Jump to content

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 15: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 343: Line 343:
:It just simply wouldn't work. It would be too long, people will lie, it is not helpful, it is not appropiate for an encyclopedia. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
:It just simply wouldn't work. It would be too long, people will lie, it is not helpful, it is not appropiate for an encyclopedia. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes i guess that would be true but i know there is a section on wikipedians who play runescape maby there should be a link from the runescape article to that--[[User:Hilotsunami|Hilotsunami]] 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes i guess that would be true but I know there is a section on wikipedians who play Runescape mabye there should be a link from the Runescape article to that?--[[User:Hilotsunami|Hilotsunami]] 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:47, 25 February 2006

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Series deletion

The whole of the RS series is up for deletion here. I encourage all you scapers to vote Keep with good arguments and reasons to do so. We provided a good series of inforamion for Wikipedians, and it shouldnt be deleted - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • GO DUSST! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Sorry, I'm done now.

But yeah, we put a lot of work into those! And now the anti-RuneScape/Deletionist community wants to throw it all away/merge it all into one or several oversized articles that will hopefully only take one minute to load on the next Windows computer. Dtm142 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • If the series is now "safe", then moving some of the weapons detail to an appropriate series page (Combat?) would be a good idea, as the main page should be more of a summary, while the extra pages should deal with important supporting areas, the same way as for major and important characters in a work of fiction. we do need to strive to keep bias and irrelevancy out though. Ace of Risk 15:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I really don't give a flying frisbee what J.J. Sagnella thinks; I will be readding the link to the Black Hole Experience at regular intervals. I do not agree with the so-called "decision" to keep the vaunted "top 5" fansites only, as stated below there have been issues with some of those sites trying to steal passwords and cause other problems with its users.Mike 22:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Mike, before you trot off planning to re-add a website that most remotely interested, named editors clearly don't want, you might like to have a read of WP:3RR. Why do you want that (or any other) website in the article? Is it because it makes the article better, or is it because it's not "fair" to have certain sites included while others aren't? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • fuddlemark, it was argued that it's not fair for some sites but not others to be included. I daresay the BHE, as well as several of the other "smaller" fansites make RuneScape a better place.Mike 20:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If the strongest reason is that it's unfair for Wikipedia to list some sites and not others, then the appropriate response is: "Wikipedia is not fair, deal with it". Is the article better because it includes a link to your website? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • GO SHADOWDANCER! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Sorry, I'm done now.Dtm142 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As seen from archive 3, the general decision was to delete all links except the main 5 from the article ( runehq, sal's realm, tip.it, runevillage and zybez). Any attempt to put other links on the page will be treated as vandalism and will be dealt with in that way. J.J.Sagnella 18:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Well, treat me like a vandal then. I care not.Mike
  • I'd prefer that it doesn't have any, okay? Most of the other MMORPG articles have no fansites or all of them. Getting rid of the whole section is a good, unbiased decision.
      • You might prefer that. But overall, you were overruled and outvoted. And the standard policy for Wikipedia is to have some. I've went through all this before. And If a game like everquest was to have all fansites, then the amount would be over one thousand. J.J.Sagnella 18:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is better avoided than reverted.Dtm142 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You seem to have the WikiProject:Spam thing incorrect. The project suggests that you link to an open directory project site like Dmoz, or that you get rid of the whole section. Dtm142 18:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It says to be sensible in the amount of links. 5 is sensible as overall they are the more-commonly known. Quiet simply dtm142, everything you said, you've already said in archive 3, and it has been overruled and outvoted for my suggetsion.J.J.Sagnella 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How about this: We link it to a RuneScape toplist. Say Zybez's toplist. It has a big list of all the fansites, and you can sort it so that the biggest ones are at the top. This seems like a much better solution to me. Give me one reason why it won't work. Dtm142 00:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No there wouldn't be. It would be in the top part or something, and there would be a hidden message saying not to update it. Just try it and see what happens. Dtm142 15:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a discalimer to the fansites, Tip.It had trojans (it was in a banner ad downloaded keyloggers with out your permission. Also, RuneHQ had an issue with the image encoding resulting in the installation of keylogging software.)

