Jump to content

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

An article RuneScape_Private_Servers is currently being written by myself and others from a large Private server community - I propose we add a link to this on this page as it is fully legal and a very popular thing to do. it would have to be at the bototm of the article, to be non-intrusive. --MasterEagle 05:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

RuneHQ only on subpages?

Is it true that on subpages, we may only link to RuneHQ, even if a link to another fansite page would better? I understand that only RuneHQ is allowed as a fansite on this page, but does that also include all RS pages? Hyenaste (tell) 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We've been discussing that here and decided the decision was no. The rule of only runehq only applies for this article and the portal. J.J.Sagnella 05:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Talk Page Post from Hyenaste Seeing this i guess that link could go back. p00rleno 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Righto! Im curious to know how you define "Most Popular" as most traffic. For example, some of the major fansites have over 60,000members, and some even more than RuneHQ actively posting on the forums and helping build guides. Also, RuneHQ openly has three Runescape Cheat banners on the first page which breaks even the rules for runescape.

How can you let such a site which lists 3 adverts to break the rules by the main Runescape.com site itself count as "The most popular RS fansite"? comment was added by User:Tooooon 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)User:86.20.242.197

I'm staring at the RuneHQ homepage as I type this. I see only one banner ad, for a RuneScape guidebook. The one fansite rule here is dictated by Wikipedia policy (See Wikipedia:External Links and m:When should I link externally), not by us. Sign your posts! Type four tildes (~~~~) to add your name and a timestamp! CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just popped on again, and if you refresh one or two times, it will come up with runescape "cheat" links. And the guidebook itself to be honest is going against runescape rules, not in a sense that the book itself is against the rules, but that this type of product isnt supported in any way by jagex. And in all honesty, if one fansite only is the current rule as you said, then it is not fair to other fansites, so none should be listed. My preference ofc, but would be more fair. Especially since Jagex doesnt really support fansites whatsoever anyway, hence their recent own guides for quests, etc.. comment was added by User:Tooooon 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)User:86.20.242.197

Jagex's rules are nothing to do with Wikipedia's, and in all honesty life's not fair. If the fansite wants the listing let it get the traffic to beat RuneHQ. J.J.Sagnella 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This "Guidebook" is not against RuneScape rules. It is simply a gameguide that is not in any way endorced by Jagex. People who are stupid enough to buy it are free to do so, but it offeres no more than a fansite of the game does. It is like a fansite one has to pay for. On a related note I am also very happy to see Zybez has removed the cheating ADs from their website. Clq 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I only get the same guidebook banner ad, no matter how many times I refresh. Are you sure you haven't got adware? This is the www.runescapeguide.com "make 50-100k per hour on a LVL 3 char" ad you are looking at, right? CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, dont strike my name when I put my name whoever did that O.o Secondly, I do not have Adware since I am not some random eejit using the internet and commenting on a runescape fansite on wikipedia thank you very much. Thirdly, If you refresh, their are links on the Google Add for "Thousands of cheats" and when clicked lists a load of sites for runescape cheats. comment was added by User:Tooooon 08:23, 4 July 2006 Rawr

Care to explain why you do not have an account but instead are an ip then? J.J.Sagnella 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I was gone, been replacing the window next to my PC. Took all day. Sorry, Toon, but I don't see any Google ads, just the Google search box. It may be a location-sensitive ad, what country are you in? I see runescapeguide.com from here in the UK.
Also, just out of curiosity, why are you signing as User:Tooooon, when that account does not exist? (Compare to: [1]). You are still editing as an IP, 86.20.242.197 (talk • contribs), you have to create the account to edit as it. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
RuneHQ have removed a few ads, but there is still a Google ad underneath all the links on the left, which links to things such as a "RS Auto Miner". In this case, User:Tooooon is correct. Whether it makes a difference is debatable, RuneHQ doesn't condone these ads, they don't have control over what shows up. Nathan M 00:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well spotted. Doesn't Google generate them by running a search for 'RuneScape', or some such, from its sponsored links? Why on earth does an autominer site have a sponsored link at Google? CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly. Read about it here. Nathan M 04:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
More complicated than I imagined. Do you think the RuneHQ people are aware of this problem? Is it possible for a webmaster to request Google to remove a certain ad? It was one of us that warned Zybez about the cheating ads, wasn't it? I still can't imagine what an autominer site would need with a Google ad, really. Considering most autoclickers are laced with malware, I would have expected Google to reject it. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
That's the reason Google has come under fire for it, not controlling malicious ads. I don't think RuneHQ can change it either... I personally don't think it voids RuneHQ's right to be there - but in my opinion it's either NO fansites or RHQ, RV and Tip.It (the three best/most visited). If that's against Wikipedia's rules it's too bad. Nathan M 03:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it though that only RuneHQ can be listed? There are other sites such as Tip.it [2] or RuneVillage [3]? It seems an unjustified way to gain traffic. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Living Ghost (talk • contribs) .

