Talk:RuneScape/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 34

Outdated Refrences

I was checking through the refrences at the bottom of the page and several of them are invalid addresses. Currently looking to see if I can find information similar to what they should contain.Cencere (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Archiving And Page Tidy Up

Hi

We are now up to 33 topics on this page, many of which are dead or repeats. I plan (unless there are any major objections) to archive this page, remove the older discussions, and place a couple of reminders about repeated issues that keep on turning up. I would like to do this next week, so if there are any objections please can we discuss them over the next 7 days. Any bits not resolved will not be done, any bits rejected will not be done, and and new bits suggested and meet with approval will be done.

Sections I propose to be remove:

Mistake in content

Runescape HD critical reaction

Game Change Consolidation

New animations?

Addition to the history page

German Beta

Runescape Unique Gameplay omissions

3 new server locations

I cant edit

Runescape history

Problems with the article

New Proposed External Link

German Servers

Criticism

Way off

recent reviews

hi

Any objections if?

Sections I propose to add:

Reminder that all comments need come from a verifiable source

Big notice that the article is semi protected

Request for sourced verifiable negative opinion

(and this one, obviously)

Any for or against-please post and discuss.FlashNerdX (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also archive the "Religious Perspective" section - that was made by a now-indefinitely-blocked user, and was deleted then restored (for an unknown reason). In fact, the only section I wouldn't archive is the one directly above, "Outdated References" - that might be updated at some point. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As there have been no objections raised I shall start archiving this page and make the adjustments described aboveFlashNerdX (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious Perspective

I think that a controversy section should be added talking about this games addictive properties and its anti religious philosophyRunemaster24 (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how RuneScape is anti-religious, first it is a massive-multiplayer online rpg, this means that it's audience is varied in their beliefs, so to emphasize one religion over another might alienate prospective members. Second, in contrast with what I just said, RuneScape displays several Christian elements, such as holiday events of Easter and Christmas. The several monotheistic and polytheistic religions Jagex created also support the concept of religion, perhaps your arguin against Runescape not portraying other religions besides Christianity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cencere (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RuneScape Wiki

I don't think Runescape Wiki is usually considered a major fansite. I know an earlier rule was just to stick with Zybez, Tip.it, and RuneHQ, has that changed? 76.27.55.64 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That consensus has not changed. But as I see it, the RuneScape Wiki is not really a fansite, so it isn't covered by that agreement. It's simply a wiki giving detailed information about RS. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 1ForTheMoney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al1012 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The runescape wiki is not considered one of the major three sites. My vote is to remove it. 75.163.240.140 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: As a reference, when I referred to consensus in my previous post, I was referring to this discussion, which was the last discussion on this point. Digging through the archives will show that this has been established over a good period of time. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep it, I removed it's 'major fansite' claim a while back. It provides just as much help as Zybez, tip.it, HQ and etc. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 09:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in content

It says "RuneScape Classic was closed to new accounts and restricted to paying members who had played Classic at least once since 3 August 2005, and once every six months after that"

I believe you misread this, you do not have to log in once every six months after that. You had to have logged in at least once within the 6 months following August 3rd 2005, but after that you never had to log into it again.

I would have put this on the main page but I can't. So hopefully one of you can, then delete this.

Edit: Here is the source of this. http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=752

StrawberryKitten (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Runescape HD critical reaction

The brand new graphics of Runescape, known as "Runescape HD" has recieved mixed critical reaction in the Runescape forums, mostly negative. Most players complain about the new look of the characters, certain items, and emotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.240.20 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We need reviews from reliable sources. Forums don't count as a reliable source. Xenon54 01:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a review of the new graphics by 1up.com, which is published by Ziff Davis. See [1]. I am not sure if the site is generally considered reliable. Jim Miller (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally negative? Maybe if you were browsing the rants forum, not to mention forums are not a reliable source and cannot be used. 76.234.21.53 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were to check out the fan sites you'd get a different reaction, however neither of those are valid as sources so its utterly irreliventFlashNerdX (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Game Change Consolidation

Currently there are a number of repeated statements in the Rules & Cheating and Reception parts of the document covering the game changes from the beginning of the year. Does anyone has a problem with me putting them into one place? Both sections mention the negative reaction to the changes and both use the same reference, as they are so close together it makes sense to me to not repeat the information and I think it would go better in the Reception section (which deals with peoples opinions and reactions to the game) than the more descriptive 'what do they do 'Rules & Cheating' section.FlashNerdX (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections so done FlashNerdX (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

New animations?

