Talk:RuneScape

Neutrality and Adverisement tags

Parts of this article seem to be written like advertisements for Runescape. Parts also seem to be one-sided, speaking from a pro-Jagex perspective, for example, on the graphics section. Because of this, I have marked the articles as lacking neutrality and advertising. Please do not remove them if you believe otherwise but discuss here why they do not apply. Ecopetition (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, Wikipedia isn't a strategy guide or an advertisement. Orangemango (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can I add that a criticism section would be a good idea. The World of Warcraft and Maplestory (etc) articles have them. Ecopetition (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Criticism is in the reception section. If you find other, cited criticism, you're welcome to add it, and then it's possible it will overweight the possible reception so much that it will need a section on its own. Litis (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, the only bit of criticism that I can see is "the graphics may not be perfect", which is directly followed by justification as to why they're not as bad as made out. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see the issue in the graphics section, nor elsewhere. It discusses how the graphics are improved versus the *older* RS graphics - it's *not* comparing it to any other game or presenting any kind of "rah-rah" that I can see. Could you clarify and/or give some specifics? I am disappointed to see this entire article suddenly marked as "advertising" and am hoping we can work this out. -pokemama- Tkech (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but in order for a neutral article it must compare it to other games in the market. If it simply says "Runescape is better than it used to be as the graphics are better", it lacks integrity in the eyes of Wikipedia. It must be compared to the likes of competitors so as to not read like an advert. If it were to say "Runescape is better than it used to be as the graphics are better, but it still lacks merit when compared to World of Warcraft", it would be much more neutral. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please quote something from the Graphics section that reads like an advertisement, because I just read it and haven't seen anything like that. Litis (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read my original comment. I wrote, "Parts of this article seem to be written like advertisements for Runescape". I did not say, "the graphics section seems to be written like an advertisement". The whole article lacks criticism, and where things lack criticism they tend to follow a more advert-based objective. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply quoting people saying things about the game does not constitute neutrality. If quotes are to be used, they must be sourced and a widespread range of views should be published. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Take the "Effects on youth" section of the article. It states that Brunel University's study concluded that Runescape is beneficial to players in that it educates them. There is then a sentence discussing the findings. At the end, it states that another study did not find Runescape beneficial. There is no sentence for its findings, and people must click a link to find the story. Sections like these require a rewrite in order to be neutral. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• My two cents on these confounded Neutrality tags.

The Effects on Youth section - first off, this isnt much of a section since it is basically two sentences however, it has one positive reference and one negative reference, so I fail to see how it is not Neutral.

The Reception section - the things that are there are cited, so should remain; if you can find other articles (legitimate articles - not someone's blog or rant) that support your opinion, post them, because this whole section is opinion. The difference here is that it CANNOT be MY opinion or YOUR opinion (which basically would come down to my pet peeves about the game versus your pet peeves about the game) (and let me state EMPHATICALLY) that the your in the sentence is not directed at any one person but at everyone else besides me). There are things I love about the game and things that I hate. But the things that I love may be your pet peeve and the things that I hate might be the things that you love. I have said this before on this page. We can't just go posting everything that that someone hates about the game. Talk about losing our neutrality. Therefore, we have to post what the EXPERTS say about the game - citable quotations that have been published in a location that we can count on being there six months or a year or ten years from now. And, I repeat, not in someone's blog or rant or even personal praise for the game. It's hard to find sources.

I don't like the tags because they detract from the article and make it appear to be less than it can be. This article, while still far from perfect, has come a long way. Having those tags on there for any period of time is a detriment to the article, and I think they should come off IMMEDIATELY.

I hope that I am able to monitor this article more often again. I have been to busy levelling my character, I guess, lol.

Can we now get on with the business of getting those tags off the article???

Thanks! Xela Yrag (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The fundamentals of Wikipedia, in particular a neutral point of view, cannot be ignored for the sake of making users of the game happy. Also, Wikipedia is not a fansite, so its content need not be totally positive towards Runescape.