Because Wikipedia's rules state only one fansite. And that link is decided on traffic. J.J.Sagnella 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Traffic isn't a reasonable method to view these things. An older website may have more visitors just because it has been around longer. Similarly, more traffic doesn't always mean the best content. There are least three websites I can think off of my head which have equal, if not better content (tip.it, runecrypt, or even rune village). -Onejsin 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Three reasons:
  • Alexa traffic ranking - RuneHQ has a higher ranking because it is accessed more than any other fansite (this is a measure of the number of people accessing the http://www.runehq.com web address, not a measure of forum posts).
  • Wikipedia:External links - dictates maximum one fansite link (see also m:When should I link externally at the Meta-Wiki).
  • Security - Tip.It specifically has had several security scares, including the theft of their forums database.
CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

At what cost is it to follow the "one link" rule? Its very biased and not what wikipedia seems to mean to me unless I have the wrongimage of wikipidea. --Jrabbit05 03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We follow the one-link rule because Mother Wikipedia tells us to. All hail Mother. No seriously, if you find a problem with it, why not ask on Wikipedia talk:External links? The policy apparently is highly debated. Hyenaste (tell) 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Construction AFD

The Construction article is up for deletion. Its an important article and needs to be kept - • The Giant Puffin • 07:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I voted for keep. Nathan M 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Sorry, but an article for an individual skill is a little unnecessary, it would be much happier in RuneScape skills. We really have to get some of these subpages reorganised, no wonder we're getting hit with AfD's constantly. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The article RuneScape skills is already heavily oversize, i cant see how much "happier" it could be suit inside. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure some stuff can be cut out. There is no need to describe in minute detail everything that can be done with construction (indeed, such would violate WP:NOT). I have yet to recieve an objection to using the RuneScape.com knowledge base as references in RuneScape armour, so we can link to that if anyone wants the details. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
This is perhaps the most important skill in recent times, so I think it deserves its own page. The sheer amount of information means it cannot be put in RuneScape skills, which is alreayd too long. People keep moaning about the articles being too long, so we make sub-articles and then summarise the main article. People then nominate the sub-article! How are we ever going to sort this out if this keeps happening? - • The Giant Puffin • 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
As skills are not worthy of individual pages per skill, divide up the skills into the sub-categories listed and use the sub-categories as pages. That would be COMBAT Skills (attack, mage, strength, defence, hit points, range, pray), GATHERING Skills (mining, woodcutting, fishing, farming), COMBINING Skills (cooking, smithing, firemaking, runecrafting, construction, herblore, fletching), and MISC. Skills (slayer, agility, thieving).--Nuke-Marine 01:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The editors have voted, as the descision was keep. Thank Goodness.p00rleno 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we should relink the RuneScape Wiki back. Many RuneScape skills article are being deleted for a reason "there's an even better article on the RuneScape wiki", however there is hardy seen a link to the RuneScape wiki is found in runescape related wikipedia articles. As those articles are already being deleted, therefore i proposed to add this link. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I havn't seen anyone really objecting to linking the RS wiki when it has been mentioned before, its not really a fansite, so you might as well. You might consider using one of those funny inter-wiki links (eg, Meta Main Page is [[m:Main Page]]) rather than an external link. Unfortunately, I have no idea how do do this for the RuneScape wiki. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Found it: Main Page linked by [[wikia:runescape:Main Page]]. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont see a problem with linking to it - • The Giant Puffin • 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with linking to it. In my opinion, it's better than linking to a fansite. Dtm142 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
So to sum up, we're having the RuneScape wiki link and RuneHQ? J.J.Sagnella 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gielinor?

