![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Guides I've started/completed already:
Adding citations to these would be a huge plus.
Guides I plan to revise:
I'm not too happy that this article has failed Good Article status and Feature Article status - twice, at that! If you want this to recieve the credit it probably deserves, you're going to have to work relentelssly at it. This list is just what I want to accomplish before too long. If you want to help me, go ahead, the more the merrier. If you don't like the direction I'm going in, then let's see you present the authors of this Wiki with a better solution. Makoto 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestions - one point is Community should be about the people who play and their interaction with each other inculding outside of the game in forumns fansites ebay etc. Also its still needs to be a short 1 or 2 para section in the main article with a ((main|runescape community)) link to the article. Runescape Economy doesnt fit within community and shouldnt be merged, that said they can have an overlap and link to each other. I do agree with the creation of Runescape locations by merging wilderness and dungeons --Gnangarra 00:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Gnangarra. I could defintely use that. By the way, let's make sure that we don't resend it in for any GA/FA noms until we're sure it meets those criterium. Makoto 01:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created a copy of this article at User_talk:Makoto the Knight/RuneScape suggest that this aticle get the rewrite/rebuild and then we can move it back to here to replace this when its finished that way vandals dont disrupt the process. Gnangarra 01:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is all well and good, but you are forgetting one thing, one very major thing. You are not the only person/people who gets/get to decide what stays and what goes. I have been editing this series of articles for months now, only to see a bunch of names I had never seen before come in and destroy a lot of hard (and good) work. You are taking control of this rewrite of this article/series of articles, and, while I agree that it needs work, the work that it needs is not nearly as extensive as what it sounds like you are planning.
For instance, one of the things that we have tried to keep OUT of the article in the past is player rants in the criticism section. That is completely and totally POV. The criticism needs to be as NPOV as it can possibly be in order to meet my standards, and I hope everyone else's standards as well. Having a bunch of player rants in there could make the article 200 pages long. And who gets to decide which rants get to be included? As I have said more than once in the past, the thing that absolutely, tee-totally pisses you off the most may not bother me in the least and the thing I hate more than anything may be something you like about the game. Player rants are not true criticism; they are POV, opinion, and highly volatile. The thing I hate today may be fine with me tomorrow.
I do agree completely that we should not resend for any additional reviews or anything until it is done. That is counter-productive. I think that we can all work together to make the RuneScape articles the best series of articles on Wikipedia, but not if one person or group of people decides that their way is the only way. Flame away - I am a big girl - I can take it. 8^) Xela Yrag 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a nightmare trying to keep up with all this *headache*. Could I make a couple of suggestions? Rather than AFDing armour and weapons, would it not be better to write some prose in the combat article covering these topics first then cutting those articles loose? By the same token, Magic and the Wilderness could be merged into combat too, leaving it a well-rounded article.
The RuneScape locations and RuneScape dungeons articles completely bamboozle me. They're both scrappy as heck and don't seem to establish an iota of notability. RS locations are just where 'things' are, there's little else to say about them. It's not like they're usually steeped in RS history or offer any difference to every other location in the game. The only two locations which (to me) seem anything more than a palette-swap are Mort Myre swamp and the desert south of Al Kharid - they have status effects and are generally inhospitable. RS dungeons is just a tiddly list of the location of the dungeon and what's in it. So we can fight giant rats there with our non-existant accounts... and? See what I mean? I'm a little puzzled as to why they seem to avoid the scrutiny shown to much more polished articles which are no less notable (though still not suitable for the wiki). Your thoughts? QuagmireDog 02:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, let's try that again shall we? :D
The weapons, armour, magic and wilderness articles all have something in common: There's not enough material to make a full article without cramming them with non-notable info. or borderline game-guides and in their current forms offer no hope of becoming good articles. All of these could be tidied up and merged into the combat article, after the details have been rewritten. The result would be flowing prose talking about combat in RS and not listing spells/equipment/places of 'interest' in the wilderness. It would be a good, useful read.
Mini-games, whilst still uncited (have yet to even attempt citations), is now virtually game-guide/cruft free and should be safe from AFD. Skills should be safe as houses.