In answer to the first point you make, it lacks neutrality as one of the points is more developed than the other. Wikipedia is not an advertising service for Runescape, so the article should be completely balanced.

In answer to your second point, the reception section is not neutral! There are plenty of places I could go to find a bad reception of Runescape, not least the Runescape forums. There is not a single point against Runescape. A second part should be added to the section regarding the bad points, like addiction, lag, repetitiveness of training skills, and also the irony in that a game for teenagers and above contains content aimed at what seems to be young children.

You third point is too unjustified. The tags may scream "this article is bad", but that's what they're supposed to do. If you feel that they're not good then edit the article to make it neutral and non-advertising. Then you can be bold and remove the tags.

Your fourth point says it all for me. You play Runescape, so are probably more likely to take a positive view towards the game that you play. However, this article is not for the players of Runescape to read and edit, it's for everyone. That's what Wikipedia is, and if you don't like that fact then it's too bad.

I hope I haven't been too blunt with you here, but thanks for your understanding. Regards, Ecopetition (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that there just aren't any reliable sources with criticism. We can only balance an article as far as the sources let us. I can find non-reliable criticism (this [1] also mirrored here [2]), and that one is already referenced in the Effects on Youth section through a mirror regardless of it not meeting WP:RS. Forums are not reliable sources. Using them violates policy and they have no business being used in any article, for purposes of balance or not. Exactly how should the demand be met? If you have sources that could be used to justify your claims, please bring them to this page and they will be incorporated into the article. If you have no objective information showing that there is actual criticism that has been published by reliable sources, then the tags should be removed. Jim Miller (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For articles (not particularly reviews) on RuneScape, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive_25#RuneScape.2FJagex_in_the_media - not sure if any are relevant, but its worth a look --RS Ren (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If reliable cons cannot be found, how can so many pros be found (bearing in mind that a large proportion of the editors of the Runescape article play Runescape)? It just seems that many editors of the article are very selective in their use of quotes and facts.Ecopetition (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  ReplyAFAIK, this article was promoted to Good Article status in pretty much the same condition it is now. If you have an issue with individual editors that can be shown to be an actual COI problem, then bring it forth and back it up. If you can point out a specific claim that is in violation of NPOV then present your argument, or just remove the part you feel is a problem. The same again for OR. That's what you are supposed to do instead of just placing tags. You have not edited the article according to policy by removing those uncited statements with which you have a problem, nor have you brought new cited sources to the discussion for inclusion. Please feel free to do so. If not, I am going to remove the tags again in 24 hours. Concensus exists among the editors of this page, with you as the only dissentor. If you put them back again, I will remove them again and put this up for a third opinion or even RfC because the back and forth is accomplishing nothing and is getting beyond the point of being considered as a reasonable content dispute, especially for a GA. It is approaching the point of simply being disruptive. Jim Miller (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  I disagree with you, JimMillerJr. If you can't find a source, the proper way is to remove those contents, not giving way by letting OR urls go into the article. That is not the correct approach to address NPOV. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  How do we disagree? My point was about the 'Reception' section which includes one reliable source about an academic study, and a WP:RS violation for one very shady opinion piece included just to provide perspective. How far should the article go?? There has been no suggestion of NPOV material to remove. I have asked Ecopetition to edit the parts that are not in accordance with policy. Not a single sentence of the article has been removed, or even brought forth for discussion. In fact, Ecopetition has not made a single constructive edit to the article. I believe we absolutely agree. This article has passed GA and all of its requirements, which include WP:NPOV. No specific problems have been mentioned, and the only thing actually brought forward to help the article is that "There are plenty of places I could go to find a bad reception of Runescape, not least the Runescape forums." Not one source has actually been provided. This also comes from an editor who asks us to discount the work of User:Xela Yrag due to playing the game as a violation of WP:COI. Adding more COI opinions is not the solution to the alleged problem. Two non-reliable sources do not provide balance. Having read all of the links in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive_25#RuneScape.2FJagex_in_the_media, done extensive google searching, and checking other news archives, I cannot find ANY reliable sources that have published criticism (and I truly believe every article needs to include criticism). I have offered to do the writing myself and include ALL criticism in the article if sources are provided. The burden is on the editor who wishes to add information to the article. We cannot sacfrifice verifiabilty just to meet NPOV. If the sources don't exist, they simply don't exist. I only wish to address Ecopetition's constructive criticism, but I cannot find a way to do that without a little help in finding what should be included. Simply placing, and replacing, tags without providing specific ways to improve the problem is disruptive. Jim Miller (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  The reason why I have not made a single constructive edit to the article is because I have no obligation to do so. What I feel I do have an obligation to do however, is to ensure that Wikipedia remains a neutral and accurate source for information. The Runescape article as it stands is, in my opinion, not an accurate source as it is not neutral. If we were to allow content that is not neutral to remain unfixed on Wikipedia, the whole project would fall apart.

