Talk:RuneScape skills

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RuneScape skills article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
	This article is also under the scope of our RuneScape Task Force, a collaborative effort of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games focusing on RuneScape-related articles.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Quick guide to Fancruft on RuneScape subpages. Remember: Wikipedia is not a game guide, all content must be of a neutral point of view, all content must be verifiable. In these subpages, we are not writing for RuneScape players; we are writing for everybody in the world. Very few of people need to know things like "abby whips cost 2mil" or "zammy prayerbooks are a reward from horror from the deep quest". This is Fancruft, in that it only appeals or means anything to players and fans of RuneScape, and will "bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole". It makes a poor article to be filled with fancruft. Instead, a more basic explanation is more often required, as readers may not know as much as you do! In short, fancruft includes things like: Pricing information How to complete quests and what the rewards are. Instructions for how to use and perform a skill, for example "to make bronze bars you need 1 tin ore and 1 copper ore" Lengthy, detailed descriptions of items. Avoiding Fancruft Instead of giving a specific price (which is subject to change anyway), state, for example, "Runite armour often fetches significant sums of money in RuneScape's marketplaces" Do not give game guide type information for quests. Limit mentioning the different types of equipment or raw material used for a skill Never describe an item in intricate detail, for example, the "Abyssal Whip", readers do not need to know that "the abyssal whip comes from abyssal demons which require 85 slayer to kill" Instead, use inline citations, linking to the relevant RuneScape knowledge base article. Wikipedia is not the place to guide people through every detail of playing RuneScape, as such a level of detail is inappropriate. It is appropriate at the RuneScape Wiki, a version of Wikipedia intended for players. Furthermore, read Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Then read it again. You may also wish to read the Wikipedia Introduction in full. Make it easier on your fellow contributors before you click the Save button; click the Preview button, Wikilink to other articles (for example, Wikilink to Sword), make sure your spelling and grammar is absolutely immaculate, don't ask readers to message you ingame, and don't ever use shorthand! Ur nt in rs anymore, you are writing an Encyclopedia!

Some of the material in this article was derived from the article now archived at Talk:RuneScape_skills/Cooking_(skill).

Contents 1 Merge with RuneScape_skills 2 Pictures 3 Construction 4 Editing 5 carpentry rumors 6 Summoning 7 Mining 8 Ranging additions 9 Rune Throwing Axe Chainhit 10 AfD results 11 Rearrange 12 question 13 Skills Pages 14 Rune Essence Teleports 15 Speculation 16 Firemaking 17 Construction 18 Construction II 19 Music Speculation 20 Experience 21 Speculation Removed 22 Added a new sentence and a capital letter 23 Hunting removed - please give it a chance 24 Too much info? 25 Second worst bug? 26 Runecrafting 27 Unreferenced 28 Combat section 29 Herblore 30 Combat skills 31 Adding more animated gifs to article 32 grouping

[edit] Merge with RuneScape_skills

(see Talk:RuneScape_combat) GSPbeetle 13:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Ive been adding some pictures for each skill, i did a few tonight, will take some more for the rest of the skills tomorrow or later tonight. Curran919 05:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should have said so earlier, but thanks! They really liven up the article and also show how much focus on detail Jagex has done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

What about the guilds? --Hypnerotomachia 16:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Construction

We need a construction article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.205.161 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 August 2006.

[edit] Editing

I've had a go at improving the sections on firemaking, fishing, runecraft and herblore. Please check that I haven't introduced any errors - my knowledge of Runescape is a couple of months out of date.

Several other sections could also do with some work, but I'm out of time for now. Hv 12:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

According to information I have read on other sites, I'm not sure as to whether higher level logs (eg Maple as opposed to Normal) actually burn longer. Could someone confirm/ deny this.

Thanks

philipwhiuk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philipwhiuk (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 December 2005.

Yes, they do burn longer. Vimescarrot 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually they do not.

Do my fires last longer if I use higher-level wood?

No, that's completely random.

From JaGeX knowledge base. --Ale_Jrb 21:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

higher lvl logs burn longer. i have no proof.. but i know they do. i lit an oak when someone lit a mapple and it burned a lot longer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acethebunny (talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 June 2006.