Many people did get their account hacked beacuse of the runehq forums. Even got a message from Jagex regarding the problem. If the creators of runescape thinks it worth a mention I think it's worth a mention also.

It was a forum post by Andrew. Search for it in News/announcments if you want I will copy it here 


here it is:


Andrew Jagex Mod 

22 Apr 2005 16:53

Warning: fansite users getting hijacked

It has come to our attention that several users of a large RuneScape fansite have recently had their RuneScape password stolen. The fansite is an independent website, and isn't run by us or affiliated with us, but many of our users do choose to use it.

We don't know for sure, and we are basically trying to work this out from the pattern of attack, but it seems quite likely this was done by someone posting malicious content or images on the forums of the 3rd party fansite. People viewing that page then got infected with a keylogger which could be used to steal all their passwords.

I know it's hard to believe that just viewing a page on a forum could be enough to be infected with a keylogger, but there have actually historically already been a number of security flaws in the image code in web browsers which allowed exactly that! If you don't have ALL the latest patches you are at risk.

Our own forums deliberately don't allow users to post images or html exactly because of this security risk. Lots of people complain that we don't offer this feature, but we believe security is far more important than features. Unfortunately many third party fansites aren't as secure as ours with regards to this. Indeed we've noticed the attacker spreading recent rumours to try to pursuade more people to use fan-site forums instead of ours, presumably so he can hack more people through them.

I would like to emphasize that we believe the security of our own servers and forums is in no way compromised. It appears that the accounts are being stolen not by targeting our servers, but by instead targeting the home computers of users. Possibly via fansite forums.

We have of course very thoroughly double checked our own server security as well, but can find no sign of intrusion, and the fact that the people being hijacked are users of the same fansite seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

We take our own security very seriously here, but our users still have to take good care of their own computer as well. It is essential that you are careful to keep your computer secure to prevent a keylogger being installed on it, we recommend EVERYONE pays close attention to the following advice:

1) Ensure your computer is fully patched. Go to www.windowsupdate.com and make sure you have all the latest patches for your machine and web-browser. You may have to reboot and visit the site several times to get all patches.

2) Make sure your web-browser and other software is the latest version. For example if you use FireFox to browse the web make sure you using the latest version (at the time of writing this is 1.0.3). Using out of date software is VERY risky.

3) DON'T use your password anywhere except runescape.com. It is very important NOT to use the same password for RuneScape and other websites.

4) Make sure you have anti-virus software installed, and your virus defintions are up to date! And perform regular scans of your computer.

5) You should also install anti-spyware to get the things your anti virus misses. For example the keylogger mentioned above doesn't appear to be spotted by norton, but is spotted by ad-aware. Popular (free) anti-spyware programs are: Ad-Aware and Spybot

6) Even with all the latest patches and protection programs you should still be careful about what you download and run to avoid picking up anything nasty.

If you've recently used a fansite forum, then we recommend you follow the above steps (in order) to secure and clean your computer. If steps 4 or 5 find anything you should obviously remove it and change your password.

Xxxvikingxxx 16:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • So do I, it got me too, but that was before I had an account worth stealing. It is certainly real, in that message they were talking about the Runehq one, but there have been others. Vimescarrot 18:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

new Babel template - {{user rs}}

I'm sure that quite a few fellow Wikipedians play RuneScape as well, so I made that template. :) --Ixfd64 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

As Jagex who produced the game are British, and Runescape was created in Britain, shouldn't it have British Spelling throughout? J.J.Sagnella 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I think it should. Jagex are British, and RS is a British-made game, so it shouldn't have AmE spelling in it - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Also I noticed one other thing in the game RuneScape- the word favor/favour. In Both the Quest listing ( One small Favour) and the reward from the mini-game ( Tai Bwo Wannai Favour) they are spelt the British way. British Spelling therefore must be used. J.J.Sagnella 15:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

i need a map

any good sites? Shadin 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded Runescape article