On the "Reception" section of the article, the pro study is more developed than the con study. This is, as I have said many times before, not neutral. Also, you say that no specific problems have been mentioned by me. There are many problems that I have mentioned above, which you should take the time to read.

I still find it extremely hard to believe that so many points of praise can be found for Runescape when very little criticism can be. Take a look even on fan forums and gaming blogs, and you will find plenty of criticism. Ecopetition (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fan forums and gaming blogs aren't reliable sources. I've taken a look at various websites, scouring for criticism, and came up with this review at TenTonHammer. There are some points of criticism in there, feel free to use them if you'd like, Eco. If you're persistent enough to keep the tags on there, you can be bold and edit it so it is in sync with what you think it should be. I think the article is fine the way it is, but go ahead and edit it so we all can be happy. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 15:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've been bold and fixed the neutrality issues. Some neutrality issues still exist in the article which should ideally be fixed soon, but I feel that the neutrality tag can now come off. However, I'm leaving the advertising tag on as some parts of the article still read like blatant advertising and I don't feel like fixing sifting through the article fixing the ads. Thanks, PeterA (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't true, but the line "humour seems to be aimed at young children (for example, uses of cartoons in some pages)" seems to me to contravene Wikipedia policies relating to stating opinion as fact (it is an opinion that it seems to be aimed at young children, and the claim that cartoons indicate something is aimed at children is unsourced). --RS Ren (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Combat Changes

The image of PvP is of Runescape Classic, I think it should be an image of combat from Bounty Hunter since that represents a method of PvP combat in Runescape with the PvP wilderness removed. Also the image of combat is an image of PvP combat since we already have an image of PvP combat it should be a player against an NPC and it should be more than a player kicking an NPC since most combat is done with a weilded weapon, mage, or range. TehKittyCat (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there are two consectutive images of PVP combat under both the PVP combat and Combst section - couldn't you have an image of a player fighting a monster under the combat section?

Roborrye (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone replace the PvP image from Runescape Classic with one from PvP in Runescape, like one from Bounty Hunter. TehKittyCat (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Server Cap Incorrect

This seems rather petty, but the maximum server cap is 1999, rather than 2000. I know that 2000 is a 'rounder number', but 1999 is the true amount, and wikipedia is about accuracy rather than 'nice numbers'

Roborrye (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to a source that states that the server cap is 1999? We can't put it in the article without a reliable source to confirm it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't link to anything that states the server cap be it 1999 or 2000. Roborrye (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No the server cap IS 2000. It states it somewhere in RuneScape, and all fansites/infosites go with 2000. Androo123 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that it didn't say 'around 2000'? Roborrye (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games they use 2000 as the limit per world.(Look under the Statistics Table Section). I could not find anything on runescape's website or the fan site Runehq though. TehKittyCat (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

TehKittyCat, that is another Wikipedia article who's source is probably this arcicle. So far we're inconclusive, I can't find any data stating the exact number of users per server, it remains un varifiable.