We need new animations to reflect the graphics updates. I can make animations. Tell me what we need an animation of, and I have no problem going and getting it. Tebuddy (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could just make copies of Tarikochi's images, only in HD. Maybe leave a few as a comparison. → C Teng ^[talk] 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my account that has enough contribs to edit articles like these. I have made a couple and done my best to make them as smooth and as nice looking as possible. A few of them such as taris jad image and mime random I cant setup because of character and skill limitations (I cant for the life of me get mimed). So for replacements, I suggest already existing images that can be used in place. For example, to demonstrate barbarian fishing I have made Image:Runescape-barbarian-fishing.gif. For demonstrating combat we could use Image:Runescape-assisting-sir-vant.gif. For the monster we could use Image:Runescape monsters kalphitequeen-1stform-updated.gif. I havent given making a wardrobe one a shot yet. Joe3472 (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the "player VS jad" image be replaced with a "player VS other monster" image, in that case? It wouldn't really remove anything from the article, since Jad means as much as any other monster to a non-player. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:04, 18

July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Well, you've kind of addressed the issue of "which monster to have fighting the player?", though you needn't use a huge boss monster; any mid-to-high-level monster will do. As for the wardrobe image, just get a couple of sets of clothes and cycle through them (that image could have a much smaller file size and still get the point across.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I just made a mime one Image:Runescape-mime-random-event.gif, working on a wardrobe one now. Joe3472 (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Tarikochi has replaced the random event image with one of a "drill demon" event. Not sure if I like this or Joe3472's image just above. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tari has it covered, there is no reason to fight. Joe3472 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

probably you should do a picture about you fighting the kbd.Lucas8k (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, we could - but always remember that this article is written for a worldwide audience, not just RuneScape players. To non-players, the King Black Dragon is just another monster. For that reason, we can have an image of any monster and it still serves its purpose. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the history page

For some reason, I cannot seem to edit this article due to the semi-protection(My account has been made for a long while now, and yet I cant seem to edit it), so could someone please add in that the Free-To-Play version of Runescape HD was released on Monday, July 14, 2008?--Roflthatnoobgotowned (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed. You need ten edits to become autoconfirmed - while your account has been around since March, this post was your sixth edit, hence the inability to edit the article. Xenon54 01:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

German Beta

Reading this article, i've noticed that it incorrectly states there are four German servers. I have been to the German beta on the Runescape website, and there are 5 servers; 3 free, and 2 members. I am unable to edit the page, so I wish to draw attention to this matter. Smartstuff13 (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind. There are correctly four German servers; world 147 is no longer on the German beta. Smartstuff13 (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I see World 147 is a members-only german world, making it 5 worlds, hence my change to that paragraph. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Unique Gameplay omissions

I am a former WOW player who has played Runescape for over 2 years now. The reasons I like Runescape over WOW or many other games out there are the same reasons I like playing Chess -- it takes a lot of planning and thinking and when your plans come together it is really rewarding. It is MUCH harder to level a character up on Runescape. I don't care about the graphics. I know I am not alone in this. Runescape is a lifelong game. I had several friends with characters in WOW, for example, who had multiple characters leveled-up to max. I know NO players personally who have doen this in Runescape. That's a pretty big difference from other mmorpg's. TO me (and many others) it is the most important difference. It is NOT a simple game. If you glance at the game it looks graphically simple, but so does chess. These "analysts" cited have obviously never played Runescape very long, or just glanced superficially at it and assumed it was similar to other MMORPG's in this regard. This is a HUGE omission! it is the main reason people stay with Runescape so long. Here is the relevant passage from the Wiki article:

