Talk:RuneScape

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)

@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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

While the Jagex Launcher does not support Linux, the client itself still does. It is possible to continue using this client, either with legacy accounts which have not been migrated to the new system, or by using another means of authentication like running the Jagex Launcher through WINE or using the third-party Bolt launcher. This is briefly documented in Jagex's support centre. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of the info in this article is out-of-date or incorrect in a way that I suspect (but am not sure) is due to being outdated. I've listed the examples I've found below.

- In order to participate in PVP combat in the wilderness (either attacking or being attacked), players must opt in.

-You can buy capes at 99; this is not the maximum possible level for many skills (necromancy, archaeology, invention, herblore, crafting, etc.)

-The "quest point cape" is now called the quest cape

-the description of what happens upon death is no longer accurate; unless players have no items which can be lost on death, they respawn in death's office.

I'm having difficulty accessing the sources required to verify this at the moment (internet issues); at some point I'll update at least some of these, but I don't want to add information without a source.

Saturniapavonia (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh also I'm not sure about the rest of the worlds (they never reach capacity), but world 84 has a simultaneous player cap of 1500 Saturniapavonia (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The lack of reliable, up-to-date sources is why the information is outdated. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to use jagex or related sites as a source for game mechanic-related information? Saturniapavonia (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If they are reliable, then yes. The RuneScape Wiki would not be appropriate as a source, for example, but news articles from the RuneScape website would be acceptable if they support the edits you want to make. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Occasionally during Double XP, world 2 reaches the 1500 cap. This was changed on 3 August 2020. The lag got really bad before that! But I don't know what you could cite for that - https://runescape.wiki/w/Server#Update_history doesn't really cut it. OSRS still has the 2000 player cap, except f2p worlds which are 1000. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked through Grokipedia's edits and some of them have merit:

• 300 million accounts - not supported with source; homepage has said 320m since around when they had the 300 Million Party.
• There's a mention of mobile announcement with scheduled release of 2018, but this doesn't seem to have been updated with the stable release after delays in 2021.
• Duel Arena no longer exists. So long, staking!

Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Large portions of the RuneScape article are outdated and no longer reflect the current state of the game. Requesting a general update of sections including:

• Gameplay details
• Skills and new content
• Business model / monetisation
• Recent updates and major revisions to RS3 and Old School RuneScape

Suggested action: Review and update the article using the latest information from reliable sources such as:

• Official RuneScape news posts
• Recent interviews or statements from Jagex
• Reputable gaming publications with updated coverage

This request is to bring the article in line with current, verifiable information. 99bullshit (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC) 99bullshit (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. IsCat (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I think someone more knowledgeable should update it 99bullshit (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The game is back to being called just "Runescape" with a new logo and the removal of p2w, lootboxes and a focus on "intrigity". I don't know what should be added to the wiki but the official logo needs changed. Thanks! ~2026-44649-0 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the logo. I will hold off on updating the HUD screenshot for now since, based on player feedback, that might change again. As for the MTX stuff - I don't know how to process that, as I don't favour making the article any longer or more sprawling than it already is. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! This i'm not sure on (like Idk what counts or not) but maybe its worth updating the version history since this is a new era of it just being "runescape' again following the move away from MTX and bloat and it may be worth updating the vesion history? idk. ~2026-44649-0 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

It has just been RuneScape for many years now. The 3 was added in 2013 then removed in 2014. Screenshot could do with an update anyway as the Exam Centre it depicts (I don't know why this of all places) has had a significant graphical update (presumably with the release of the Archaeology skill in 2020).

I wouldn't say it's no longer pay-to-win as you can still buy bonus XP in the form of radiant stars and gold in the form of bonds, but it has been significantly walked back with the removal of Treasure Hunter. That includes the pressure for players to interact with the system on a daily basis from free keys for logging in and, if the player has an active membership subscription, completing daily challenges.

While this removal is mentioned in the article, I'd like it to be expanded upon with the reasons why, reception, and impact, but to be honest I don't know of any good sources and it's too early for the last point (player count is about the same, anyway). I'd even say it's worth considering if this can be mentioned in the loot box article. I think it might not be notable enough for that, but it's very interesting to consider another major game removing the ability to buy random rewards with fiat currency and what the implications of this may be. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)