Just have a look at this and see, Runescape Community. It is a stub about a website which fails to get a mention here. J.J.Sagnella 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I created an AfD entry. You can express your opinion about it here. Someone42 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, we can't, because Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote. They'll probably be able to express an opinion, though. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Some weird edits (by 65.2.135.217)

  • In "Weapon specials", this user added "25% of special", "100% of special" etc. Not being a RuneScape player, I did not understand what this meant. If someone could explain to me exactly what was meant, then I'll re-add a clarified version.
  • In the same section, a paragraph claimed the Dragon Hatchet was a non-combat weapon, although it could be used to fight. This seemed like a contradiction to me. So is the Dragon Hatchet non-combat or not? Or is there some RuneScape definition of "non-combat" that needs to be added to the article?
  • About the Dragon Hatchet: "the price outweighs the risk of carrying it into the Wilderness" - is the price high, or is it low? Specifically, how does its price outweigh the risk of carrying it into the Wilderness?
  • About the Seercull bow: "This rare weapon is not to be found in the wilderness as the risk is greater than the reward." Is obtaining the bow in the Wilderness too risky, or can the bow simply not be found in the Wilderness?
  • From "Ket-Zek": "Reaching this monster requires either using many prayer potions and wasting a bit of time, or ranging the 180s from the "Safe spot" conserving prayer potions saving food and time." I'm not really sure what "ranging the 180s from the Safe spot" means.
  • From slang section, "Baiting": "wearing a valuable item/asking to take into Wilderness." What does "asking to take into Wilderness" mean? I'm guessing it means wearing the valuable item and going into the Wilderness, so I'm editing the statement to reflect this. I might be wrong, so feel free to correct it (or me).

Someone42 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to clear up a few of these (from personal experience):

  • Weapon specials: the use of each special uses up a part of an "energy bar"; the percentages refer to the amount of the bar each special uses, some only use 25% of their bar per use, some 100%.
  • Dragon hatchet: can be used both for combat and for woodcutting
  • Dragon hatchet 2: price is high
  • Seercull bow: What the author probably means is that no player takes them along in the wilderness because the chance of loosing their expensive bow is too great in comparison to the combat benefits the bow gives.
  • Ket-Zet: "ranging the 180s from the safe spot" means: Using ranged weapons (such as bows) to kill the monsters with a combat level of 180 from a spot where the monster cannot attack you.
  • Baiting: "asking to take into wilderness" means that 1 player will ask another to take a valuable item into the wilderness, where a second player usually waits to attack the victim and kill him (pvp combat only possible in wilderness), the victim will drop the valuable item upon dieing.

-- Blue (note: not the registered user), 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

umm like ive never done this so dont get mad i paly runescape and was wondering where to talk to other people that due and due i say my name on runescape or what????

Formatting of TOC/series/infobox

At a resolution of 800x600 in Firefox 1.5.0.1, the RuneScape series box mashes into the table of contents and confines it to a small, thin box. This creates a lot of whitespace below the infobox. I've tried experimenting with using {{TOCleft}}, but this just squashes the start of the first section (Overview) in the small space between the contents and the RuneScape series box. What other ways are there of arranging the TOC/series/infobox boxes to be slightly less conflicting? Someone42 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Scrap that, I figured out how to force a break. Someone42 10:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Portal?

Seeing as it has become clear that there are people who do not agree with the RuneScape series (enough for it coming damn close to being deleted), I thought a practical solution (as merging the articles into one would be impossible) was to create a RuneScape Portal. I put a request for it on Wikipedia:Portal, as I do not feel capable enough to create one myself. Plus I thought we would need a general concensus to create one, as the RS series would have to be moved there and extended. Comments? - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Now this might just be me getting suspicious and if that is true i'm truly sorry, but is Dtm142 in allegiance with Shadowdancer? BHE recently made a runescape wiki here and are tehy going to work together to advertise their websites. Once again, i'm sorry if I'm being overly supsicious but I'm looking into it now. J.J.Sagnella 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm I'll forgive you if you guys let me put a link to my website on the portal main page for a week.

Just kidding. I'll get ready to create the portal, as nobody has opposed so far...Dtm142 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    • The Scary thing is, that didn't sound like a joke. Create the portal if you want, but we will still have to remain vigilent with external links, and have consistent british spelling.J.J.Sagnella 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Portal time. Error: please specify at least 1 portal

Dtm142 17:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Do people think the 'official affiliates' and the 'reviews' sections of external links actually add to the article? The reviews are massively out of date and are in fact reviewing a game which doesn't even exist any more, and to be honest there are many other better written reviews of RuneScape out there. (although also sadly out of date). Furthermore I'm really not sure how the official affiliates links are helpful at all, as they are just rebranded versions of exactly the same page as the above link. I'd vote to get rid of those two sections and so just have links to jagex.com and runescape.com at the top, and then the top 5 fansites already listed. What to people think? Note this isn't a discussion about which fansites to link to, but about the other 4 apparently abitrary links. Runefire 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that could be quite good. Not particularly sure though. J.J.Sagnella 07:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would vote for deletetion of the 'reviews' section, but not sure about the idea of deleting 'offical affiliate' pages.

'offical affiliate' is an alternative way to get to the game and they are not exactly the same page if you notice thoroughly enough i would say. in fact, 'runescape.com' itself is also one of the 'offcial affiliate' and there is nothing to do with 5 fansite, as they are information reasource rather than the location of the material. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 09:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks Runescape

Wikibooks is in need of your help. The article Runescape is in need of a cleanup. Guides have insufficient information, some guides have no info even. If you want to write your own guides or quest walkthroughs, go to Wikibook's Runescape article.

Criticism Section?

  • I would like to propose that the criticism section be deleted. There is no way that a criticism section sould be written in NPOV, and it has no actual bearing of the core information of RS. --Driken 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Other fansite articles have criticism sections already though. It would seem out out of place without it. If you feel any part of the article is out of place say so here and we can remove it. J.J.Sagnella 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep please. Criticisms are okay for the RS article, its not like "LOL liek runescapes sucks!" or anything, their reasonable and make sense, and most people agree with them.
  • Deleting it would be against NPOV, as we would only have the positive things about the game. Thats called bais. Plus it is contructive criticism, and provides a lot of information about what RS should or could have - • The Giant Puffin • 19:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

Can we have a final consensus on what fansites you want on the list. We have many people posting fansites and I really don't know what the consensus is. Tawker 14:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Monsters

  • I do not see the need to list the highest level monsters in Runescape. The single highest monster would be understandable but the current top 8 seems to be a bit pointless. The section continues to list 8 of the more well known monsters in runescape. This should be a summary of monsters in general and perhaps a single list instead of descriptions of the particular monsters the write seems to fancy.
  • My apologies if I did this incorrectly. (first time "talker") Ciao. --Christn 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It has the most important monsters. Like the "huge" ones that are almost impossible to kill without a group. I think that Steel Dragons could be cut though, especially since they aren't one of a kind monsters like the KBD. Dtm142 20:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Black Demons, while being strong, are not very special in any regard. They are not unique in any way that comes to mind. Steel and Iron Dragons are stronger than Black Demons. As are ordinary Black Dragons and Dark Beasts.
  • And while Fire Giants are indeed favoured by rangers, it does not make them special either. Blue dragons are very popular by the same token as are moss giants for lower level players. They are not particularily note worthy and hold no special place in the RuneScape bestiary. --Christn 21:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In-game slang and terminology

  • This section seems to be a mess. While it is helpful, it's lack of proper capitalisation and consistency makes it a bit of an eye-sore. Perhaps making the terms bold and sticking to all lowercase letters for terms and uppercase letters for abbreviations would help.--Christn 22:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ill take a look through it now - • The Giant Puffin • 19:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Private chat and Jmods

unarchived at 10:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of reverting the last sentence back and back again, jmods simply do have private chat.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.126.56 (talk • contribs)

Here's a quite recent screenshot I took myself as proof of this:

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/1192/modmog43kv.png

Just delete the whole sentence if it is not sure they can or cannot do private chat, untill someone has confirmed source.GSPbeetle 11:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


What's with the bullet points?
More to the point, you can't really say you can get rid of the Moderators section because it "isn't important". Technically, the Runescape article "isn't important". Shall we delete that, too?
Plus, there's quite a bit of information in that mod section that, as far as I'm aware, can't be found anywhere short of asking Jagex or a mod, both of which are nigh-on impossible tasks. Vimescarrot 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Ha! No offence, but why did no-one think to actually check on the Runescape website to see if J-mods have private chat? I quote from the stickied thread "Moderators", written by Mod Melvin, "In game, they have gold crowns in front of their names, which can also be seen in private chat." Proof enough that they can P-chat?
Maybe they had it at the time that was written, but then they forgot to remove that sentence when it was taken away.

As for the section, I mean that it isn't important by comparison to the rest of the article. Dtm142 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What reason would they have for removing p-chatting functions? (not trying to provoke an argument just prodding a logical thought thingy) Vimescarrot 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The jagex mod in the screenshot may have mentioned not having private-chat in order to not have to add the player requesting it without making them feel too bad about it. Since the only way to confirm this is via query, and the contents of the reply are confidential it's best imo to leave this piece of unconfirmed information out of the article.

While jmods, pmods and fmods are not a huge part of the game they are a popular part of it. I found the dumbing down of this section to be a bit of a disappointment. --Christn 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhat different from the one already posted. Feel free to merge with that one if you (whoever is reading/replying to this) please.

I'm incredibly confused about how these are ordered. Yes I must admit that I have in the past deliberately switched one site, primarily because I was still heavily involved in that particular fansite and was surprised at the five link rule. However, what are the criteria? It is clear that there is another fansite (that I am a part of and have been since October of 2004) that is larger than another fansite with clearly more visits. This is counting FANSITES, NOT FORUMS, am I correct? Being part of the administration I know for a fact that RuneCrypt is not an inexperienced site nor does it have faulty content as it is always being updated for any mistakes it has via the forums which are registered with over 8000 members with OVER 220 Thousand posts. Unlike several other communities, our forums are not the main site, so one can very easily assume that the actually site gets much more visits than the forum itself (similarly most other sites have a completely different URL as well as two or more URLs for their fansite itself versus one main url for runecrypt and a branch for the forum).

Please take a look comparing Zybez.net (as it is listed in the external links) and RuneCrypt.com as seen in Alexa:

Zybez.NET (AS LISTED ON external links): 203,356
RuneCrypt.com: 165,666

I feel no reason why there should be no limit to external links as to which sites stay on and off. Why should one site be left out which is growing while one site is left in which is declining (not zybez though)? Now I am biased as you can tell towards RuneCrypt, but if someone were to go to that site, you can tell that it is BY FAR not a small and inexperienced site. The current list does not equally allow sites that are large with a good activity rate to be shown. Why should sites which are already so incredibly large be shown, while some thats not nearly as large, but has MUCH of the same content be denied from showing?

Now if this is relating to the keyloggers and etc, it is not our site that is responsible. Tip.it and RuneHQ are notorious for these, yet these are listed there. So this really isn't the issue.

Please answer as to limits and etc. on this issue. Either the limits should be extended, more clarity given, or ALL taken off. It's the only reasonable solution. Thanks. Onejsin (aka The Arrowz/Arrowz on rc).


[2] Already discussed before. If we were not to have limits It would be like before having 20+. This is not what Wikipedia is. However, the decision of which links to keep was taken rather hastily. I understand the one you switched "RuneVillage" May not be in the Top 5. I will try to rereview the situation and see what should take its place, basing my decision on traffic and Alexa.

