Talk:Partyhat

Is the Durial321's Collection section really needed? Matt2 02:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is. It's not like he's the only person in the world who had a phat set. Tesfan 02:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking Matt2 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All gone. 02:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Matt2 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Some players think that party hats give people who played the game longer an unfair advantage. As in, older people who played longer had the ability to play when the party hats were dropped, meaning that with over 150 000 000 coins or more, people can use that money to buy valuables. People with party hats didn't have to work for millions, all they had to do was pick up a christmas cracker. Many people think that party hats should be deleted, or redropped to make the game fairer.
 * This section is total bias[[Image:Pumpkin.PNG]]Atlandy 03:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, it is true since some people do think that. 03:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's a bit misleading giving this minority viewpoint a prominent position in the article. IMO, we're not here to provide a commentary on RuneScape topics, only to describe them (and perhaps give advice). Skill 05:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Chia...I think phats are stupid, should that be in the article?[[Image:Pumpkin.PNG]]Atlandy 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if a notable minority (or majority even) of players think that. Noting about everyone's thoughts would be unnecessary. Also, I must agree with you. So far there's 2/10,000,000 people we know of that thinks so (0.00002% of all RuneScape players or so). 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be adding "some players think phats are stupid, and others think they make people look like fruits" There is NO way to verify that people think that...and if they do, then you have to put what others think too.. That is what bias means.  We are only to report facts, no what people think of certain items.  What about the ip that say "rs is for fags"?According to your logic, that should be included[[Image:Pumpkin.PNG]]Atlandy 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, according to my logic if it is a notable thought (maybe I should include to the word "very" to help explain my logic) then it might be included. I never even said anything about a requirement for an inclusion. 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion of a few people in RS (according to the article) There should be no opinions in articles. Here is an example about opinion in wikipedia:
 * For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.[[Image:Pumpkin.PNG]]Atlandy 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to present reasons of why to remove it, you don't have to. You can just remove it. (That's what I'm seeing.) 20:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)