Both the Locations and Gods articles both look good but cause concern - are these topics going to prove to be citable? Continuing to remove vandalism/NN from them should keep AFD at bay until contributors can give these two a good going over and get some major citing/writing done.
Economy and community both look extremely shaky to me. If enough information on MMORPG economies could be found for citation, the Economy article could be an informative article useful for more than just RS. Community doesn't seem to have much purpose, I mean what is there to say about the community? Why is RS' community a subject requiring an article? Details about the moderators don't seem particularly relevant either, their inclusion seems more about what an RS player would be thinking about than a reader needs to know about. Community could be boosted with a section on POH, which are indeed community-related and are a departure for RS.
The dungeons article is a lost cause. It contains myriad subsections commenting on how this particular hole in the ground has giant bats and hill giants whereas THIS particular cave has hobgoblins and pirates. No relevance to readers at all. Merging what little material there is in the Dungeons article into the Locations article would just weaken Locations, as it has been written in good prose (from what I can see). Likewise, the RS Wiki currently lists four dungeons, each one a guide to levels/monsters etc. and written in a short, concise manner. I very much doubt a single paragraph talking about bats would help them write another dungeon article. To this end, please can this article be put up for AFD? QuagmireDog 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it is time for me to admit my total ignorance here. I have been editing the RuneScape articles for months now, but you guys have totally lost me. What the hell is NN?? and OR? I figured out POV and NPOV, but those others are just nonsense to me. I cannot be the only one who doesn't understand what you are talking about. I understand the need for brevity, but not everyone is a "wiki-expert" and not everyone has time to do the research that would be required to find some of what you are talking about. At least give us links when you use an abbreviation that is not common knowledge. Also remember that something is not common knowledge just because you know it. When I figure out what you are talking about, then maybe I can answer you intelligently. Xela Yrag 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you have to add something about the "6/6/6-Fally Massacre." It's significant to Runescape's bug/glitch record. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.227.150.137 (talk • contribs) .
It's not worth being mentioned. Besides, it was 6/6/5 or 6/6/7 for americans ont hat day. :P Rhotty 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a video on it: [2]. I still don't understand what happened with it, though. Oh, and the Runescape glitch page was deleted. --71.109.37.168 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
i think there should be a article on it because i dont know what the 6/6/6 glitch is :( Drrake 04:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The player feedback part of the criticism needs a pov check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by some ip (talk • contribs)
Oh my! What on earth happened to this article?! I really can't agree with the changes made in the last day. For instance Since I last looked the history and development section has gone from an easy to read point by point summary of the main points in the development of the engine, to some prose which isn't even accurate or well written!
For example the section used to start:
"RuneScape's first version began as a one-man project. Andrew Gower started working on the original game in 1998. This version was very different from the RuneScape of today. It had isometric graphics, and was originally titled 'DeviousMUD'. This version was never released to the public."
and now starts:
"The first two tries were both done by Andrew Gower and Paul Gower in 1998 and 1999. Despite efforts to clean up both versions (as they used isometric graphics), both versions looked similar and were scrapped."
I'm not sure how to put this nicely, but I personally really don't feel that is an improvement. The facts have been changed so they aren't accurate anymore, and the writing style looks less professional.
I'm sorry, I appreciate the effort which has been made to update the article, and I know WP says to be bold, but in this case I think the original read much better, came across as more factual and less POV, and was more accurate, so I'm reverting. Runefire 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I should also add that the other changed sections (also reverted) weren't an improvement either. Sure some individual sentances and revisions were better, but there are loads of changes all heaped in at the same time with no explanation or reason for many of the changes. Many of which actually make things much worse than before, with various important facts removed and other facts changed to be wrong.