However, I would be very intrested to here what you call "...the limits should be extended...". And I will consider it. As for more clarity given, a giant warning above the 5 links, I think is enough warning. J.J.Sagnella 08:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As to limits, I worded that wrong. I meant that the amount of sites listed should be increased. The current sites listed is not a good representation of the good fansites out there. Whether or not I am biased (or anyone else towards what site should be there or what site they are a part of), there is no definite reason as to why those particular five are listed while others are not. Onejsin.

I still think that RuneScape toplists, such as the Zybez one, would be a good solution for everyone.Dtm142 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if the Zybez toplist is a good source. When I checked there (just now), I set it so it would only show fansites. There are several problems with using that. First off, it's going to be biased, as the top two ranks being zybez and rsc are well, top two mainly due to the fact that its on that site. Sals I can understand. But then the next two (excl. Toplist), rs talk and rs battle? I just went there and lemme tell ya, those two sites were obviously just started and aren't a very good source of a wide amount of information. It's possible that some sites would not sign up to be part of the toplist, which is another problem. But that's just my opinion. I still think that the way the external links are set up now is unreasonable (I didn't say unfair) mainly due to the fact on why those particular sites are listed while others which may be bigger and more reliable as well as more active are denied any access whatsoever. Onejsin. (Oh, and by the way Mr. Sagnella, there is no warning relating to editing/adding sites to the external links on the article. The only warning listed is beware of hijackers. "Now if this is relating to the keyloggers and etc, it is not our site that is responsible. Tip.it and RuneHQ are notorious for these, yet these are listed there. So this really isn't the issue." I stated this wasn't the issue.) Also another thing, I read your conclusion on Archive 3 on your justification on which sites should be allowed. Obviously you are a player, and if you just visited the site I am somewhat defending you would conclude that RuneCrypt is not an unexperienced site, it is NOT a sigmaking site, it is NOT a world changing site either. Those came quite frankly at the end of last year (2005); the site has grown significantly since it opened publically (Summer of 2004) up until 2005 and continues on growing.

Now I can share the frustration of seeing dozens upon dozens of fansites which are quite useless, but you need to take a look at the others out there. It is obvious one of the external link's site is in major decline, yet it is obvious there are sites out there for Runescape that are growing. So, I just want to know your justification on this, because based on what I read in Archive 3, it really isn't such a strong support/arguement. Onejsin

A. You share my concern that toplists aren't good. Good for you. :) :-)

B. So, it's quite obvious that you dislike the current layout. I can see you clearly have cleverly thought out a better idea, and I am very intrested in hearing it. So now please tell me how you would set the Fansite Section out, if it was up to you and maybe, if it's good it will get chnaged. J.J.Sagnella 18:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Toplists, the Zybez one is just an example. We could do other toplists, or perhaps a link to a Google search for RuneScape. Anyway, just put anything there except the actual fansites. Dtm142 21:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
A link for a Google Search of Runescape? *laughs* J.J.Sagnella 22:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Well a really quick thought would be to extend amount of sites to ten? Afterall, there are more than five out there, some which may be better than one listed. Personally (after I wasted a year playing lol), I think that the only major sites are the five up there, plus RuneCrypt, which I have been with since Oct of 2004. I can't think of anymore unless some new ones popped up after I stopped playing (I still do, just not addictively). Onejsin
10? Way too many. Wikipedia is not a link farm and 10 is way too many. not only that it would cause disputes over which 10 deserve to stay. J.J.Sagnella 07:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New section?

I think a new section listing helpful players or players telling about themselves or: a new section having links to runescape players user talk should be created. Either way the should be a new section.--Hilotsunami 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


It just simply wouldn't work. It would be too long, people will lie, it is not helpful, it is not appropiate for an encyclopedia. J.J.Sagnella 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes i guess that would be true but I know there is a section on wikipedians who play Runescape mabye there should be a link from the Runescape article to that?--Hilotsunami 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape/Archive_15&oldid=41212335"