Where are we getting the information that the realm that RuneScape is set in is called "Gielinor"? Did Jagex release this? 24.229.135.128 20:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's some theory of different realms, such as demonic etc, I don't think it is officially confirmed, and therefore should be taken out. (It was discussed on the RuneVillage forums a month or two ago, it may have come from there). Anyone else agree? Nathan M 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. Not me or anyone I know has heard the name Gielinor. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, disregard my last comment. It is officially confirmed, by letters 16. From the official site: This realms name is in truth Gielinor, yet is called RuneScape in the common tongue by it's inhabitants. Each kingdom hath its' own name such as Misthalin, Asgarnia, and so forth. (Letters #16 - Guthix Dispels Rumours). Nathan M 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that the name "Gielinor" is also mentioned in game, although I'm not sure where I heard it. Probably some of the quests involving Guthix or gnomes. 88.9.75.142 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, talk to the void knight in port sarim who will take you to the island. J.J.Sagnella 18:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Just noting that during the new quest (Lunar Diplomacy), First Mate 'Davey-boy' says the phrase "What in Gielinor are you talking about?" Nice touch by Jagex there =) Nathan M 08:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape article 6th most edited on Wikipedia

See: special:Mostrevisions

Right, protection for this article is positively needed now. The article passes Hurricane Katrina on the highest edit list to 6th. This is just getting silly now. J.J.Sagnella 15:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush ‎(30,676 revisions)
Wikipedia ‎(18,729 revisions)
United States ‎(14,716 revisions)
Jesus ‎(14,258 revisions)
Adolf Hitler ‎(12,652 revisions)
RuneScape ‎(11,380 revisions)
Hurricane Katrina ‎(11,330 revisions)
World War II ‎(11,129 revisions)
Michael Jackson ‎(9,491 revisions)
Canada ‎(9,319 revisions)
Britney Spears ‎(9,134 revisions)
2006 FIFA World Cup ‎(9,036 revisions)
Anarchism ‎(8,771 revisions)
Islam ‎(8,765 revisions)
John Kerry ‎(8,569 revisions)
Bill Clinton ‎(8,551 revisions)
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake ‎(8,311 revisions)
Wii ‎(8,179 revisions)
September 11, 2001 attacks ‎(7,930 revisions)
Christianity ‎(7,839 revisions)

This is awful. RS is going to overtake Hitler and then Jesus Christ. Does this now qualify RS as the most vandalised article, since the top 5 articles are about more well-known and researched subjects? Hyenaste (tell) 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand it. RuneScape isn't massively controversial like Jack Thompson (attorney) or Scientology, nor is it an obvious target like any Featured Article, or Wikipedia. Not even the other MMORPGs have a serious problem; World of Warcraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is only hit maybe once every couple of days, EVE Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been hit only twice in the last month (not counting a linkspammer) and Star Wars Galaxies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has had five attacks in the last fortnight. All of those are just as well known, if not more well known, than RuneScape. But this article is still vandalised much more than any of them; I count 7 attacks on the 9th July alone. Fortunately, the Tawkerbots got most of it, but it still makes a case for permanent semi-protection of heavily vandalised articles. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Aye, aye captain! totally agree with you. Semi Protect, Semi Protect, Semi Protect!!!! p00rleno 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops i tought it was the names of the editors, it was the articles. Irfanfaiz 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been saying it for awhile now - can't we just semi-protect and leave it?? Please, please, please!! It is very difficult to get to the meat of any real edits for all the vandalism. Xela Yrag 16:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Its catching up to Hitler at an alarming rate. Its closing in by about 98 revisions per day. It will pass within the next couple of days at this rate - • The Giant Puffin • 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because this game had a long history of supporters and haters. There are many people that dropped out of this game and hated it completely, so they want to ruin this article, and then someone else fix it back, so the revisions just gets more and more. It is true that there were a lot of p2p accounts, but there are also many f2p accounts. Although I'm not sure, but there should be over 2 million (possibly a lot more) signed up accounts, and many of them are inactive. So there is probably many people who played it once, and then hated it. Check the forums of Tip.It. Although the forum is full of useless things, but I recall a few discussions about how much runescape sucks. Just an idea. ~old runescape player without an wiki account