A huge number of people have worked on revising, tweaking and perfecting this article and coming to a consensus about what it should say and the writing style which should be used (a passive writing style should be used). Two people shouldn't just come in suddenly and change the entire article around for no reason. You've not even tried to avoid corrupting the accuracy of what is already there! If it read better and great care had been taken to preserve the integrity of the article then I'd say fair enough but given the almost random nature of the changes that certainly isn't the case! Runefire 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, Makoto, but I have to agree with Runefire here. The section was much better before you rewrote it. Your revision starts somewhere in the middle, talking about the first two attempts without ever mentioning the "who, what, where, when, and why" that are required for a good, well-written article. This version may need some work, but it needs to be worked within the context of what is already there, factual, and makes sense. It does not need to be rewritten for style or whatever you were going for. And it does not need to be chopped so short that it looses it cohesiveness or clarity. It just needs to be concise, factual, and flow smoothly, with proper grammer and NPOV. Xela Yrag 17:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did some of the tweaking; however, the entire creation of Jagex and the turning over of RuneScape to it has desappeared from the article. We go from talking about Andrew and Paul to talking about Jagex like people are supposed to know who or what the hell Jagex is. If this article is really written for "the general public", the I really feel that the creation of Jagex is an important part of the history and development of the game. I, however, cannot find what was originally there right now. If someone could put that back, I would be grateful. Xela Yrag 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you should try and come to a consensus/compromise on this. Why not take it to mediation? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Really, the Criticsm section is the worst. Its suppoused to point out things people DONT like about the game. The "press review" section is just ridiculous. Its blatant advertising for the game, did you guys even try to make that any good? Its basically telling us why we should play Runescape instead of doing anything else! And then the Player Criticsm section is overly long and every point is put with something "Good" about the game. This section needs major overhaul. (Koolsen0 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC))
Watch out: some of the editors don't appreciate someone else trying to fix what's wrong with the article. Trust me, criticism is in my crosshairs, and I'd more than love to revise it. Makoto 01:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"Some people are also annoyed with the enormous amount of words that are blocked, claiming that since the game has an age minimum of 13, mild swearing such as "damn" should be allowed."
I'll just be BOLD and remove the material.--Edtalk c E 02:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"According to BBC News, playing RuneScape as much as working on homework is not necessarily a bad thing. It can instruct players about working hard to achieve goals. Studies show that the nature of most games...blah blah blah. " This is critisism??? If anything, this is criticizing parents for not letting their children play the game more! Come on, people! If that's criticism, then criticize me 24/7!
It has got to be changed. --71.109.37.168 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... well since this part of the article is sorely lacking im going to be BOLD and remove all old press criticsm remains. I fell that part of the section is beyond hope while the rest looks (Barely) OK. if you have any objections to the deletion of that para graph bring it up here. I mean that section is enteriely fluff. It doesnt belong under critcsms. Perhaps if you wanted to make a section about why Runescape is good for you you might put it there but it has no place in a criticsm section.(Koolsen0 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC))
I hardly call saying Runescape is better for you then homework a "Objective review" If we could find a review that actually evaulated the game then it would be good. About one of those things in there meet that. Besides isnt Criticsm used in the first form of the word? Look at criticsm on any page its always used in the negative conotaion. I propose a serious rewrite of the first paragraph and that it go under its own Reviews subsection if you want to keep it. It doesnt belong under criticsm section and its details are pure fluff. Well anyway lets just keep it as it is now until we come to a valid conclusion. Koolsen0 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It reads even worse than an advertisement, if that's at all possible. I highly doubt that there is any good place on here to place RuneScape above one's schooling. It's completely POV. --71.109.37.168 10:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we talk about the RuneScape forums in th article? It is in the topic of RuneScape, and once I added it in, but just as quickly, someone edited it out. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.2.119 (talk • contribs) .
I suggest Rune Tips (tip.it/runescape) be put in place of Rune HQ in the fansite section. While Rune HQ has more traffic, Rune Tips has more accurate, relevant information, a better community, and exponentially higher forum use (over one million posts and 119K accounts, compared to 330K posts and 35K users). Furthermore, Rune Tips is the first major fansite created, dating back to its ownership by Silverion, with the original ScapeBoard forums. Rune Tips is just alround a better fansite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.108.163 (talk • contribs) .
Rhotty 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, lord have mercy on my poor tired eyes. Again! Can you people read what has already been discussed a THOUSAND times before you post??? Sorry, but this is really getting ridiculous. It is not a fanclub for a fansite. It is supposed to be the one, single, solitary fansite with the most traffic per Alexa counts. That is RuneHQ. There is nothing to discuss. There is no "this one is better, let's use it instead". It is there because that is the way it has to be. Period. Should be end of discussion. 75.109.30.35 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to log in, so this is make sure you all know who this is. Xela Yrag 22:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The latest edit by Hemhem20X6 in regards to fansite makes sense (ie; don't show any while there is debate). I can't believe it wasn't thought of before... I am in support of this, if we can't agree on one fansite, none should be shown. Nathan M 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, you guys certainly let these articles run rampant.