Roborrye (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Help, not "Zybez" is the correct name

While cleaning out some spam, I noticed that my site's name was written as "Zybez" in external links. This is incorrect. The correct name is "RUNESCAPE HELP" and has been since 2001 (since Andrew Gower had asked me to write the official HELP for Runescape, and later changed his mind). It is the most important (just search 'runescape' in Google) and popular (most traffic) fansite, and the proper name should be used for it. 'Zybez.net' is simply the URL and the company (Zybez Corporation) that runs the site.

If you have any questions, direct them to me ( admin@zybez.net ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zybez (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COI PeterA (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The website states it is "also known as Zybez Runescape Help". I feel that this title would be more appropriate as many know the website simply as 'Zybez' and it avoids confusion with people who think the link would be going to the official RuneScape website. --RS Ren (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed it "Zybez Runescape Help" as a more descriptive title. There are other sites out there with "RuneScape help" And there was no reason it should have been bumped up to the top. --Squids'and'Chips 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Zybez Runescape Help" is fine too. --Zybez (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, an extensive list of links, particuarlly fansite links, do not belong in an encycolpedia.--Unionhawk (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The 3 most popular sites by Alexa rank doesn't seem "extensive" to me. --RS Ren (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

war against macros

i have to say that the war against macros is still going on. what i consider a macro is a person who makes use of an auto typer to type messages rapidly. also macros are just computer generated charecters and there have been cases of several in use by one computer. i need to say that a common place to find advertisers is in lumberige. especialy since that is where the most people are. i repetedly report macros and violaters of the ruels. even though i am not a mod. i find the system quit efective sinbce i report until the charecter is either gone or stops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.170.162 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a manual (WP:NOT). Acknowledgment that macros exist is all that is accepted on Wikipedia. Further information is only useful to Runescape players. PeterA (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this comment? ♥ Fredil 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

this information is useful because it states that the "war against 'macros'" is still going on. even now i tend to find people who are macros and/or breaking other rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.12.123 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

macros can't be removed, trade only stopes trade macro's who don't use the G.E.--Jakezing (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead citations

Some of the Runescape citations no longer work (some from news.runescape and what is currently #54. don't know if there are more.) There was a list of every skill and the skill descriptions right in the middle of the article, which I'm sure is unnecessary. I've already removed that. --Squids'and'Chips 21:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability and OR

Can truthscape even be used as a reliable source? I question its reliability (used in the "Reception" section) because it appears to be a self-published source and does not appear to follow WP:SELFPUB.

Additionally this sentence from the same section: "Furthermore, Runescape is aimed at people aged 13 and above (presumably in compliance with COPPA), though much of its content and humour seems to be aimed at young children (for example, uses of cartoons in some pages)." is speculation, POV, and OR and removed. --Squids'and'Chips 03:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it fails heavily on the "Reliable sources" for being a self published websiteFlashNerdX (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an advertisement...

It's looking like an advertisement to me, the words make me want to play it and enjoy it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.64.7 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

if you realy want to play this game go ahead. it is fine with me as long as you have the program Java (no this is not the coffe kind) for your computer.--Hawkey131 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I too believe that the article is currently advertising just now. If you find bits that do blatently advertise please be bold and remove them. Hawkey131, please be constructive. PeterA (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please give specific examples and ideas on how you think the problem could be rectified. --RS Ren (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Some semi-authoritative recent criticism of RuneScape. http://www.gamespot.com/features/6192673/p-2.html states "Approaching this browser-based Java MMO is a daunting proposition. That's mostly because of its huge, vocal, and young player community, which may welcome you into its fold or alienate you with cries of "noob!" depending on which server you choose out of the dozens available.... As you can imagine, the rudimentary visuals and sound aren't apt to pull you into the experience.... What may surprise you is just how big the world is and how much there is to do.... The downside is that to get that far, you need to raise your various skill levels, which means putting a lot of time into chopping down trees, shearing sheep, starting fires, and more. These tasks may get repetitive, but it's nice to have more to do than simply beat up on monsters. Of course, you can do that too, though combat involves simply clicking on your target and waiting--maybe even casting a few spells in the process. It's not very involving or demanding, which means the more interesting bits are what you do outside of combat... If you're an MMOG veteran, this isn't the game for you". However, the associated trailer gives the very distinct impression that the reviewer hadn't played the game for very long. --RS Ren (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