Quote: "Its analysis posits that "RuneScape’s mass-market appeal lies in its simplicity and accessibility (both financial and technical). It has tapped into the vast market of games players unwilling or unable to spend premium prices on PCs capable of playing the latest, expensive, processor-intensive games. Its core gameplay concepts are very similar to its retail-distributed RPG and MMORPG analogues".[70]

The concepts are not similar. On the surface they seem to be, but earlier in the article you mentioned the more open game play without a specific path to follow -- you have to THINK much more about what you are doing and the skills and paths you take can be combined or put in various order to work together. Within each skill, the things you can do to level up vary in their difficulty and distances to resources which take careful thought and planning as well. As you level up, it gets harder to level. That is pretty core to the game concept, and contradictory with the quote I copied above, because earlier you say it has more open play than all the others. It is very intellectually challenging and not thinking about it and planning can leave you doing several times the work, making it nearly impossible to level-up. You can of course walk around all day simply doing nothing in the game, but if you actually play the game it is mind-numbingly complex. THAT is the game's main strength, along with being able to play anywhere. Most play-anywhere flash games are mind-numbingly simple -- this is virtually the only one this complex.

Runescape only looks simple. Just add a line that runescape characters take much longer to level up to maximum than every other game I know of out there. It takes more planning too. Runescape is harder. It is a challenging game. It is a much harder game than WOW, for example -- even though wow has more complex-looking graphics. This is a very important distinction. Somewhere it needs to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiralsun1 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

gree, but please sign your posts with four tildes. To be honest, I think RuneScape has arguably better graphics than "wow", now anyway. RuneScape does have more skills and costs less monthly, and you can do whatever you want without creating a new characters, for the most part. You can switch between any "class" at any time. 76.212.15.113 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether one thing is better than another, but do you have reliable sources to back up your claims? If not, it doesn't go in the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He does have a point about the portrayal of classes and professions compared to other games. Wow and GW for example focus heavily on choosing one class/set of skills and sticking with it while Runescape allows you to train any type of combat skill as long as your willing to invest time into it. That should not be hard to source. 76.229.138.207 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No source, no inclusion. Simple as that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a source on common information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.15.113 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because otherwise it's Original Research and I'm sure other people disagree. That's why sources are needed--  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you disagree with a statement like "Unlike many MMORPG games, Runescape does not limit a charachter to one class or profession"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.130.22 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevent - it's still got to have a reliable source. And if you don't play MMORPGs (keeping in mind this article targets a general audience), it means very little. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The game is the source. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

But the game itself is not a reliable source, or one you can cite - you need things like fansites, game reviews, etc. The bottom line, as has been repeated several times, is that if there is no source, it doesn't get included.

Look, I'm beginning to feel that this discussion isn't going anywhere. Unless someone is willing to come up with reliable sources to justify why this belongs in the article, it (to me, at least) seems meaningless to continue. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The game itself is a valid reliable source although it is a primary source. According to WP:NOTE, "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Since the game is a work of fiction, and the lack of player classes is a plot element, a primary source is acceptable. The comparison to other games is either WP:OR or WP:SYN. All that having been said, it really doesn't matter to anyone who isn't actually playing the game and the entire concept should be left out according to the guidelines of the WikiProject which says "Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." A non-gamer wouldn't care about it, so there is no need to include it. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

JimMullerJr is 100% right on that one.FlashNerdX (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JimMiller. Obviously the actual game is not a source, though its website is. But you have to be careful not to overuse primary sources, and you won't find the stuff being discussed here on the RS website. Secondary sources are needed and we don't have them. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Merchandise

On July 9th 2008 Jagex released the Jagex store which currently only holds one product: the Runescape Novel "betrayal at Falador" by T.S Church. Jagex has mentioned that more merchandise will be available, including many from the "Shop till you Drop" player poll which was conducted in April 2008(http://news.runescape.com/c=-5f5a3863/newsitem.ws?id=1300).trevor.eh (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also another published book on the market: "Runescape: The official Handbook", written by Tracey West. This book was published January 1 2007 by Scholastic and covers the basics of the free version of the game (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Runescape-The-Official-Handbook-Tracey-West/9780439877725-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+%2527runescape%2527&sterm=runescape+-+Books). trevor.eh (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a lot of vandalism on this page.