Stronghold of Security

Should we add sub pages for this new feature? Irfanfaiz 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Its just a quest, and a minor one at that; an article would be AfD'ed quicker than you can say OMG. It certainly deserves a mention in the security section in this article, however. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
One, its a minigame so a mention should go in RS minigames and i agree bout the security section. p00rleno 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't class it as a minigame. In the Knowledge Base, it's found under the "Safety & Security Guidelines" section, but it's not mentioned as a minigame. I would just add it in the security section. 88.9.123.245 20:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

New userbox

What is your opinion on this userbox I have just today made?

<userbox>

It comes with two state-of-the-art parameters: parameter 1 changes the colour of the party hat and parameter 2 links to your highscores. For example, lets say I want a lime green phat and a link to my highscores. I simply type {{user:hyenaste/RuneScape|lime|Hyenaste}} and I get this little beauty:

<userbox>

In Internet Explorer, for some reason, there is a line of selected colour above the party hat, which I'm not currently sure about how to fix. I wanted a picture of a RuneScape item, but we can't have fair use pictures in the user namespace so I simply drew up a customisable partyhat-facsimile. Also I noticed CaptainVindaloo suggest somewhere that we should have a userbox variant that links to the highscores, and so I added that in as well. And of course if you don't want to tell your name, you don't have to do so, as seen in the first example. So.. do you like? Hyenaste (tell) 14:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That. Rocks. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Great job. 66.81.188.80 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A sword would be better. The p-hat doesn't look that good imo. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, it looks nice in Firefox, but I'm afraid I won't use this one, as for some reason it messes up the lines of my boxes on my page in IE.. to see what I mean replace {{user plays runescape}} with {{user:hyenaste/RuneScape|lime}} on my userpage and press preview. What's wrong with my coding? It's very simple as I haven't spent much time on it, can someone help? Nathan M 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be a couple of extra blank lines in the userbox code. These should be deleted. CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, the blank lines were causing the problem. Fixed. Hyenaste (tell) 09:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
They look good, nice job - • The Giant Puffin • 08:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


U know what would be cool too? (if ur not 2 busy...) add a 3rd parameter for Level (abbreved. "lvl") in Red Text at the end. p00rleno 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah that'd just be sad. Cain Mosni 22:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well, my new siggy works, look. → p00rleno (lvl 75) ←ROCKS 08:24, Thursday, December 26, 2024 (UTC)
Isn't that image copyrighted by Jagex? --Bomme204 18 jul 2006 13:06 (CEST)

<userbox>

No, it's not. It is based on a Jagex image, but apparently this is acceptable since I made it and it's not identical to Jagex's. A similar case is explained here starting with the second paragraph in the section. Hyenaste (tell) 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fishing article

It seems there is a sort of misplaced link directing to an article relating the RuneScape fishing skill just above the box with all the other RuneScape related articles. Considering that currently those articles are being considered for deletion, what should we do with this fishing one? I'm new to editing Wikipedia and clueless on this. This article has been created today and only has revisions by one user. Banim 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what frustrates me. All the stuff in that article is already in RuneScape skills. That user has also created Runescape Cities, a clone of RuneScape locations. There's no wonder the subpages are out of control. I'd actually go as far as including those articles in the AfD, and pointing the editor in the direction of the RuneScape wiki, where he/she would be happier, and their obvious expertise not wasted. Someone else also created Stronghold of Security, after it was brought up here (see above), included in the main article and in RuneScape locations. In preparation for the new subpages, I'm going to make a quick guide to what is and isn't fancruft in template form, based on Wikipedia:Fancruft. I'll throw in a reminder not to use shorthand spelling [4] while I'm at it. Judging by this incident, a template message for directing users towards the RuneScape wiki may be sensible too. Sorry if this rant was a bit harsh on anyone. :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The article had already been deleted afd, so i speedied it. While I was at it I went for the other article as it was just liftcruft. J.J.Sagnella 15:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Series up for deletion again.

