Jump to content

Talk:RuneScape

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kerrby (talk | contribs) at 12:18, 10 October 2009 (→Player reception). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Former good article nomineeRuneScape was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 14, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 19, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 20, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 15, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 29, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 16, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
May 30, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Maintained

Player reception

(Kerrby (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC))Another thing that needs to be added here is that since the removal of the two main parts of RuneScape, the activeness has since dropped severely and RuneScape active player numbers are at an all time low. Also community websites have suffered because of this and have also decreased in activity severely. I think you should mention that some of the recent updates are unpopular with players, not just free-trading and wilderness. Things like merch clans being considered not against the rules. For those who are unaware, merch clans are clans who price manipulate on teh Grand Exchange. Please add this into the article.--G33k243 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, due to the auto-typer nature of merch clans, most of them are against the rules.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The people who advertise merch clans are against the rules, that's why they make seperate accounts which they use to avoid their mains getting banned. But somewhere, JaGeX announced that merch clans are allowed. --G33k243 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to Wikipedia...Without reliable sources, which rules out forum posts, we can't put that information into the article. Come up with a few and we'll talk. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly that this is no forum, but is not the voicing of such a view, of the "unpopular" updates, biased and POV in themselves? Soccerrox62 | Talk 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but without reliable sourcing, it's original research at best, pure opinion at worst. The key standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Merchanting clans are receiving mixed reception from the playerbase. I'm not sure if this could be used in the article though. --Exarion1 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K, reference. You have verifiability covered. Now to work on reliable sources (i.e., not a forum)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with this "world's most popular free" thing, Runescape isn't completely free, it has a subscription system too. The other part is, does it differentiate between free and pay accounts with the 104 million number as part of the Guinness award? Does anyone have this information? Revrant (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that it's the most popular MMORPG with a free option, other than a limited trial. WoW holds the title for the most popular MMORPG, but it doesn't have enough free content to be considered free. It's the Guiness World Records committee (or whoever decides this) who decides these things, not us.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish they'd release their deciding factors and considerations then, because if they are using the totality of the accounts, including the accounts which pay, that is incorrect. Revrant (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't make the rules, I just follow them...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting:
RuneScape, released in 2001, is an MMORPG that runs in a JAVA applet. It supports free subscription play as well as a paid membership option. More than ten million free accounts ahve beene created and more than one million who pay for added content, such as extra quests.
So they distinguish free accounts from members' accounts. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Head of RuneScape?

Currently it's in the article as "Vince Farquharson was announced as the new "Head of RuneScape" on 21 October 2008", however he is no longer in the credits (http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/jagex#credits) and I'm quite sure there was a post about changes in who's running it some point in 2009. Can't find a 'who it now is' reference, only evidence of 'who it now isn't' and wondered if anyone could help me with putting in a decent fix, especially as there is no longer a 'head of runescape' position holder.FlashNerdX (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The company website doesn't say anything about him going, either. That probably means we'll have to change the History and development section from "His first major action", to "His only major action", since, to the best of my knowledge, he never did anything else worth writing about, and won't do so if he's really gone
Of course, that means the paragraph about Farquharson is never likely to expand. I sometimes ask myself whether he's really that noteworthy, especially as the "Year of Upgrades" concept seems to have been dumped some time ago. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit tag

I recently deleted the copyedit tag from the top of this article, since I didn't see any specific areas that required it. If someone can point out specific examples of areas that need copyediting, I'd be more than happy to help. If not, then we probably don't need to have the tag at the top of the page. Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was last nominated for Good Article status, the prose was described as "choppy". Aside from a lack of references in some areas, that was probably the biggest issue. If an experienced copyeditor feels there are no major issues (not that I doubt your experience), then the tag will come off. If you spotted any issues after a thorough read, don't be afraid to raise them, or correct them yourself. The two sections that might want focus for now are:
The Combat sub-section. Currently, this is tagged as being too long, which is probably true compared against other sections. I keep thinking about breaking it into two halves - one on general combat, the other on player-versus player combat. Of course, that would leave the new section in need of editing, but it should go some way to addressing the problem. What does everyone think?
The Interaction sub-section. I don't know why, but I have issues with the second paragraph. While minigames are a valid form of interaction, how much should be written on the games themselves? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many redirects?

In April 2009, a discussion was held to clean up some of the many redirects to this article. Although User:Unionhawk has done a great job directing them to specific sections of the article, there are probably some we can just delete without too much trouble. I've made a list of some candidates.

There may be others - I've just listed ones that seem fairly obvious. Does anyone have any thoughts? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them. Looking at the list quite a few (like RuneScape armour) dont really seem necessary.  rdunnPLIB  10:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I went ahead and tagged a lot of those for R3 speedy.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course R3 has to be recently created... RfD is our only route then for most of these...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself agreeing with Rdunn. We also seem to have multiple redirects which say basically the same thing, for example "Construction (RuneScape)" and "Construction (Runescape)". Two different links, but do you really need both? (OK, you probably do because "Runescape" is a fair mis-spelling, but there's a lot of them.)
Also, what about redirects with no links to them, for example "Dwarven Mine"? This example is probably a candidate for RfD, but what about others? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape&oldid=319046542"