 Not done It has been removed along time ago. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3 new server locations

they have 3 new server locations in, mexico, belguim, and norway. Mickman1234 (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (ust)

they have also added servers for ireland, denmark, new zealand, and brazil. here's proof [http:// http://www.runescape.com/slj.ws?rs.x=35&rs.y=3]--Kanata Kid (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I cant edit

Hey i would like to say that the edit tab is gone on the article page.Is it because it is edited too much because i can edit other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas8k (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That'd be because the article is semi-protected because of vandals. You need to be an autoconfirmed user to edit semi-protected pages (your account needs to have existed for 4 days, and made 10 edits). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Runescape history

Shouldn't we put in a section about runescape's history.It could be brief detailing what the god wars were and why guthix stopped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas8k (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that no matter how brief we keep it, it would be seen as too in-universe. There used to be articles about Gielinor and specific sections of the game; all were deleted/merged into this article.

Incidentally, too much in-universe material was one of the reasons this article was delisted from Good Article status. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Several problems that need to be brought-up. I've had friends who've played Runescape (even I at one point) and I know there is stuff missing. Things that would allow for a more neutral POV, reducing the page's appearance as an ad. For one, in the article, it implies that the cost for Runescape was always around 4$ before being changed to 5$. I remember it was $15 in the recent past, around a year ago. They dropped the price over 50% due to many issues which I am about to bring-up. In the past there have been numberless hacking attempts and successful sabotages of game code. These were all from dissatisfied players some of my friends knew. On top of that, the article also fails to note a particularly notable glitch, the million gold shop, which caused around 50,000 to cancel their memberships. Finally, the most peculiar, after reading through page Runescape news articles, there is a negligence to mention these things, despite being known by . Articles were also evidently removed, as I remember many logs about removing glitches and trying to regain customer support. All of these need to be noted. I have not added these to the article for this would be a no-doubt controversial topic, especially if Jagex denies any of these events. Thank you for reading this and I must request members who wish to contribute to find evidence; get some members to speak-up and have them publicize it. I hope that this will pave a way to a more neutral POV Wikipedia, even through just one article. --Eiyuu Kou (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

when it comes to this "I remember it was $15 in the recent past, around a year ago." i've been a member then and it has been $5, wow is 15 if that is what your thinking, or another country's currency conversion to $15 USD71.111.83.72 (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Never been $15 a month and I have no idea where you got the idea from, nor the 'million gold shop' causing 50k to quit the game (unless you mean them trying to stop real money trading, which is already in the article and says that people left because of it). As for the rest of it whilst NPOV is important the lack of any verifiable sources means your claims for such things can't go up till you have them. "the veteran community" and "friends who've played" does not cut it - for what you need please go and checkWP:V.

Not to mention WP:NOR... It has been $5 a month for credit card at least... It is $10 for SMS because of extreme convenience.--Unionhawk (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New Proposed External Link

I propose that we add a link to wikihow.com/Category:RuneScape. Thoughts? Eric-Wester (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't add anything to the article. If people want more game information (how to play the game), the fansites and RuneScape Wiki give more than enough information. The page you linked to doesn't contain any information that cannot be found on the other fansites. Mathias-S (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I see no need to add this link. The "Frequently Asked Questions" banner at the top of this talk page will explain that, per consensus, we only have the 3 most-visited fansites according to Alexa traffic rankings. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

German Servers

They're are supposed to be 5 german based servers, with 3 of them being f2p servers and 2 of them being p2p servers. I can't edit it, so someone will have to do it for me. User:Froggie13 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...that appears to be correct, the world list says there are 5 german worlds. I'll make the adjustment. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose there is something regarding recent updates. Perhaps another media could be found as a reference to it so we have jagex + player perspectives of the new update. Here is a youtube link for example of the new quest update: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B_b28-1UuWo

You could also read from the main runescape page though to see jagex's side.

