Talk:RuneScape: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:16, 10 August 2008 editButters x (talk \| contribs)91 edits →Criticism ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:51, 9 June 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:RuneScape/Archive 34) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{afd-merged-from\|Falador Massacre\|Falador Massacre\|19 March 2022}}
	{{Game}}
	{{~~talkheader~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	..
			{{Round in circles\|search=yes}}
	{{ArticleHistory
			{{Not a forum}}
	\| action1=FAC
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=y}}
			{{Article history\| action1=FAC
	\| action1date=2006-06-04		\| action1date=2006-06-04
	\| action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/RuneScape/Archive1		\| action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/RuneScape/Archive1
	\| action1result=failed		\| action1result=failed
	\| action1oldid=56799685		\| action1oldid=56799685

	\| action2=GAN		\| action2=GAN
	\| action2date=~~01:07, 14 June~~ 2006		\| action2date=2006-06-14
	\| action2link=Talk:RuneScape/Archive 9#Failed GA		\| action2link=Talk:RuneScape/Archive 9#Failed GA
	\| action2result=not listed		\| action2result=not listed
	\| action2oldid=58490271		\| action2oldid=58490271

	\| action3=PR		\| action3=PR
	\| action3date=2006-06-19		\| action3date=2006-06-19
	\| action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive1		\| action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive1
	\| action3oldid=59398462		\| action3oldid=59398462

	\| action4=PR		\| action4=PR
	\| action4date=2006-08-10		\| action4date=2006-08-10
	\| action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive2		\| action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive2
	\| action4oldid=68778352		\| action4oldid=68778352

	\| action5=FAC		\| action5=FAC
	\| action5date=~~01:13, 20 August~~ 2006		\| action5date=2006-07-20
	\| action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/RuneScape/archive1		\| action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/RuneScape/archive1
	\| action5result=not promoted		\| action5result=not promoted
	\| action5oldid=70675122		\| action5oldid=70675122

	\| action6=PR		\| action6=PR
	\| action6date=2006-10-15		\| action6date=2006-10-15
	\| action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive3		\| action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive3
	\| action6oldid=81632798		\| action6oldid=81632798

	\| action7=GAN		\| action7=GAN
	\| action7date=2007-03-09		\| action7date=2007-03-09
	\| action7result=Listed		\| action7result=Listed
	\| action7link=Talk:RuneScape/Archive 19#GA fail		\| action7link=Talk:RuneScape/Archive 19#GA fail
	\| action7oldid=113899307		\| action7oldid=113899307

	\| action8=PR		\| action8=PR
	\| action8date=2007-03-29		\| action8date=2007-03-29
	\| action8link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive4		\| action8link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive4
	\| action8oldid=118920099		\| action8oldid=118920099
	\| action9 = GAR
	\| action9date = {{#if:\|{{{date}}}\|21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)}}
	\| action9link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/RuneScape/1
	\| action9result = delisted
	\| action9oldid =

			\| action9=GAR
	\| currentstatus=DGA
			\| action9date=2008-07-22
	\| topic=Everydaylife
			\| action9link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/RuneScape/1
	}}
			\| action9result=delisted
	{{cvgproj\|class=B\|importance=High}}
			\| action9oldid=227540203
	{{FAQ}}
	{{notaforum\|''RuneScape''}}
	{{todo\|1\|small=yes}}
	{{archives\|index=Talk:RuneScape/Archives\|small=yes\|auto=long}}

			\| action10=PR
	== Mistake in content ==
			\| action10date=2009-04-16
			\| action10link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive5
			\| action10oldid=284292925

			\| action11=GAN
	It says "RuneScape Classic was closed to new accounts and restricted to paying members who had played Classic at least once since 3 August 2005, and once every six months after that"
			\| action11date=2009-05-30
			\| action11link=Talk:RuneScape/GA1
			\| action11result=Not promoted
			\| action11oldid=293313920

