wouldn't want to change it!!! Thanks Makoto!--Edtalk c E 03:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: another point is that most of these anon edits come from the main age demographics that play the game being  12 to 20 years. That no matter how detailed and factual this article is, this age group will expect to see significant cruft when its not there they will try to add. Gnangarra 07:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you give up on making it GA/FA?  The rules themselves specify that constant vandalism attacks don't hurt its chances.  If you really wanted to make this a GA, you'd start from the ground-up; rip out all the fancruft from EVERYWHERE you can find it.  Makoto 18:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals