From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the Gender page.

My edit, 8:00 am, december 4th[edit source]

  • I deleted the references as no other article has them, and it just links to the Knowledge Base which is more or less a given as a source of info, and the info is in the articles we've already linked to anyway.
  • Replaced "thievery" with "Thieving" per the style guide - call skills by their proper name and capitalise it.
  • Replaced lots of <br />'s with a <br clear=all> as it cleans up the edit page.

I put all this here as a sort of advice-type thing to whoever wrote the article. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 08:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that doesn't mean you can't disagree, though. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 08:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
References do exist in other articles, but probably only because I have been citing them. I know it seems trivial to link to the manual, but Jagex may revise the numbers for levels required, experience gained, etc. , and I think it would make sense to cite sources for one-click verification. Does a references policy exist on this wiki?
My apologies for referring to Thieving as "thievery" - I spent an awful lot of time playing Might and Magic II in my younger days, and it was called "thievery" in that. Also, RuneScape's skills are not consistently named (cf. Hunter instead of Hunting), and it can be confusing.  :-p I also looked up the style guide (for the first time, I confess), and skills should indeed be capitalised. I will be diligent about this in the future.
I very rarely use the <br /> tag in wikis, but I will not tamper with these in this article if the layout is improved with them there. Other than that lot, I think I will pretty much just see what other people do with this article.  :-) Leevclarke 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't have a references policy. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So should we be citing them? I would prefer to, JIC the numbers change with all the updates. It seems like a good habit, and may also set this wiki apart from other fan sites.  ;-) Leevclarke 23:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Male/female pictures (For Tarikochi and Cool Spy)[edit source]

Come on, you're supposed to use talk pages, girls. Anyways, would a half-decent compromise be for Tarikochi to change to more male-typical clothes for her male picture, instead of identical clothes? I mean, how many men do you see wearing supershort shorts? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Vimes. Simply, as stated in my edit summary, that identical clothes make it hard to tell body features (and slightly redundant too.) Anyway, I'll remove that image entirely (meaning delete it from the Wiki) if her character's clothing can be changed somewhat from the female model. Cool Spy0 18:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Groovy. Why couldn't you come to this conclusion without me? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Because you're smart and I'm not? :P (Also kind of because my picture was first, but that's not really important to me.) Cool Spy0 18:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, my image was there first as according to its [[:Image:Runescape_personal_casualoutfit-chikoritapro.gif#Image_creation_credits|credits and history]] and I already had plans to put it in this article when it only had four edits in it, but I had to deal with real life issues first. However, I attempted to compromise by not removing the other image right away.

Seeing as some of the argument was on who was there first, both of those images were used in some other similar articles such as Account and Human, making it appropriate to use it in this one also, even more so as the subject suits it.

Along with that, the differentiation is more clear between the exact same models with one difference, rather than two models with a large amount of variables of differences. It is actually harder to tell with different clothes than identical ones in this subject. Bowman hat.pngTarikochi 22:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Tari - A little give and take. Come on, we all know the difference between a guy and a girl. So making those differences a little more obvious won't hurt. Think about it. If this draws out into another lame debate, chances are the article will be EVEN WORSE afterwards, so just accept the compromise? Please? It won't kill you, nor will it detract from the article. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And just to clarify - if you don't accept this, it WILL turn into a lame debate, and the article WILL be ruined. And it will be your fault. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It sure is appropriate to blame someone for something. Regardless, I have not started removing any images until it was deemed by judgement on which was first and which looked more appropriate to the subject. Bowman hat.pngTarikochi 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Can i add my opinion? its a talk page after all, what i think is that the images are nice, but it wont hurt that the man image has long pants, it would look more manly and it's not such a big difference as she says, it isn't lots of variables, it's just the pants, i don't think you will go broke by spending 6k on this, or a little more time on recording, saving as animation and uploading, it's just a recommendation, do it if you want Jigo22 22:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't exactly want to give the opinion that men on this game look gay all the time do we? Whiplash 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yea, you simplified what i was trying to say Jigo22 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Homophobe.  :-p Leevclarke 00:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue is with the female image, not the male one. Bowman hat.pngTarikochi 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

While tanning hides in Al Kharid, a player complained to me that the animations all have the same person in them. Maybe a bit of variety would help, instead of putting the same animations on virtually every page. Cool Spy0 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No one complained to me about it. In fact, a huge amount praised me, even ones not talking about Wikipedia. Bowman hat.pngTarikochi 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
A huge amount phrased you? What? Like a bunch of people got together and quoted your phrases? Anyway, you do have a tendency to ignore people who don't agree with you so I'm certain nobody said anything simply because you weren't paying attention to complaints. But anyway, that's not my point. My point is variety. Without it, all the pages look the same and make it redundant. I've had a total of at least 6 people complain to me about your animations and while I'm not against having your animations, I am against the redundancy caused by putting the same ones in over and over. Bottom line: Let others contribute images instead of putting yours everywhere. Cool Spy0 00:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously he meant "praised"... Oddlyoko talk 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I know. I was just having a bit of fun there. Cool Spy0 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started on a collage of quotes. I do not need to tell people to say what they think, and you must assume good faith.
Also, I did not start removing images from the page. Instead, I started after this edit and its edit summary, which then I made justifications.
And redundancy is not an issue. In fact, it can easily be interpreted as consistency and is good for an information database about RuneScape.
As for why, out of everyone, people are complaining to you, especially since you say you always have your Friends List full and cannot add anyone to PM, not to mention they are probably from the Wiki itself, I am not sure. It is just bad luck, but I can assure more people praise it than complain about it. Bowman hat.pngTarikochi 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between assuming good faith and random passerbys saying "U from rswiki? Those pics of that chick in yelow r annoyin", making me want to make new pictures to reduce redundancy. As for consistency, I'm all for it, but still there needs to be some level of differences between images or they'll all just be the exact same one. Also, other sites have varying pictures. Unless the entire site is controlled by one person, you'd see that there are various pictures of various players. Why people complain to just me and nobody else, not sure. Maybe they just haven't met you in game and said "your animations are annoying." I've had my share of complaints from redundancy so if possible I'd like to change it around a bit. Finally, I noticed how you never said anything about simply slightly changing your animation so I'd delete mine, as VimesCarrot suggested. Cool Spy0 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
We do need a bit of diferenciation because having the same animation on a diferent page makes it less interesting. You can still get consistency without the repetitiveness. Bandos godsword.pngJmoDragon platebody.png, 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd upload my dude, but I don't know how to make animated images. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 23:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the point of graphics is to illustrate, not to please the whims of everyone with an opinion. Personally I don't at all mind seeing an image (or animation) used on several pages, if it adequately demonstrates its relevance to each article. There seems little point in creating a hundred different images for the sake of variety when three would do. Leevclarke 00:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that arguing over an image was a bit pointless and a waste of time. (althoguh it was weird watching the man image wearing Tari's clothes :s Bandos godsword.pngJmoDragon platebody.png, 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. I vote that Cool Spy0 and Tarikochi aren't allowed to communicate with each other in any way unless they do it by using another Wiki user. Anyone support? For goodness' sake, the pair of you, stop taking this personally, and Tarikochi, just change the frickin' image. It's happening exactly as I said it would. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 10:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Vimes, I said that I'd be willing to do some give and take here. While I'm not taking this personally, I am somewhat annoyed that she wouldn't budge a bit. Just trying to get an even agreement, but I can't get it. >.> Cool Spy0 06:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Pff. You're in the right here, but I don't care any more. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 08:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The current pictures are fine IMO, same character with same clothes but just the gender changed seems most appropriate to describe the gender change made by the Makeover Mage. Second-abyssal-whip.pngPatheticcockroachGuthan's platebody.png(Talk) 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sooooooooooooooo what happened. Are we going to leave it. I think it should be a male and female as default (How they are presented when you first start tutorial isle. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 10:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Patheticcockroach and Leevclarke on keeping Tarikochi's images, as they are doing what they are supposed to do, which is to show an example of both a male and female player. Since the main purpose of this Wiki is to provide accurate information about RuneScape, there is no need to upload newer images just for aesthetic purposes. I admit that it would be a bit scary to see a male player in-game dressed in Tarikochi's clothes, but since we are a Wiki and not a fashion show, I feel that the images should stay. I rest my case. [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 21:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited[edit source]

Yeah, I updated it from the old to the new. Chicki, sorry if I removed your image but its the new graphics and we need to get up to date :)

Ancient staff.pngHowiter1Zamorak staff.png 05:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gender divide of players[edit source]

Jagex's poll in March 2008 showed that 90% of players are male (if the respondents are representative of the playing population). We can get an estimate for users of this wiki by counting the number of users who have Template:Userbox/Male and Template:Userbox/Female userboxes on their userpage. Right now these numbers are 35 for male and 5 female, which makes it 87.5% male.

Unfortunately, this relies on users voluntarily adding those templates to their user pages, and consequently it is based on low figures. Nevertheless, it is not a million miles away from Jagex's number. I can't find any data on gender from our typical player polls, which is a real shame.  :-| Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced views?[edit source]

Look, we have to have a neutral standpoint. I'm not saying that I agree with the things brought up about homosexuals or not, but this page is tipping the scales. And do we have to point out the "racist" thing? I admit that it's a little weird, but we are implying that Jagex workers are racist homophobes, and that's not true. And about the sexualization of female characters- most likely it was the simplest way to differenciate the genders. (Plus, this differenciation was called "undue". What constitutes undue?) I don't think Jagex is trying to objectify women at all. Do you think men go on runescape to ogle at female avatars? I think not.--Chef's hat.png Kururu69talk Spinning plate.png 19:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me address this how I see it:
  1. Homophobia versus racism. The chat filter stops us from saying "homophobe" or "homophobic" in the public chat. Why? These words are not euphemisms for "homosexual" (as "homo" sometimes is). If "homophobe" appeared as "****phobe" then I could understand why the filter does it. We can accuse other people of being racist, since this word is not considered too offensive to be filtered, but not homophobic.
  2. Sexualisation of female characters. The article states that that the same garment appears differently on avatars depending on their gender, namely that it is more revealing on females. Why should this be? A T-shirt in real life may reveal the midriff on some people and not others, but surely this would depend on the person's body size and shape, not merely their gender. Jagex could have made some garments "skimpy" (and appear as so on avatars regardless of their gender) and other garments "non-skimpy". They have not done this, they have made a single garment render differently on the two genders. Why is this?
  3. Notice that the article says this "may be undue sexualisation", and does not accuse Jagex of being homophobic (or racist), contrary to your statement that "we are implying that Jagex workers are racist homophobes". Furthermore, I agree that Jagex is not trying to objectify women, but the article states the facts about this difference between male and female avatars, and suggests how some people might interpret them (and therefore why the facts are relevant enough to be stated in this article), with particular regard to how male and females are portrayed. I agree that there are probably very few people who play RuneScape just to ogle the female avatars, but a lot of magazines and TV programmes (for example) are populated with beautiful and scantily-clad women, just for the sake of "eye candy" or to make their product more "pleasing" to see.
Surely an article on gender would be remiss if it didn't address these issues as they (allegedly) apply to RuneScape. Of course anyone is welcome to disagree, and I would be very happy for the community at large to improve this article however they see fit. However, I think these are all relevant points for discussion in this article. I will leave this floor open to others now, and I think I will also leave the article alone for a while, to see how this evolves.  ;-) Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Just need to say that it has never been my intention to be unbalanced here (I am well aware of NPOV), so if it is biased then it needs to be corrected.  ;-) Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 00:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want eye candy in-game, you should check out the tribesman. And while i do think that the homosexuality section should stay, the first sentence and last paragraph should be removed. If Jagex are homophobes, then the person reading should be the person to make up their mind about that using the evidence presented rather then having it hinted at them with info not related to the article. The last sentence on the chat filter is really not on gender, instead being on censor and sexual preferences in-game. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 03:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - "And about the sexualization of female characters- most likely it was the simplest way to differenciate the genders."

Yes, because we must show cleavage in order to tell the person has a "Y" chromosome, or else it totally won't work out. >.> --Jlun2 (talk) 17:45, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I agree... it's basically ridiculous... same goes for the waist-hip-shoulder ratios (in both male and female characters). . . . Yours, This user admires the Void Knights. Who aim to maintain Gielinor's Equilibrium. Enquidou Talk This user likes to do Quests and genuinely loves the story line; lore is his love! . . 06:31, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
Males are the ones with the Y chromosome. An easy way to remember is, after having an argument with a woman, slap your forehead and say "Y am I male". sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:38, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry... I don't really get the joke :-/ . . . Yours, This user admires the Void Knights. Who aim to maintain Gielinor's Equilibrium. Enquidou Talk This user likes to do Quests and genuinely loves the story line; lore is his love! . . 08:36, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

acrobat outfit[edit source]

The acrobat outfit actually seems more balanced of an outfit between the genders than the green feather hat outfit listed above. I believe a better example would be audience outfits (which i've yet to obtain as i kept getting higher than audience clothing scores until just recently when i intentionally started going for the audience outfits). ~kytti khat 04:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vyrewatch.PNG may be a very pertinent image, since it compares one outfit on male and female players side-by-side. I'm steering clear of editing the article myself, since I'm not convinced I can maintain a neutral point of view (see above). I've also added quite a lot of the content myself already, and articles should really be a group effort. So I am going to refrain my making any further edits to this article for a while, but perhaps this image may be worth adding under Attire? Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 21:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Offensive?[edit source]

I read this article word-for-word and was highly impressed by how mature and complete it was. And yet, this is the first time I've ever seen the headers "Warning: There is language on this page that some readers may consider offensive," and, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." What is offensive or questionable about this article? Is the simple act of talking about homosexuality and gender roles offensive? (talkcontribs) forgot to sign this comment.

Indeed, that must be it. Homosexuality can be offensive to some, and normally the younger ones shouldn't know about that stuff just yet. Better to be safe than sorry, right?
Another example of an article with an offensive language warning is the Slang dictionary. Man, oh man. That contains some offensive stuff. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, without getting too deep into social liberalism/conservatism, I don't think it's ever too early for children to be aware of diverse people/ideas. Certainly the content in this article wasn't anything that should be kept away from children. If it were presented in a distasteful or graphic manner, I would understand; but it isn't. The notion that mentioning homosexuality is somehow offensive is, well, offensive.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) on 2008-12-18T08:06:38.
With regard to the balance of this article, see section 5 above ("Unbalanced views?"). I think there was a concern that the article as it is unfairly portrays Jagex as homophobic (although they freely allow cross-dressing). Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 05:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

changes[edit source]

I have removed the section about homosexuality for being irrelevant to gameplay, and also the npov tag. Disputes should be discussed here if there are any. The article has been sitting around for months unchanged. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 18:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)