			\| action12=PR
	I believe you misread this, you do not have to log in once every six months after that. You had to have logged in at least once within the 6 months following August 3rd 2005, but after that you never had to log into it again.
			\| action12date=2010-06-12
			\| action12link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/RuneScape/archive6
			\| action12oldid=367609726

			\| currentstatus=FGAN
	I would have put this on the main page but I can't. So hopefully one of you can, then delete this.
			\| topic=Everydaylife

			}}
	Edit: Here is the source of this. http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=752
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|

			{{WikiProject Video games\|class=B\|importance=mid}}
	] (]) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors\|user=SMasters\|date=May 21, 2010}}

			}}
	== Runescape HD critical reaction ==
			{{game}}

			{{refideas
	The brand new graphics of Runescape, known as "Runescape HD" has recieved mixed critical reaction in the Runescape forums, mostly negative. Most players complain about the new look of the characters, certain items, and emotes. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			\|1=http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/04/the-making-of-runescape/
	:We need reviews from ]. Forums don't count as a reliable source. ]] 01:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
			\|2=https://www.lacedrecords.co/blogs/news/interview-composer-james-hannigan-on-runescape-s-orchestral-renaissance
	:: There is a review of the new graphics by 1up.com, which is published by ]. See . I am not sure if the site is generally considered ]. ] (]) 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
			}}
	::: Generally negative? Maybe if you were browsing the rants forum, not to mention forums are not a reliable source and cannot be used. ] (]) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	:::: If you were to check out the fan sites you'd get a different reaction, however neither of those are valid as sources so its utterly irrelivent] (]) 20:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K

			\|counter = 34
	== Game Change Consolidation ==
			\|algo = old(40d)

			\|archive = Talk:RuneScape/Archive %(counter)d
	Currently there are a number of repeated statements in the Rules & Cheating and Reception parts of the document covering the game changes from the beginning of the year. Does anyone has a problem with me putting them into one place? Both sections mention the negative reaction to the changes and both use the same reference, as they are so close together it makes sense to me to not repeat the information and I think it would go better in the Reception section (which deals with peoples opinions and reactions to the game) than the more descriptive 'what do they do 'Rules & Cheating' section.] (]) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			}}

			{{To do\|1\|small=yes}}
	No objections so done ] (]) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
			{{Clear}}

	== New animations? ==

	We need new animations to reflect the graphics updates. I can make animations. Tell me what we need an animation of, and I have no problem going and getting it. ] (]) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Well, you could just make copies of Tarikochi's images, only in HD. Maybe leave a few as a comparison. ] ] </sup></font>]] 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
	:: This is my account that has enough contribs to edit articles like these. I have made a couple and done my best to make them as smooth and as nice looking as possible. A few of them such as taris jad image and mime random I cant setup because of character and skill limitations (I cant for the life of me get mimed). So for replacements, I suggest already existing images that can be used in place. For example, to demonstrate barbarian fishing I have made Image:Runescape-barbarian-fishing.gif. For demonstrating combat we could use Image:Runescape-assisting-sir-vant.gif. For the monster we could use Image:Runescape monsters kalphitequeen-1stform-updated.gif. I havent given making a wardrobe one a shot yet. ] (]) 13:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::Might I suggest that the "player VS jad" image be replaced with a "player VS other monster" image, in that case? It wouldn't really remove anything from the article, since Jad means as much as any other monster to a non-player. ] (]) 17:04, 18
	July 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Addendum''': Well, you've kind of addressed the issue of "which monster to have fighting the player?", though you needn't use a huge boss monster; any mid-to-high-level monster will do. As for the wardrobe image, just get a couple of sets of clothes and cycle through them (that image could have a much smaller file size and still get the point across.) ] (]) 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