Criticism

Something about this should be added to the official article:

RuneScape has also been also receiving criticism for Jagex's "lack of customer support" in response to the removal of the "comment on our service" button a few months ago. This button was the only way regular players could contact Jagex staff unless they were appealing an offence or submitting a bug report. There is very little interaction between Jagex staff and their players as it is and players are angered by the fact that they cannot contact Jagex for queries about the game. Right now, save the extremely rare case you run into a Jagex mod in-game, there is no way to talk with Jagex staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InkRaven (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Any proof?--Megaman en m (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR (Butters x (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

To be honest there is endless proof of this. As an experienced player myself, I know how hard it is to contact a REAL Jagex employee about both major and minor issues. Take the instance that you are banned unfairly. No matter how passionate your appeals are and no matter how much proof you give that you are innocent, it amounts to nothing. You recieve an automated response which deams you randomly either guilty or innocent. Browse through Zybez RSC, there are humourous pictures in there of banned players using obscene language and personal threats in appeals, and somehow being unbanned. I acknowledge that Jagex staff are few in number, but with the amount of money the company makes, it SHOULD hire more people and expand it's customer support crew. I may have ranted and gone off-topic a tad, but I hope you see my point... A Prodigy ^(t•c•m) 20:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I do, but it doesn't matter how many players come on here and rant, it doesn't address what Megaman and Butters have said, and what I'm going to repeat: it cannot go in the article without reliable sources, something I'm saying an awful lot lately. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Way off

Runescape has something like, 125 million free players. Fix this please Twentilla (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you were looking at the home page of RS, which says that 130 million accounts were created? Well, that number only takes the number of accounts that have ever been created, active or not. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, accounts created also includes permanantly banned bots, which accounts for around 50% of created users or something like that...--Unionhawk (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Err...no, it doesn't...50%? More like 10%...76.212.7.63 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

---Theres really no way we can tell, right? So if we don't know, can we really put anything at all? 70.144.225.9(talk)

recent reviews

Can anyone add some reviews after 1 July?--Megaman en m (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Further up the page, User:JimMillerJr put forward [2], a review by 1up.com of RuneScape HD, dated 12 July (assuming I'm reading the American date correctly). The question was over whether it was a reliable source, but WikiProject Videogames seems to consider it so. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

new pvp update

On the front page of the website jagex stated that in the future they will offer unique pvp worlds. Should we put this in the article.Lucas8k (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should, but we should only put in the article what Jagex has stated; no speculation. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: In the spirit of being bold, I've added a small paragraph to the end of the "Combat" section - I felt it easier to make a seperate paragraph than to try and integrate this into the existing paragraph on PvP Combat. My only real concern is how much detail to give on the subject. Ah well, people will edit and discuss. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Minigames?

I noticed there wasn't anything about minigames in this article. Should we atleast put something about minigames in this article? Infernal495 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If we explain every minigame the article will be too long and it will look like advertising.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want something about minigames look for an article on runescape minigames and if u cant find nothing make one. if you can put a link in the runescape page.Al1012 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Megaman's quite right. There's no way to put a section like that into the article, without it being perceived as unnecessary/in-universe/advertising, or a combination of those (if we ever want this to become a Good Article again, that MUST be avoided at all costs). As for a new article: we used to have articles on seperate aspects of RuneScape - they all ended up deleted/merged into here.

And yes, I'm aware that we have a few named examples of minigames which include player-VS-player combat, but that's as far as it needs to go. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

hi

im a registred user why i cant edit this page?

File:Gnomecopters.PNG

good!!!

--Sistemx (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who are newly registered or haven't made many contributions are unable to edit semi-protected pages. While you registered several weeks ago, you have only contributed to a very small number of different articles. If you have ideas for improving the article then you can say them on the discussion page and an autoconfirmed user can make the changes if they deem them to be appropriate. --RS Ren (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And that image is copyvio. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

World Record: Addable?