[edit] carpentry rumors

I moved this section to the talk page, as it is mostly rumor and speculation.

It has also been speculated that the 2 new kinds of logs recently added into the game (mahogany and teak), which have no current use other than woodcutting and firemaking experience, may have some use in the carpentry skill. The introduction of player-smithable nails other than steel (previously only needed in the Dragon Slayer Quest) also hints at an approaching release date (but unfortunately they are only used to make brutal arrows at the moment). Also there are rumors that this skill will be used with Player Owned Houses which is an upcoming update. Player owned houses are rumoured also to be coming out on christmas day, so be prepared for a surprise. the rumour is that the higher the nail, the better the wood will last. for example, a rune nail into some wood, will hold it together for longer than an iron nail.

-- Joyous | Talk 17:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurrah! Carpentry is no longer a rumor: it is the newest skill, construction. Akroy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akroy (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 June 2006.

[edit] Summoning

Shouldn't there be something here about Summoning? Jagex said they were working on it once.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vimescarrot (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 January 2006.

someone just wrote that it is "widely thought" that it will just be an additrion to magic...widely thought by whom? no-one I talk to in-game thinks that. Vimescarrot 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

They posted it on their website as a list of aditions they were working on. It is being planed to come out under the magic skill and not by itself. ~Wartex~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.204.210 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 January 2006.

[edit] Mining

Isn't a section on Mining needed? Smithing even refers to it. Luis Dantas 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There used to be, it would be nice if people trimmed the over long sections, rather than slashing lumps out altogether - there are also a lot of lists in this now - trouble is, when it actually looks about right, some wiki wrangler comes along and hacks the hell out of it because it's "not encyclopeadic enough" - guess I'll be hedaing back to runescape.wikicities.com - a runscape wiki (evolving) for runscapers rather than budding encylopedia editors Ace of Risk 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranging additions

If you ask me, the ranging additions, like the Dwarf cannon, should be part of the Ranging section, instead of part of the list... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.196.147 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 January 2006.

[edit] Rune Throwing Axe Chainhit

I'm not a member, so please forgive me if I am wrong...But if I do remember correctly, the weapon specials page in the Jagex-Runescape manual features the normal Rune Battleaxe with the chain-multihit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nerion (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 January 2006.

It wasn't like that when I looked. Rune battleaxes can't chainhit...The only rune weapons that have specs are claws and throwing axes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vimescarrot (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 January 2006.

You probably made the common mistake of thinking that the rune throwing axe was a battle axe, they look a lot alike but they're not the same item. The throwing axe does have a special. Moonsong 02:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD results

This article was nominated for deletion; the result was no consensus to delete. For details, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills. BD2412 T 20:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrange

The current article's sequence appears arbitrary, perhaps we could arrange the skills like this (taken from the main RS page):

• Primary/extraction (such as mining and woodcutting)
• Secondary/processing skills (such as smithing and cooking)
• Combat skills (such as strength and range)
• Tertiary skills (such as agility and thieving)

Hyenaste 06:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

i would like to know if non members like myself can use items such as rune claws and throwing ax i have been on for only 6months and do not know! thx alot! user in runescape: flare mage22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.3.63.254 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2006.

No you cannot. Try looking in the RuneScape knowledge database next time, Wikipedia isn't a forum. // Nathan M

[edit] Skills Pages

I've noticed that in the RuneScape series, there are separate pages for the following skills:

• Cooking
• Combat
• Crafting
• Fishing
• Magic
• Mining
• Prayer
• Runecrafting
• Smithing

Surely separate skills pages are not needed, as Wikipedia is not an "Internet Guide" or "Instruction Manual". Although a good deal of work has gone into those pages, they seem to be against Wikipedia's policies. I am a relatively new editor (but not user) of Wikipedia, so please correct me if I am wrong. ~Fetttson

As long as they are purely factual and have a NPOV, they dont break the rules - • The Giant Puffin • 09:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that for me. Fetttson 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be merged with this guide, theres not much use for them to have there own articles. Wesz 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to the size of some skill descriptions, it may be more appropriate to create pages for the grouping of skills (combat, gathering, processing, miscellaneous). On this page, no skill needs more than a paragraph description.--Nuke-Marine 02:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rune Essence Teleports

In the article it says that "There are many other teleporters around Runescape but many are for members only." I am a member, but I only know of five who can teleport you there. I have checked fansites and can find no confirmation of "many" teleporters. Does anyone disagree that the "many" should be eliminated?~Akroy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.26.106.2 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 June 2006.