	:::: I just made a mime one Image:Runescape-mime-random-event.gif, working on a wardrobe one now. ] (]) 08:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::'''Comment''':Tarikochi has replaced the random event image with one of a "drill demon" event. Not sure if I like this or Joe3472's image just above. ] (]) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Tari has it covered, there is no reason to fight. ] (]) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	:: probably you should do a picture about you fighting the kbd.] (]) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well, yes, we could - but always remember that this article is written for a worldwide audience, not just RuneScape players. To non-players, the King Black Dragon is just another monster. For that reason, we can have an image of any monster and it still serves its purpose. ] (]) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

	== Addition to the history page ==

	For some reason, I cannot seem to edit this article due to the semi-protection(My account has been made for a long while now, and yet I cant seem to edit it), so could someone please add in that the Free-To-Play version of Runescape HD was released on Monday, July 14, 2008?--] (]) 00:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Changed. You need ten edits to become autoconfirmed - while your account has been around since March, this post was your sixth edit, hence the inability to edit the article. ]] 01:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

	== German Beta ==

	Reading this article, i've noticed that it incorrectly states there are four German servers. I have been to the German beta on the Runescape website, and there are 5 servers; 3 free, and 2 members. I am unable to edit the page, so I wish to draw attention to this matter.
	] (]) 06:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

	Sorry, never mind. There are correctly four German servers; world 147 is no longer on the German beta.
	] (]) 06:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Are you sure? I see World 147 is a members-only german world, making it 5 worlds, hence my change to that paragraph. ] (]) 09:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

	== Runescape Unique Gameplay omissions ==

	I am a former WOW player who has played Runescape for over 2 years now. The reasons I like Runescape over WOW or many other games out there are the same reasons I like playing Chess -- it takes a lot of planning and thinking and when your plans come together it is really rewarding. It is MUCH harder to level a character up on Runescape. I don't care about the graphics. I know I am not alone in this. Runescape is a lifelong game. I had several friends with characters in WOW, for example, who had multiple characters leveled-up to max. I know NO players personally who have doen this in Runescape. That's a pretty big difference from other mmorpg's. TO me (and many others) it is the most important difference. It is NOT a simple game. If you glance at the game it looks graphically simple, but so does chess. These "analysts" cited have obviously never played Runescape very long, or just glanced superficially at it and assumed it was similar to other MMORPG's in this regard. This is a HUGE omission! it is the main reason people stay with Runescape so long. Here is the relevant passage from the Wiki article:

	Quote: "Its analysis posits that "RuneScape’s mass-market appeal lies in its simplicity and accessibility (both financial and technical). It has tapped into the vast market of games players unwilling or unable to spend premium prices on PCs capable of playing the latest, expensive, processor-intensive games. Its core gameplay concepts are very similar to its retail-distributed RPG and MMORPG analogues".

	The concepts are not similar. On the surface they seem to be, but earlier in the article you mentioned the more open game play without a specific path to follow -- you have to THINK much more about what you are doing and the skills and paths you take can be combined or put in various order to work together. Within each skill, the things you can do to level up vary in their difficulty and distances to resources which take careful thought and planning as well. As you level up, it gets harder to level. That is pretty core to the game concept, and contradictory with the quote I copied above, because earlier you say it has more open play than all the others. It is very intellectually challenging and not thinking about it and planning can leave you doing several times the work, making it nearly impossible to level-up. You can of course walk around all day simply doing nothing in the game, but if you actually play the game it is mind-numbingly complex. THAT is the game's main strength, along with being able to play anywhere. Most play-anywhere flash games are mind-numbingly simple -- this is virtually the only one this complex.

