Talk:RuneScape

Player reception

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

(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.

Again, no, not without a reliable source. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/runescape.com Shows that Runescape has fallen about 50 percent in activity in terms of website usage. Yialanliu (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also fansites like RuneHQ's numbers dropped since the updates and activity suffered. - Kerrby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrby (talk • contribs) 07:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We could mention that people think the people in high detail look like Tellitubbies people. Jeremjay24 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a disturbing, and unsourced, thought. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

• Lady Keli - an older redirect, back when RS was a lot smaller. Nowadays, it's less likely anyone would create an article on this.
• RuneScape: Runecrafting, Runescape:Ranged - to me, these don't seem to be likely search terms.
• User:Pyrospirit/RuneScape locations rewrite, User:Pyrospirit/RuneScape locations (old version) - again, very unlikely search terms.
• Land of runescape - a bit redundant, as it would be easier for people to type "Runescape".
• Runescape Job Classes - speaking personally, I don't see many uses of the term "Job Classes".
• SCAR (software) - most people wouldn't see the connection between this and RS. The article's former contents also strike me as being a little dubious.

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)

Delete them. Looking at the list quite a few (like RuneScape armour) dont really seem necessary.  rdunnPLIB  10:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I went ahead and tagged a lot of those for R3 speedy.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 11:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I sent a lot of them to RfD, and, based on the results, the rest will probably end in keep, so, I think we can put this one to bed.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Edit request: In the gameplay section, the page discusses "tutorial island". However, long ago the location of the tutorial was changed to an underground area around Lumbridge, as can be easily seen simply by creating a new account and logging in. Please edit this outdated information. Source: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Tutorial—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moplord359 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source in order to confirm your claims.  fetchcomms☛ 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, is there consensus to use this as a source?  fetchcomms☛ 04:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikia is unsuitable as a source since anyone can edit it. Not to mention that the article already mentions the tutorial being changed in September 2009 - that should be enough. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong, but they removed the new tutorial and reverted it to the old one because of technical problems. For sure, it has been reverted to the old tutorial island.---Mastermattt, the Debatist 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastermattt (talk • contribs)

You might well be. It was changed in July 2008, then reverted for reasons not-entirely-known. It was replaced again in September 2009, and I can't find any evidence that it's changed back since then.[2] 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an edit.

I've noticed that the article says that skyboxes and bloom effects were introduced when RuneTek 5 was put into the game. This is incorrect. In the developers' blog it says that they "hope to introduce the following features in the coming months." They never did, but it might be coming soon. Source: RuneTek 5 Developers' Blog: 19 Sep 2009 Hiphippie100 (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Noted as a future improvement. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape Classic

RuneScape Classic is it's own game. It is completely different from RuneScape as we know it. It should definitely have it's one page and not be redirected to here. Please somebody create the new page and we can all work on it. Pikupurphat 19:11 , 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to show that it has independent notability from RS - and that means secondary sources. Do you have any? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Various RuneScape Skills

On the Wiki page, it notes 24 different RuneScape skills. However, it never lists each one. This should be added. They are as follows: Attack, Strength, Defence, Ranged, Prayer, Magic, Runcrafting, Construction, Hitpoints, Agility, Herblore, Thieving, Crafting, Fletching, Slayer, Hunter, Mining, Smithing, Fishing, Cooking, Firemaking, Woodcutting, Farming, and Summoning. Plans for another skill is in the making, according to Mod Mmg, who told players while on his clan chat. However, I have no citation for this, therefore there is no proof.