I agree. Go ahead and remove "Many" or replace it with "some". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.J.Sagnella (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 June 2006.

I have already amended the offending phrase. --Glacierfairy 11:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

I made a bold move and removed the Speculation section as not factual or encyclopedic. Comments welcome. Xela Yrag 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is factual as Jagex made reference to hunting via a bug and summoning via an article from 2 years ago. So long as the reasons these skills are listed, which they are, then it's a factual statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuke-Marine (talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 July 2006.

[edit] Firemaking

Leave the firemaking main article there ... i mean ... dont delete that thing above firemaking skill Kymykaly.

• There is no Firemaking article to link to. Xela Yrag 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Construction

Was I sick or something- I don't remember the AfD for construction...and if I remember, we kinda agreed it wasnt POV...Merlin Storm 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was merged into this article. Don't worry, nothing has been lost, unless it was cruft. I doubt it would have survived much longer; articles for individual skills cannot be a good idea, surely. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember any consensus- It might be a smart idea to link the info to some userspace page so one can really and for truly be reached.Merlin Storm 02:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the amount of merges not forced by AfD's, I think the general consensus seems to be towards merging articles on individual entities (such as individual skill and monster articles) and deletion of completely unneeded ones. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of skill merges were by Halo- unfortunately he merged during the AfD and, even though the consensus was "Keep", he has failed to restore them. Construction, however was voted for keep during an AfD of it's own.-Merlin Storm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.205.183.250 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 August 2006.

Yes, if I remember correctly, Construction survived not one but TWO AfDs. So why was it deleted? And how does the small amount of it that is here cover the whole article that was there?? Xela Yrag 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't perform the merge myself (i've been very busy IRL these last few days) - when Hyenaste and Ed went to decruft it, I guess they found so little worthwhile content that it would be wasteful to keep a separate article. Most of the stuff in the former Construction article can be expressed with a single link to a RuneScape.com Kbase page. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction (RuneScape) The discussion took place in 15 min. bt/w Ed and Hyenaste. No other people involved. kinda 1-sided, doncha think?Merlin Storm 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone gives me a good reason, I'm gonna recreate it next week. I don't think it was properly AfDed.Merlin Storm 22:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Theres no need for that, it wasn't deleted. Construction (RuneScape) is now a redirect. All of the worthwhile content (i.e., not cruft) was merged into this article. It'll be safer to simply expand the Construction entry here, within reason. Remember that Jagex has a perfectly good guide to Construction in the Kbase, all it takes is a link. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And Marvel Comics has a competant wiki as well but check out WikiProject:Comics and the crapload of stubs and One-Shot character articles. Notabilty, as well as the correct definiton of "fancruft" is often left up to opinion. However, if someone can give me a few examples of the so-called fancruft on this page, I will put in my 2 cents and, if called for, I will gladly shut up (for now at least =P). But since no one has deigned to do respond (besides Cap'n here, the good sport that he is) I have yet to zip the lip. Merlin Storm 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Construction II

We have a couple of inconsistencies. In the main article, we call the "Other" skills "Independent", but here they are only "Other". In the main article, construction is one of the "Independent" skills - here it is under "Processing". I can see both sides of where to put it, but it should be consistent between the two articles. I say we should put it under "Independent" here and retain the name "Independent". I am going to be bold and do that. Please discuss it here before we start moving it five gazillion times. 8) Xela Yrag 17:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music Speculation

This probably will not be enough, but examining pianos discloses the info that "with skill I can play this." Is that enough to add it as a third speculation skill?