	Runescape only looks simple. Just add a line that runescape characters take much longer to level up to maximum than every other game I know of out there. It takes more planning too. Runescape is harder. It is a challenging game. It is a much harder game than WOW, for example -- even though wow has more complex-looking graphics. This is a very important distinction. Somewhere it needs to be mentioned. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	<P>gree, but please sign your posts with four tildes. To be honest, I think RuneScape has arguably better graphics than "wow", now anyway. RuneScape does have more skills and costs less monthly, and you can do whatever you want without creating a new characters, for the most part. You can switch between any "class" at any time. ] (]) 11:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm not going to comment on whether one thing is better than another, but do you have ] to back up your claims? If not, it doesn't go in the article. ] (]) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

	:: He does have a point about the portrayal of classes and professions compared to other games. Wow and GW for example focus heavily on choosing one class/set of skills and sticking with it while Runescape allows you to train any type of combat skill as long as your willing to invest time into it. That should not be hard to source. ] (]) 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
	::: No source, no inclusion. Simple as that. ]] 00:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Why does there need to be a source on common information? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::Because otherwise it's ] and I'm sure other people disagree. That's why sources are needed--<span style="font-family:Papyrus">] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> <sub>• <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sub></span> 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

	:::::: How can you disagree with a statement like "Unlike many MMORPG games, Runescape does not limit a charachter to one class or profession"? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::::Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevent - it's still got to have a reliable source. And if you don't play MMORPGs (keeping in mind this article targets a general audience), it means very little. ] (]) 09:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::The game ''is'' the source. ] (]) 11:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::But the game itself is not a ], or one you can cite - you need things like fansites, game reviews, etc. The bottom line, as has been repeated several times, is that if there is no source, it doesn't get included.
	:::::::::Look, I'm beginning to feel that this discussion isn't going anywhere. Unless someone is willing to come up with reliable sources to justify why this belongs in the article, it (to me, at least) seems meaningless to continue. ] (]) 11:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::The game itself is a valid ] although it is a primary source. According to ], "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Since the game is a work of fiction, and the lack of player classes is a plot element, a primary source is acceptable. The comparison to other games is either ] or ]. All that having been said, it really doesn't matter to anyone who isn't actually playing the game and the entire concept should be left out according to the guidelines of the ] which says "Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." A non-gamer wouldn't care about it, so there is no need to include it. ''']''' <sup> ] \| ]</sup> 13:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::JimMullerJr is 100% right on that one.] (]) 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	I agree with JimMiller. Obviously the actual game is not a source, though its website is. But you have to be careful not to overuse primary sources, and you won't find the stuff being discussed here on the RS website. Secondary sources are needed and we don't have them. ] (]) 14:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

	== Runescape Merchandise ==

	On July 9th 2008 Jagex released the Jagex store which currently only holds one product: the Runescape Novel "betrayal at Falador" by T.S Church. Jagex has mentioned that more merchandise will be available, including many from the "Shop till you Drop" player poll which was conducted in April 2008(http://news.runescape.com/c=-5f5a3863/newsitem.ws?id=1300).] (]) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


	There is also another published book on the market: "Runescape: The official Handbook", written by Tracey West. This book was published January 1 2007 by Scholastic and covers the basics of the free version of the game (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Runescape-The-Official-Handbook-Tracey-West/9780439877725-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+%2527runescape%2527&sterm=runescape+-+Books).
	] (]) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

	{{editsemiprotected}} There is a lot of vandalism on this page.

	== 3 new server locations ==

	they have 3 new server locations in, mexico, belguim, and norway. ] (]) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (ust)

	they have also added servers for ireland, denmark, new zealand, and brazil. here's proof --] (]) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

	== I cant edit ==

	Hey i would like to say that the edit tab is gone on the article page.Is it because it is edited too much because i can edit other pages. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:That'd be because the article is ] because of vandals. You need to be an autoconfirmed user to edit semi-protected pages (your account needs to have existed for 4 days, and made 10 edits). ] (]) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

	== Runescape history ==

	Shouldn't we put in a section about runescape's history.It could be brief detailing what the god wars were and why guthix stopped it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I have a feeling that no matter how brief we keep it, it would be seen as too in-universe. There used to be articles about Gielinor and specific sections of the game; all were deleted/merged into this article.
	:Incidentally, too much in-universe material was one of the reasons this article was delisted from Good Article status. ] (]) 20:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