Wow. That's alot. I don't think any of them should have been created, either. The majority of these articles should be deleted, as the RuneScape Wiki is exactly the place to put fancruft.--Richard 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some of these articles contain excessive fancruft, and should be trimmed or deleted. However, we definitely need several sub-articles. If it seems possible for a sub-article to adequately cover a sub-topic of RuneScape without excessive fancruft, we should keep the article, and re-write it. For example, for RuneScape skills, each skill could have a section, about 2 paragraphs long, and we could have a general description about the skills in the lead section. That would probably not be fancruft. We also need to redefine fancruft. Many coming to this article are players with passing familiarity with the game. Information useful to someone with passing familiarity with the game should not be considered fancruft. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
They are what make Runescape different from other online RPGs.Jeeper5 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that I look at RuneScape with hopefully "fresh eyes", I'm beginning to realize that we really don't need the Press Reviews on the article. It looks like advertising to me.....--Edtalk c E 00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We definitely need the Press Reviews subsection, if we want RuneScape to become a good article. It is important to document what reliable sources thought of the game; we need more references for this article. If the main concern is that the reviews look like advertising, what we should try to do is to find some negative reviews of the game by reliable sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Not even the most prolific game has this kind of fluff.... Im actually begining to think that the whole criticsm section is a bad idea. Koolsen0 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
While reading, I came across a note reminding users to only refer to Rune HQ as the RuneScape fansite. If I can recall, Tip.It is the first created RuneScape fansite, although when created, it was also dedicated to two other games as well, yet RuneScape's fansite section of it remained dominant, and now it is the only one they focus on. Comparing Tip.It and Rune HQ results in Rune HQ being abhorrently organized and not attractive at all -- lacking useful features. The only bonus I've ever reaped from Rune HQ was the House Planner, which Tip.It lacks, though hardly damaging its obvious greater quality. Also, a note: This is my first time to create a Discussion Thread, or however the lingo flows here, thus if you find any irregular actions or content, then please pardon it.
Can someone get the latest edit counts? I wonder if it's passed Jesus Christ or George W. Bush by now. Hmm... Cheers! The RSJ 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You can find the edit totals at special:Mostrevisions. Because of the Israeli conflist, RuneScape is now 7th. Although the edits are still increasing, the increase is slowing down - • The Giant Puffin • 09:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to semi-protection, all the moronic anonymous vandals have gone. I hope no admin will stupidly lift the semi-protection, at least not until RuneScape becomes a good article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think semi-protection is something that should be on permanently, even though there are vandals amongst IP users - most IP users go on to be productive members of WP like the rest of us. There are enough editors on this page to revert any vandalism as it happens. I found your "stupidly lift" statement goes against the spirit of semi-protection and it's also somewhat rude. Rudeness, something else that should be stamped out of WP.
As per the slowing down of edits, it's all because Xela Yrag hasn't been fixing stupid mistakes. if someone wants to make her name a link to her user page be my guest, i don't know how. --Ace the bunny 11:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that semi-protection shouldnt be lifted until RuneScape is a good article. If people wanto to make good contributions they can register an account and wait until they can edit. Its a small price to pay for almost no vandalism - • The Giant Puffin • 14:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
When to use semi-protection
Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page, if the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with. Like full protection, it is usually a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure. Jimbo Wales has suggested that semi-protection may be used in the cases of "minor bios of slightly well known but controversial individuals" which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "subject to POV pushing, trolling [or] vandalism." In such cases, semi-protection "would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often.
When not to use semi-protection
Semi-protection should not be used: as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism has occurred; as a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others (see the protection policy for how to deal with this); in the case of a few static IP vandals hitting a page (blocking the vandals is a much better option than semi-protection); on the day's Featured Article, which should almost never be protected in the interests of encouraging newcomers to be bold; to prohibit anonymous editing in general. Talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances. User talk pages subject to persistent vandalism or trolling may be semi-protected or protected on request.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.96.237 (talk • contribs)
From what I've seen vandals are the tip of the iceburg. What really contributes to the instability of the RS series is the volume of good-faith edits to NN sections in articles to add another layer of NN gloss. These would be considerably easier to deal with if so many of the articles weren't stuffed full of tripe in the first place.
Those who have spent months of editting and adding to the RS series are protective of the pages. Of course they are, look at what they're up against:
Who wouldn't be after months of that?
This article is over three years old, yet it hasn't even got a CVG rating but has been nominated for GA once and FA twice. The top of this talk page is like a video recorder manual, there aren't enough days in the hour to digest it all and try to form something cohesive from all the recommendations. Anyone, no matter how well intentioned, who lands here and thinks that the article is suddenly going to jump from zero to FA quickly and easily is kidding themselves. It is going to be a ball-achingly long process with a lot of discussion over even the minor details.
RuneScape is not a single article, it is a collection of them. A genuine wish to elevate RS is a genuine wish to improve the secondary articles. Not just knifing the crud from them - rewriting the relevant material and making something GOOD. The time when the machete was needed has passed, it's time for the scaffolding to go up. To sum up, can I suggest that all you great people out dere consider doing the following:
Right, that's my twopennies worth, I'll be working on RuneScape mini-games and practicing what I preach. QuagmireDog 12:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the massive amount of information we have on wikipedia about runescape, it is almost turning into a game guide. I mean, some people are even calling articles they are editing "guides" in the talk pages! Why dont we keep the runescape article how it is, to have an overview of the game, and then take all of the other articles and move thyeir info to a runescape wiki? I know this hs been said before, but here it is again WillieWallieWoo 12:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
okay, we need sub-articles to keep down the length of the main article. The sub-articles have to be as good as the main article. But if everybody keeps deleting them, we will have to start over. My goal is to make the whole series great, wonderful, concise, encyclopedic, and grammar-error free. But it takes time, so can we get someone to stop all the AfDs til we are done? Xela Yrag 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, we could post the major revisions template on every page; that might stop people like me from AFDing. I see no reason now to AFD any of the articles, even if there is "fancruft", because they all CAN be made into good articles. But locations and mini-games... eh, no. But still, I will post that template on the pages to see if it helps. Should that work? Hemhem20X6 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the template:
Hemhem20X6 06:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Now that ive seen the other side, I agree with you. We should just revise the sub-pages. However, why does that template say the articles talk page is under revision? Shouldn't it say this article? WillieWallieWoo 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the template adjusts to whatever kind of page it's put on. Hemhem20X6 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I just read the entire Jagex webpage. It has a nice little history of Jagex and everything, but there is no mention of Constant Tedder on the page. The reference used to verify this is another Wikipedia article. The Jagex webpage also says that Jagex was formed to handle several games, not just RuneScape. I am checking further, but we need better sources if we are putting in information like this.Xela Yrag 05:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, just read the entire Jagex article here on Wikipedia and, while it mentions Constant Tedder, there are no citations for that anywhere. I looked everywhere I can, short of googling the name and no mention anywhere except here on Wikipedia. Can someone find a citation or source for this name?? Xela Yrag 05:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I went to your links. Constant Tedder helped form Jagex per all that. But what is in the article right now says that Tedder helped do the third rewrite, and I do not see that mentioned in any of the articles you guys linked. In fact, it says:
"In December 2001 Andrew, Paul and Constant got together and founded Jagex Limited as a commercial operation to take over the running of RuneScape, underlying technologies and other games developed by Andrew. RuneScape had already by then become a game which had had over 1 million accounts created over 2001!"
So, according to your source, RuneScape was already rewritten with over a million accounts before Jagex was formed. But in the article, it is written as if Jagex was formed as the third rewrite was done, and that Tedder assisted in the third rewrite. I do not have time to go out and google all this. So is there a source for Tedder's assistance in the rewrite or not? Oh, and I said I did not google this in my original post. I read the sources that were in the article, which is what a normal person would be expected to do. Then, when the source doesn't collaborate what the article says, it makes us look like idiots. 75.109.30.35 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Oops, forgot to log in first. Xela Yrag 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)