Fuzzibloke 10:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'd very much doubt it. The reference is probably referring to the amount of practice it takes to effectively play a piano as opposed to an RS 'skill'. Well spotted though :) QuagmireDog 18:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experience

What does everyone think of giving the slightly more detailed function experince(level)=floor(sum(from x=1 to level-1,(floor(x+300*2^(x/7)))/4) --- It looks a lot neater in a 300x100 image

Zebediah49 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be a wonderful thing in a game guide, but here in an encyclopedic article? I don't know. Does the average reader care? 198.181.133.4 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Hey, now, I was signed on a minute ago ... what happened??? Anyway, I signed on again. Xela Yrag 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be a wierd skill though... --Kolvo 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation Removed

There's three guidelines/policies I'm thinking of here: WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR.

'Speculation' as in "this happened here, so it is believed that.." without coming from a reliable secondary source (per WP:RS) is the very last thing we should be turning a blind-eye to.

I don't believe this material has been discussed anywhere more prominent than the RS forums or fansite forums - neither of which are reliable/non-trivial sources.

WP:V, in a nutshell, states that only verified information with a source should be made into WP articles. The onus is on the supplier of the information to prove that the details have been sourced properly. Speculation is exactly that, not common-knowledge, so adding 'cite' tags and giving it the benefit of the doubt doesn't seem appropriate. It's there in the history should anyone come across a verifiable source (don't hold your breath).

Sub-articles on entertainment products tend to be given a very loose leash in terms of surviving without supplying credible secondary sources, but this doesn't mean sub-articles in that state will last forever. Citing the primary source (IE the knowledgebase) about relevant topics of use to our readers if nothing else shows that we aren't just making it up as we go along. One thing I will keep trying to do is cite the knowledgebase as much as possible and removing material that is uncitable.

One last thing to bear in mind, speculation in effect is telling our readers this:

"On such and such a date, this happened. Some RS players believe that this could indicate such-and-such, whereas others believe this already exists in another form".

Even though it isn't patently ridiculous (as in "some players believe the werewolf women of canifis hold a monthly wrestling championship in the Lumbridge goblin house because Hans, the Duke of Lumbridge's gardener/assistant, walks clockwise around Lumbridge Castle constantly"), it isn't actually telling our readers anything interesting or relevant. It's fan-site material and that's exactly where you'll find it already. My talk page is open or please discuss this here if anything I've said is of concern. QuagmireDog 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added a new sentence and a capital letter

I have added a sentence after Construction detailing the amount of players who have joined for anticipation of the new skill. Plus, I added a capital letter on the Slayer skill caption to have it make more sense to someone. A minor edit, none the less. Fishdert 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Fishdert

[edit] Hunting removed - please give it a chance

Yes, it's been announced, and I hated to remove it after someone went to the trouble, but discussing it now before its release seems pointless when all the details will be with us sometime this month. Till then, it's unclear which category it belongs in and there's no way of knowing exactly what the skill entails. I'd ask, please, for contributors to hang fire for the sake of a couple of weeks andwaiting till it's released - the info can then be added to the article and off we go laughing. Playing in-out-in-out with speculation for a few weeks isn't going to help our readers or make any improvement to the article. QuagmireDog 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've just done it again with cut - it was hardly up to scratch anyway: fancruft, obscure references and excaimation marks. here it is:==Future Skills== Hunting Skill
On November 1 2006, Jagex announced that they would be releasing the hunting skill at some point during the month of November. This skill will include tracking, netting, and trapping with a whole new variety of weapons and armour! Some time during the month of November, a new hunting-related quest, "Eagles' Peak," will come out. It will be the first quest involving Hunting, but it is unknown if it will have a level requirement in the skill. It could well be that this is similair to the druids quest and Herblore, as Hunting is being released late in the month and there would be no point in releasing the quest before the skill.

It will come with a bank space update as well.

You can see the official post on the Runescape Website

Summoning Skill
There has also been some speculation about a possible summoning skill, although it has been stated that runescape may simply re-introduce the life rune and add summoning onto the magic skill. With the upcoming Hunting skill, there will be 23 skills out of an interface which has space for 24. This leads many to believe that there will be in the future a 24th skill, which currently remains unknown. Also in the RuneScape forums, a Jagex Moderator said that they are always working on at least one new skill. We do not know if this skill will be a Free to Play or Pay to Play skill, although most new skills are Pay to Play.