	== Problems with the article ==

	Several problems that need to be brought-up. I've had friends who've played Runescape (even I at one point) and I know there is stuff missing. Things that would allow for a more neutral POV, reducing the page's appearance as an ad. For one, in the article, it implies that the cost for Runescape was always around 4$ before being changed to 5$. I remember it was $15 in the recent past, around a year ago. They dropped the price over 50% due to many issues which I am about to bring-up. In the past there have been numberless hacking attempts and successful sabotages of game code. These were all from dissatisfied players some of my friends knew. On top of that, the article also fails to note a particularly notable glitch, the million gold shop, which caused around 50,000 to cancel their memberships. Finally, the most peculiar, after reading through page Runescape news articles, there is a negligence to mention these things, despite being known by . Articles were also evidently removed, as I remember many logs about removing glitches and trying to regain customer support. All of these need to be noted. I have not added these to the article for this would be a no-doubt controversial topic, especially if Jagex denies any of these events. Thank you for reading this and I must request members who wish to contribute to find evidence; get some members to speak-up and have them publicize it. I hope that this will pave a way to a more neutral POV Misplaced Pages, even through just one article. --] (]) 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

	:when it comes to this "I remember it was $15 in the recent past, around a year ago." i've been a member then and it has been $5, wow is 15 if that is what your thinking, or another country's currency conversion to $15 USD] (]) 05:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

	Never been $15 a month and I have no idea where you got the idea from, nor the 'million gold shop' causing 50k to quit the game (unless you mean them trying to stop real money trading, which is already in the article and says that people left because of it). As for the rest of it whilst NPOV is important the lack of any verifiable sources means your claims for such things can't go up till you have them. "the veteran community" and "friends who've played" does not cut it - for what you need please go and check].

	== New Proposed External Link ==

			== PC Gamer Citation ==
	I propose that we add a link to . Thoughts? ] (]) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:No. It doesn't add anything to the article. If people want more game information (how to play the game), the fansites and RuneScape Wiki give more than enough information. The page you linked to doesn't contain any information that cannot be found on the other fansites. ] (]) 21:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Agreed; I see no need to add this link. The "Frequently Asked Questions" banner at the top of this talk page will explain that, per consensus, we only have the 3 most-visited fansites according to ] traffic rankings. ] (]) 21:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

			PC Gamer called the bug "One of the best all-time MMO bugs."
	== German Servers ==

			https://www.pcgamer.com/old-school-runescape-celebrates-the-falador-massacre-glitch/ ] (]) 21:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
	They're are supposed to be 5 german based servers, with 3 of them being f2p servers and 2 of them being p2p servers. I can't edit it, so someone will have to do it for me. ] 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Hmmm...that appears to be correct, the world list says there are 5 german worlds. I'll make the adjustment. ] (]) 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023 ==

			{{edit semi-protected\|RuneScape\|answered=yes}}
			Citation for PC Gamer quote: https://www.pcgamer.com/old-school-runescape-celebrates-the-falador-massacre-glitch/ ] (]) 19:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
			:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024 ==
	== Criticism ==

			{{Edit semi-protected\|RuneScape\|answered=yes}}
	'''Something about this should be added to the official article:'''
			Please remove Steam is not a platform ] (]) 06:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
			:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 12:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