Hey, just wondering if the fact about RuneScape being the #1 Free MMO needed to be added to the current article. (The Guiness Record) Mr freeze128 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No source, no adding. Plain and simple. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should add that and this will show to the world that Runescape is now the 2nd most popular online game beating World of Warcraft(WOW) that is now number 3.Sorry for my lack of grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zird345 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is says that WoW is number one.[3]--Megaman en m (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WoW cant be number one because it isnt free, the offical runescape site is a source also you can find it on the offical Guiness World Records site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.59.226 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Guinness World Records either hasn't updated the website, or WoW is disputing the finding. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Runescape holds the world record for most popular FREE mmorpg in the world, so it should be addable. WoW can't dispute it because WoW is NOT free. According to the Runescape website, it is the 2nd year in a row they have won this award. Wolfbite110 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Still couldn't find anything from Guinness World Records. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait for the book to come out. I don't think Worlds Most Popular Free MMORPG appears on the website, but I belive it does in the book. If Runescape is listed in this years edition of the book, then it deserves mention in the article. Wolfbite110 (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2008, page 184: "Largest free MMORPG runescape. More than 10 million free accounts have been created and more than one million who pay for added content, such as extra quests". Someoneanother 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It may say that in the book, but that cannot be used as a reliable source. I can find nothing on the official site- http://gamers.guinnessworldrecords.com/ Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is a book published by Guinness World Records not a reliable source? Someoneanother 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A better enhancement to that question, how is it not a reliable source to something related directly to it?--Jakezing (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says you can't use a book as a source. You've just got to be sure to note the exact book, and the page containing the information you want. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion." WP:NOT#OR.

"Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books" WP:BURDEN

FlashNerdX (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And we dont have a editors opinion on this since this is a world record they themselvs announced as well, fact is, noly people not wanting us to add it are the idiots thinking since the site dosnt say it, it isnt true--Jakezing (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

to do: update the article

in the to do list there are three of the same type. update the article, Update the article to include the current changes and standards, and update the photos. and does anything else needs updating besides the photos?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't think of anything needing updating, apart from that photo of Jad (though you can replace that with any mid-level monster and it'll still do the job). Might as well change the list so that it only says "Update Article" once. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I was checking out the latest news for RuneScape, and came across a news item,[4] which states that Jagex are selling RuneScape merchandise. Now, we have a section entitled "RuneScape in Other Media", which consists of one sentence. I wonder if this would be considered notable enough for the article? Thoughts, please. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PC Gamer UK review

Afternoon, folks. I know I've lapsed out of this article now, but I thought I'd let you know: the current issue of PC Gamer UK (issue 192, dated October 2008 (yes, I know), pages 88-89) carries a full, proper review of RuneScape. 72%, not bad. I can post some excerpts if you want, and a cut down version of the review will probably turn up in a bit at computerandvideogames.com (PCG's publisher's website, does exactly what it says on the tin). Wonder if RS'll be getting the Yahtzee treatment next? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Any objections if?

Would anyone mind terribly if I was to archive the page, remove the dead and resolved discussions? And would people mind if I were to add a quick explanation as to what Wiki policies on WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:VER, & WP:SELFPUB are, along with what a semi protected article is, so that we wouldn't get repeated "why can't I edit the main article?" and "I have found no usable references to neg crit of RS but we should add it in anyway" threads?FlashNerdX (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FlashNerdX. It's perfectly fine to archive. But absolutely wrong to remove dead discussions or changing someone's comments. Move dead discussions to archive (yet I can't find any of the items you removed are transferred to the last archive, Talk:RuneScape/Archive 27). You have been warned by two additional users for your removal of contents before. If you continue this way, I have no choice but to block you for vandalism. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just gone through the articles http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape&direction=prev&oldid=235181194 and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive_27 and can't see a different. If I mucked up the copy & paste then point out where and I'll add it in. However I can't see any removal of dead discussions or changing of comments. Unless I am seriously missing something here I really have no clue what your going on about. As to my two warnings - one was for removing a reference and source that didn't meet WP:SPS/WP:VER and the other was for removing stuff off my own talk page before I knew the guideline about archiving your talk page. Which brings my wrap sheet up to one possible mucked up copy/paste, one not knowing the rules about your own talk page, and one attempt at using WP:VER/WP:SPS. If you want to ban me for that then I obviously can't stop you, however I'd really like to know on what grounds so that I don't get it wrong again. I have done nothing that I can see that would count me as a vandal.