Fuzzibloke 16:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Capes of Achievement is verging on fancruft, could somebody deal with that?

Fuzzibloke 08:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Every new skill since RuneScape Classic has been Pay-to-Play. I think Jagex is not planning on making any new skills for non-members. Pyrospirit 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much info?

Isn't the description of the construction bug a little too much information? Not only does it make the construction section over four or five times as long as any other section, but it doesn't seem entirely relevant to construction other than construction being the indirect cause of it (it was more a bug with house's in general than the skill of construction that caused it) 24.96.242.143

[edit] Second worst bug?

Under the Construction skill, about the 6/6/06 bug, it says:

"This type of bug had not been seen since RuneScape Classic days, and due to the large number of players, it was the second worst bug in RuneScape history."

Why second? What was the worst bug in RuneScape history? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyrospirit (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your posts. For the question: some consider the mass-duplicating of party hats back in RuneScape classic to be the worst bug ever, since it had screwed the economy and was a huge hassle to clean up. Agentscott00^(talk) 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I think I heard of that. Maybe we should reference that somewhere? --Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runecrafting

Should all the information about the free law rune crafters on world 66 really be added? This doesn't seem like something that should be on wikipedia. Bio 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be there. I've removed it. If you see anymore, go ahead and remove it. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

How is this article unreferenced? All points of the article, save a few sentences (about the construction bug), are referenced by the link to the RuneScape Knowledge Base. If no one disagrees with this, and the construction reference is fixed, then please remove the unreferenced template. Mamyles 22:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that is is unverifiable; it just lacks the inline citations linking to those sources. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Added references and removed the unreferenced tag. Mamyles 17:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, nice job! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither RuneHQ or RuneScape.com has information on the construction bug. Since there is no possible citation, besides from other fan sites, what should be done about it? - Mamyles 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If Tip.it still has its article, i'd use that as a last-resort citation. Or it could be removed altogether. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find anything on Tip.it about the glitch. I'll just remove the bug section. Mamyles 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Tip.it article on the bug can be found at this page: Rune Tips :: Durial321 Interview. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 16:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combat section

Combat is a huge part of the game, with characters being made specifically for it. It really should be longer, but I can't find any reliable sources. Can anyone please help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exarion (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I now expanded it, but put an unreferenced tag. Sources would be helpful.Exarion 01:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Combat has its own separate article, which is referenced at the beginning of the section. It does not need to be repeated here or expanded. I have reverted it to its former glory. Xela Yrag 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herblore

Should a small referance to the cost of training Herblore be added? 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Michael Campbell

The costs of things is fancruft, to be avoided like the plague. Xela Yrag 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combat skills

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xela Yrag (talk • contribs) 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

To clear up some erroneous information that has been posted in this article as well as the Combat article, here is some information that is way too specific for the article, but I hope it helps keep errors from creeping in. Prayer is a very important element of combat level. At higher combat level, earning eight prayer levels without increasing levels in any other combat skill raises a player's combat level by one. If ranged and/or mage levels are higher than melee skill levels, the player's combat level is based upon them rather than upon the melee skills. Therefore, saying that prayer, ranged, and mage levels do not affect combat level is totally erroneous. Xela Yrag 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding more animated gifs to article

I am willing to add more animated gif's like Tarikochi's to the skill article, though I don't know if this article already has enough. Cobalt 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] grouping

I do not think that the four categories that the skills were divided among are very acurite for example there is no such thing as an "independant" skill. For instance the firemaking skill was called independant but it requires you to burn wood (usually) so therefore it is dependant on woodcutting. There is no accurate way to group skills, and also the page did not go into deep detail with any of the skills, just gives a breif, undetailed explination. For instance the page mentioned that cooking is used to turn raw food into cooked, but not why it is the stat that the most people in runescape have at 99. It is by far the easiest stat to raise and many people raise it so that they will have a skill cape. This causes cooked food to be cheaper than raw and cooking to not improve food but actually to make it much less valueable Conspiricy2 14:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)conspiricy2