			== Redirects from Gielinor geography here ==
	RuneScape has also been also receiving criticism for Jagex's ''"lack of customer support"'' in response to the removal of the "comment on our service" button a few months ago. This button was the only way regular players could contact Jagex staff unless they were appealing an offence or submitting a bug report. There is very little interaction between Jagex staff and their players as it is and players are angered by the fact that they cannot contact Jagex for queries about the game. Right now, save the extremely rare case you run into a Jagex mod in-game, there is no way to talk with Jagex staff. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			{{re\|Alyo}} Current situation is very strange: we have tons of redirects here from all aspects of the RuneScape geography - and not a single mention of their titles in the target. This situation serves a reader (or searcher) very poorly: first, they click, then they are forced to search the text of the page (since there is no section on the geography), when this search yields nothing, they have to leave frustrated by having been had. I do not care much about the RuneScape (practically, not at all - I came here after encountering ] in the ]), but we might want to either provide in this article some information for redirects targeted here, or delete the said redirects. In this sense, I do not understand the logic behind your removal of a "Gielinor" section. In particular, the reversal re-introduced {{tl\|See also}} for ] (which will add a level of frustration for the abovementioned reader) and removed text based on a thesis of quite reasonable quality (this is not ideal, but then the subject is very much not ] or controversial either).
	Any proof?--] (]) 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

			Once again, I can be happy with (1) text as reverted and no redirects, (2) redirects and a list of locations in the article with any acceptable source or even without one. The problem is that some editors try to keep the redirects for locations (] is fully protected), while others don't like any mention of the locations in this article. I can just accept this sad state of affairs and (3) simply remove the pages involved from my watchlist. Since the #3 does not bring me any joy, I have decided to spend an extra 15 minutes of my life trying for some common-sense resolution. Pinging {{ping\|Thief-River-Faller}} from the RfD discussion that I have just foolishly closed. Please try to ping other editors that might be interested. ] (]) 21:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
	] (] (]) 15:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC))
			:The redirects you describe are a legacy from many, many years ago - before the existence of the RuneScape Wiki - when a group of editors created lots of non-notable articles about different aspects of RuneScape. I agree that some/many of them are a bit pointless and should go to ], although I've not had much luck with this in the past. (Note that I fully support Alyo's decision to remove the Gielinor section. It didn't merit an article in its own right and the sources being used were not good quality.) ] (]) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			::Hi @], just to be clear, I don't mind a mention of Gielinor in the article--it just needs to be backed up to a decent source. Unfortunately, this article is a bit of a magnet for people trying to source content to blogs, wikis, in-universe publications, and other Jagex materials. I actually skimmed the thesis that was being used as a source, and I'll be honest, I don't think it's great. The author makes a bunch of assertions without sources and without even really explaining her arguments. E.g., the portion comparing parts of Gielinor to real-world land masses would be a great addition if it said literally anything more than "''Wilderness'' (Russia). ''Miscellania'' (Greenland)". Sadly, it doesn't. I don't know that it was properly peer reviewed, and so I wouldn't be comfortable with it as a source. What I think is ideal is a short section called "Setting" that we add to the start of the "Gameplay" section that describes the medieval setting + mentions a couple of the biggest cities. Literally three sentences. We just need better sourcing for that.
			::As far as your particular hypothetical goes, I think we can find a solution. "" generally gets 0-1 hits per day, and if we don't have mention of these locations in the RS article I don't mind removing the wikilink from the of pages that link it. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much time we should spend on a hypothetical reader who somehow learns about the existence of "Gielinor" but doesn't know enough to go to the runescape wiki instead of wikipedia. That venn diagram seems very small to me. ] ''(]·])'' 15:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], I've added a short sentence to the Gameplay section that states ''Originally players were teleported to the town of Lumbridge, however in recent updates, Burthorpe is the main starting area. Other main cities include Varrock, Falador, Ardougne (and West Ardougne), and other s smaller settlements.'' with two Official Guidebooks used as sources that make mention of the towns, I think personally this at least provides mention of the redirects, and is a simple enough sentence to avoid adding a huge section of course I'm open to your thoughts/changes. ] (]) 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::I would love if we could get another independent source for the reasons explained above, but sure, that works for me. ] ''(]·])'' 15:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