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. "

Please note that I will not be making any more edits to this page, other than additions in this single section, until you remove the threat of banning me for trying to improve an article that I've been putting a lot of effort into. Also please note that I posted up this section to see if anyone who was a regular to this page had I problem with my intended reaction, not to argue with you about my actions. I was fine keeping that on my talk page (like I had done with others before) and will happily stop clogging up the page if you are willing to take it back to there.FlashNerdX (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

new lands are being made

its going to happen we all know it^!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonofjapan (talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof?--Megaman en m (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

^^ Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Runescape PLayers Remembered

Ok i wanted to make a edit in the Runescape wikipedia article because i wanted to represent all the player names that play this game. I play myself to TJ 945.Pilotman555 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

... You want to name all 11.000.000 players?--Megaman en m (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

At an average player name length of 10 characters and assuming that Jagex's figure of 135m accounts is correct, a list of all player names alone would add about 1.25 gigabytes to the English Wikipedia's text (currently about 6.9 gigabytes if my calculations are correct). Are we misunderstanding your post? Perhaps you wanted to make an edit about player names in general? Xenon54 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We could somehow figure out how many are main accounts and not alts... then we can get to work weeding out the mess of the # of players on neopets!--Jakezing (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway naming the all the players is completely out of the question and writing about the names that players chose has nothing to do with RuneScape.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond all the uidiots who named emselvs zezima... back when he was the best player and not 51st--Jakezing (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

kosten

runescape is afree online game but when you want to be a mitglied you have to pay 11,euro you can have more skills weapons etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.133.236 (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? We can't add prices in an encyclopedia if that's what you're asking.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Err...Ok...CelticMuffin (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

um... no its like $5.95 here in the US and your getting ripped off credit card is much cheaper(if you have one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.28.212 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

im still paying $5, its fun having been playing for 3 years and knowing to member up before the money update... gonna suck when this card runs out.--Jakezing (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Animations

I don't think the current animations on this article represent RuneScape as a whole. Almost all of them show a single player in the same outfit, and the combat one shows four identical players. I think new animations should be added showing various players in different outfits and armor. 66.189.89.112 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BOLD Ecopetition. (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Eco's right, you could try fixing it yourself, assuming you are able to (I don't have software for that purpose, so don't ask me to do it.) And yes, I agree, that picture of 4 identical players needs to be changed to something more realistic (2 non-identical players, for example). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction: My mistake, it is 7 different players, all looking the same. I wouldn't have an issue with 7 different players fighting, assuming they all looked different. That's not too much to ask. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Free Accounts

There are more than 10 million active free accounts on Runescape. I changed this number to reflect the true amount of active freeplayer accounts. Also, I added the fact that there are over 135 million accounts created today. I think this will better inform the people reading this article to how many players there are. Also, one quick question :Who is the user in the animations?The Beatles Fan (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia editor who uploaded the images is User:Tarikochi; she identifies her character name in some (if not all) of the images you refer to. It's best to ask her about them.

As for the number of accounts, I'm undecided on whether or not to include the total number of accounts created (though it would reduce confusion, as we've had from a couple of editors on this talk page, thinking that means 135M active users). Either way, a source on the number of free-players would have been ideal, though I won't jump on that point right now. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Inventory update

I heard that Jagex will make it so that you can carry 50 items with you, but in about a few years, maybe 3.209.124.244.61 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all you have no proof and second it's dumb to list such a small update.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your idea had 3 problems

• 1: chances are you got this from the suggestions forum, the most spammed and under-modded forum on runescape
• 2: you said 50, jagex has always had the same #, and its not changing.
• 3: in a few years, maybe 3, or maybe not at all.

Welcome to the land of stupid suggestions that were banned from being suggested--Jakezing (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It seem about once a day some one suggests something for the article that is in direct violation of Wikipedia: NORCeltic Muffin&Co. (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

most of it steems from the suggestions forum, take a trip there, we dont get mods there, so were forced to tell em that they cant suggest that, which is breaking rules, though if we didnt, then the cycle would go unbroken and in a year, when all the vets have left, all we have are idiots and the occasional mod.--Jakezing (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)