FunOrb article up for deletion

The AfD entry is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FunOrb --RS Ren (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant to the Runescape talk page. PeterA (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They are both part of the Jagex series of articles. The AfD guidelines encourage enabling those with related knowledge to participate in the debate, and RuneScape users are more likely to be familiar with FunOrb. --RS Ren (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

maybe we shold not delet it yet. it is only about four months old. give it time to grow.--Hawkey131 (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagex or JaGEx?

for those who don't know, Jagex stands for Java Gaming Experts. So should it be Jagex or JaGEx?

In a simple world it would be JaGEx, but just as Microsoft chooses for it to be written Microsoft and not MicroSoft and apple like to defy the English language with their 'iPod', it is up to the company to decide on its own capitalisations. Jagex used to sometimes write it JAGeX (as in their logo) back in the old days (just as they sometimes capitalised RuneScape 'Runescape'). But both RuneScape.com and Jagex.com most frequently refer to the company as Jagex (for example in the title of the website on Jagex.com, the copyright notice on Jagex.com and the title of RuneScape.com). Just search for the term Jagex on the RuneScape.com knowledge base and you'll see it is their preferred capitalisation. --RS Ren (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style, standard capitalization rules should be used for trademarks, even if the owner has asked for special treatment. it should be Jagex, not JaGEx--Unionhawk (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it RuneScape then and not Runescape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman en m (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In the early days Jagex inconsistently called it both Runescape and RuneScape (e.g. Issue 8 of God Letters uses both capitalisations), and some fansites go for the "Runescape" capitalisation in their title (e.g. Zybez and Tip.it). However, in recent year Jagex seem to have stuck to the RuneScape spelling - for example RuneScape.com home page capitalises it as RuneScape several times but not Runescape once (and importantly they use RuneScape in their website title). --RS Ren (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Good Article" Status

This article should not be listed as a good article. It contains many spelling and grammar errors, does not explain jargon, and, I will agree, this does look like an ad in itself, violating NPOV. Furthermore, RuneScape should not be listed as a good article--Unionhawk (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, please provide some specific examples of problems with the article. It would help the discussion. But anyway...

I've really been wondering when someone would raise this point, and as reluctant as I am to say it, I must agree. Criterion 4 of the GA criteria states that a Good Article is neutral, and the issues being raised here convince me that this criterion is not being followed. Unless we start really scrutinising the article for problems, this article could be heading straight for reassessment. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Runescape User

Hi im a former runescape user, It really ticks me off this page is protected. "Anyone can edit" that bull crap. Anyway im pretty sure runescape has 10 million active f2p users, not 5 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.226.109 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed. i have made the changes to make the appropriate numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be under semi-protection if we didn't keep getting people vandalising the page (at least the talk page isn't protected, so you can still ask for someone to edit for you). As for the numbers, maybe we need an up-to-date source on this. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Having looked at it, the source given for that sentence is at least 2 years old, and says 9 million, not 10 million. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

http://jagex.com/corporate/Advertisers/general.ws states 5.4m active players. The problem with the calculation of "active free accounts" is the definition of active and the fact that one person may have multiple accounts and one household may have multiple people. --RS Ren (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

i have a main and 2 free's,. so ya. also, if you wanna edit, make a account, perssonaly ,anybody should be those willing to spend 5 minutes at the most making a account.--Jakezing (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)