The RuneScape series has gone up for deletion again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination). I encourage all of you to vote on this. Dtm142 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, the nominator has a bloody (sorry) good point saying they are mostly unencyclopedic fancruft. The subpages are completely out of control. We should really start pointing people towards the RuneScape wiki. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, some are way too specific. Theres even a Security Stronghold one! I really think that people should have to ask the community before creating new sub-pages in this series. It just makes it look worse, and doesnt help when it comes to afd - • The Giant Puffin • 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft template - need feedback!

Crossposting at Portal talk:RuneScape and Talk:RuneScape

In preparation for new subpages to replace these fancruft filled ones, I have written a template message to be placed on the Talk: pages of the articles (with maybe a commented message at the head of each article). As this is potentially controversial, feedback and opinions are pretty important. The message is located as usual, in my Sandbox, although I may shift it to another subpage sometime. If you can see anything wrong with it, go ahead and change it. I am making this to try to prevent a situation of an overwhelming amount of fancruft, as we have seen with the current set. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you starting this back up? Wouldn't this be better left up to fansites instead of an encyclopedia? Makoto 20:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Because this article needs some subpages, just not as many and not as fancrufty as the current lot. The template's purpose is to cut down on the fancruft by reminding people to avoid it, if and when new subpages are made. The RuneScape subject is a lot bigger than most people think; its history at least goes much further back than most contemporary MMOs. A couple of subpages are needed for exactly the same reasons as other MMOs. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
History is one thing, and that I will agree on. Guides for each skill, item, and NPC is another thing entirely. Personally, I don't think it would be worth all the effort to go and create more subpages for much of it, since that really isn't Wikipedia's job. It may need one or two, but I wouldn't want it to get all preachy like it is now. Makoto 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of this template is to try to prevent the problems you have just pointed out, so no worries! :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding Inline Citations and References

Would it kill anyone to go through the entire wiki and start adding quotations for what you know to be fact/findable on RS? Kind of depressing to see such a huge article with only 13 or so citations. I've started to do a handful, but there's a long way to go. Makoto 22:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already had a go at that, on RuneScape armour. Why is everyone so scared of the Knowledge Base? Not like there is any better source anywhere. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Beats me. Besides, that's the only place that I really have been using for citations, so the flags that say [citation needed] would be ones that I couldn't find there. Makoto 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Servers

I know I have fixed this at least 20 times. I even added a hidden text message to explain why there are 133 servers and not 132 or 134. What do we have to do to keep this correct???? It is driving me crazy. Lord, love a duck, people, please! There are 131 RuneScape servers and 2 RuneScape Classic servers. There is no world 126. I don't know why this is true; I only know that it is true. Can we please STOP THE INSANITY, before I lose my everloving mind????? I apologize in advance if I step on anyone's toes, but Jiminy Christmas, people, just read before you edit. Xela Yrag 08:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, any time someone changes it, a little bot should activate that corrects it and sends a stern message to the person's userpage alongside a picture of Xela cackling wickedly with a large butcher's knife in her hand... Hyenaste (tell) 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me. Hye, you set that up, okay??? Xela Yrag 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

move to runescape wikia

i think that the entire series on RuneScape should be moved to the Runescape Wikia...