			== Doesn't support linux anymore ==
	== Way off ==

	~~Runescape~~ ~~has~~ ~~something~~ ~~like,~~ ~~125~~ ~~million~~ ~~free~~ ~~players.~~ ~~Fix~~ ~~this~~ ~~please~~ ] (]) 07:50, 10 ~~August~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		They stopped supporting Linux when they switched to their Jagex Accounts system last year (2023) ] (]) 02:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
	:I assume you were looking at the home page of RS, which says that 130 million accounts were created? Well, that number only takes the number of accounts that have ever been created, active or not. ] (]) 11:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:51, 9 June 2024

Falador Massacre was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 March 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into RuneScape. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RuneScape article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "RuneScape" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 40 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about RuneScape. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about RuneScape at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Q: What kind of English should be used in the article? American? British?

A: British English should always be used as RuneScape is originally a British game.

Q: Why can't I edit the article?

A: Because of vandalism, the article is indefinitely semi-protected, so only established users can edit it. If you cannot edit the article but wish to make an edit, put a request on the talk page using the {{editsemiprotected}} template and someone will respond to it as soon as possible.

Q: Should I be putting information into the article that only RuneScape players would be interested in?

A: No. No matter how many RuneScape players actually visit this article, this is still an encyclopedia, not a game guide. Information on the article should be useful to a worldwide audience. The RuneScape Wiki would welcome information of this sort; however, Misplaced Pages is not the place for it.

Q: I am a RuneScape player and want to add interesting RuneScape details, why are my edits always reverted?

A: It is likely the content you added is not suitable for an encyclopedia, but remember to be bold too. The RuneScape Wiki and StrategyWiki cover RuneScape in detail.

Q: May I put my opinion into the article?

A: No. As this is an encyclopedia, everything is to be written in a neutral point of view and thus do not push your opinion.

Q: Why aren't there any fansites?

A: Editors on this page have established a consensus that no fansites should be included, and Misplaced Pages's guidelines discourage their use anyway. Instead, we link to the Open Directory Project which provides a list of useful resources related to RuneScape. Consensus can change, however, and you are free to revive discussion on this topic if you wish.

Q: Why are there so many dead/archived links?

A: In November 2011 the official Knowledge Base, which we relied on heavily as a source of information, was converted to a wiki. As wikis are not reliable sources we cannot update the links and must rely on old archived versions. If you can suggest suitable replacement sources, please make a request on the talk page.

RuneScape 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
Date	Process	Result
June 4, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 14, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 19, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 10, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 20, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 15, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
March 9, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 29, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
July 22, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 16, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
May 30, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 12, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Buff Technologies (2 participants)
Imakuni? (3 participants)
Tetr.io (7 participants)
Benedikt Johannes Hofer (6 participants)
Untitled Minecraft spiritual successor (22 participants)
RealFlight (2 participants)
Gameplay of Dragon Quest (7 participants)
Rainbow Computing (2 participants)
Nebulae (video game) (2 participants)
Double Fine Comics (3 participants; relisted)
Westballz (2 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

Sun Haven

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by SMasters, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 21, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Misplaced Pages is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Misplaced Pages articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes. That information is available elsewhere (such as on our sister project, Wikibooks), in printed guides and online, and does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please do not add your own hints or opinions of the game. Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome. If you have questions about whether specific information should be added, ask here first.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2014-04-06

Main goal: Regain Good Article Status
Ensure that article remains readable without excessive detail.
- Tweak/correct prose and readability as appropriate.
- Remove or adjust material that is in-universe or written from a fictional perspective.
Mention the game's release schedule, which has not been covered before.
Reception section needs work, such as more recent reviews, more player reception, etc.
Other forms of media are mentioned in the lead but not the article. Can more info like this be found?