--Jontsang 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A few people share your idea Jonathan Tsang and have sent the whole lot to afd to be deleted and sent to the wikia. Fortunately they have survived both AFDs and will stay here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination)J.J.Sagnella 15:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

--Same thing could be said about Marvel COmics and the Marvel Comics wiki. Just because they are wikis doesnt mean they are related- moving this stuff to RS wiki is just as crass as moving it to RuneScape Community or RuneHQ.-Merlin Storm 04:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WOOHOO

Yahoooooooooooo I love runescape!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abyab (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Great? Hyenaste (tell) 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats beautiful, but look at mi sig. Then say who loves RS more. → p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 08:24, Thursday December 26 2024 (UTC) Abyab (level 3) :P and JK.
You might want to add subst to those magic word templates you have in it, as they are different every time a page is accessed. Your post timestamps are supposed to stay the same, I believe. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And another

I bagsy the term rogue subpages. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape glitches. Why on earth do people create separate articles on the most minor of RS subjects, that are already covered in other pages? CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you wikilinked the word bagsy as I had no idea what it meant. >_< Hyenaste (tell) 23:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Traveling Error

In the begining it states that characters can travel though coal carts but in reality they can't.

They can be used to travel to Keldagrim. Banim 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

they can be used to travel to ice mountain and wolf mountain as well

Afd Again

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (second nomination) Several articles are up for deletion- for the second time this week... Just thought you might like to know....- User:Merlin Storm

Fan site link(s)

The fan site link to RuneHQ should either be removed so only official sites are linked, or other major fan sites such as Rune Tips and Zybez should be linked to. Why does only RuneHQ have a link? Mathias-S 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We've said this time and time again. Wikipedia's rules state only one fansite can get linked to FULL STOP. (Or PERIOD if you're American). J.J.Sagnella 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, only one fansite can be linked to. Not "one fansite has to be linked to. But we've been down that road one too many times. Makoto 21:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism: Fansites

I remember adding that a while back, and now it's gone. Any reason why? (On top of that, the 13 fledgling citations that this entry had is down to nine. Any reason for that, too?) Makoto 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I would assume probably because the fansites have no real correspondence with the official RuneScape website and game itself, and thus doesn't have a real speaking role when it comes to the criticism of the game. Rather, the RuneScapers would express their criticisms on the Rants Forum on the RuneScapes Forum or perhaps they would send a message to Jagex Ltd. expressing their concerns on the game's weakpoints.
You would be surprised to learn that for years, people were told by Jagex that there would possibly be a system to allow players to submit their websites, and possibly earn an offical status. This was in the old version of the FAQ on the website. Since RuneScape is currently declining the Wayback Machine's services right now, I can't find that exact source. But many other players have seen it and know it to be fact. Makoto 19:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I can second that. I saw that in the deep corners of the old runescape main page manual. J.J.Sagnella 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I also remember a J-Mod posting in the official forums that this system is not going to be implemented as they don't manage those websites and don't want problems with players' accounts. Seeing as how some of the most visited fansites had have several problems regarding hacks and passwords issues, I'm not surprised. This is one of the reasons of why Rule 11 is so strictly enforced in game and forums. I think it was also mentioned that players would think the selection of fansites is biased. I don't think the post in the forums is available now, as I saw this some months ago, but you can trust my word. Banim 22:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pornographic Vandalism

There is some pornogrpahic vandalism that I would love to fix but I am not qualified. WOuld someone else be able to do that ? Kevlaw

At a glance, I don't see it. Could you please be more specific? Hyenaste (tell) 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It's already been removed by the looks of the page history, another 'clever' anon. making 'witty' edits. Oh well. QuagmireDog 08:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI: AFD

-- Chris 73 | Talk 06:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For once, I think these two articles should be deleted. RuneScape Private Servers is possibly cheating, and even if it wasn't, a small mention in the RuneScape article would be sufficient. RuneScape Items is just a horribly-formatted list copied from a website. If one can create an encyclopediac article on RuneScape items, all the best to them! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I would agree to that. Rogue subpages sums them up quite nicely and reposts probably sums them up as well. J.J.Sagnella 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the RuneScape 3 beta server or Private Server story a popular password scam? CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape/Archive_10&oldid=1198248902"