Priority 1 (top)

PC Gamer Citation

PC Gamer called the bug "One of the best all-time MMO bugs."

https://www.pcgamer.com/old-school-runescape-celebrates-the-falador-massacre-glitch/ UnicornDude47 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Citation for PC Gamer quote: https://www.pcgamer.com/old-school-runescape-celebrates-the-falador-massacre-glitch/ 146.201.92.80 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Done ULPS (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove Steam is not a platform 199.119.233.180 (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Done Liu1126 (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirects from Gielinor geography here

@Alyo: Current situation is very strange: we have tons of redirects here from all aspects of the RuneScape geography - and not a single mention of their titles in the target. This situation serves a reader (or searcher) very poorly: first, they click, then they are forced to search the text of the page (since there is no section on the geography), when this search yields nothing, they have to leave frustrated by having been had. I do not care much about the RuneScape (practically, not at all - I came here after encountering West Ardougne in the WP:NPP), but we might want to either provide in this article some information for redirects targeted here, or delete the said redirects. In this sense, I do not understand the logic behind your removal of a "Gielinor" section. In particular, the reversal re-introduced {{See also}} for Gielinor (which will add a level of frustration for the abovementioned reader) and removed text based on a thesis of quite reasonable quality (this is not ideal, but then the subject is very much not rocket science or controversial either).

Once again, I can be happy with (1) text as reverted and no redirects, (2) redirects and a list of locations in the article with any acceptable source or even without one. The problem is that some editors try to keep the redirects for locations (Varrock is fully protected), while others don't like any mention of the locations in this article. I can just accept this sad state of affairs and (3) simply remove the pages involved from my watchlist. Since the #3 does not bring me any joy, I have decided to spend an extra 15 minutes of my life trying for some common-sense resolution. Pinging @Thief-River-Faller: from the RfD discussion that I have just foolishly closed. Please try to ping other editors that might be interested. Викидим (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The redirects you describe are a legacy from many, many years ago - before the existence of the RuneScape Wiki - when a group of editors created lots of non-notable articles about different aspects of RuneScape. I agree that some/many of them are a bit pointless and should go to Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, although I've not had much luck with this in the past. (Note that I fully support Alyo's decision to remove the Gielinor section. It didn't merit an article in its own right and the sources being used were not good quality.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Викидим, just to be clear, I don't mind a mention of Gielinor in the article--it just needs to be backed up to a decent source. Unfortunately, this article is a bit of a magnet for people trying to source content to blogs, wikis, in-universe publications, and other Jagex materials. I actually skimmed the thesis that was being used as a source, and I'll be honest, I don't think it's great. The author makes a bunch of assertions without sources and without even really explaining her arguments. E.g., the portion comparing parts of Gielinor to real-world land masses would be a great addition if it said literally anything more than "Wilderness (Russia). Miscellania (Greenland)". Sadly, it doesn't. I don't know that it was properly peer reviewed, and so I wouldn't be comfortable with it as a source. What I think is ideal is a short section called "Setting" that we add to the start of the "Gameplay" section that describes the medieval setting + mentions a couple of the biggest cities. Literally three sentences. We just need better sourcing for that.

As far as your particular hypothetical goes, I think we can find a solution. "Gielinor" generally gets 0-1 hits per day, and if we don't have mention of these locations in the RS article I don't mind removing the wikilink from the small number of pages that link it. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much time we should spend on a hypothetical reader who somehow learns about the existence of "Gielinor" but doesn't know enough to go to the runescape wiki instead of wikipedia. That venn diagram seems very small to me. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alyo, I've added a short sentence to the Gameplay section that states Originally players were teleported to the town of Lumbridge, however in recent updates, Burthorpe is the main starting area. Other main cities include Varrock, Falador, Ardougne (and West Ardougne), and other s smaller settlements. with two Official Guidebooks used as sources that make mention of the towns, I think personally this at least provides mention of the redirects, and is a simple enough sentence to avoid adding a huge section of course I'm open to your thoughts/changes. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I would love if we could get another independent source for the reasons explained above, but sure, that works for me. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't support linux anymore

They stopped supporting Linux when they switched to their Jagex Accounts system last year (2023) 38.49.162.226 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: