Talk:Alter Aeon
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alter Aeon redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Alter Aeon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
recently added 'fun of the game' section[edit]
I'm not real clear on the way sections like this should be handled. It seems largely like gratuitous advertising, but at the same time says a few minor things which may be of interest to players. I'll try to hack it up and make it more neutral in the next couple of days, unless I get specific guidance otherwise from some of the more dedicated Wiki staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.17.237 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
regarding the lack of attribution/destruction warning[edit]
I doubt anyone will read this, but if the Alter Aeon page is eligible for destruction for this reason, you might as well destroy 90% of the MUD related pages. Clearly I think it's an important entity if I'm bothering to spend time on it, but if it falls below the threshold of validity it would seem unfair to not apply the same standard everywhere.
- The same standard IS being applied everywhere. Better web game articles than this have been deleted for failing to provide the required multiple reliable sources so that claims of notability could be verified. It's been over 3 weeks since we started clearing up the web game articles, and we have only just got round to this article. DarkSaber2k 10:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't proposed a deletion yet because the Games for the Blind review is at least something. It really needs something more substantial though. Marasmusine 11:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I'll see if I can find something more substantial. It's good to see quality control hitting everyone equally.
Bloody hell, after looking at the mud games page and the associated links, if this page goes (with its single reference) it would only be appropriate to immediately dispose of at least 80% of the pages there as well. Most so much as only link back to the primary site.
- Yeah. Marasmusine 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, WP:EL will help you with your search. News group postings, for example, shouldn't be linked. Marasmusine 08:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look this weekend when I get a minute. 09:41, 11 May 2007 (CST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.48.71.243 (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
- Well, the weekends been and gone.... DarkSaber2k 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, work has been taking precedence. I have been away from home, and it will unfortunately continue for a while.
- Well, the weekends been and gone.... DarkSaber2k 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look this weekend when I get a minute. 09:41, 11 May 2007 (CST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.48.71.243 (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
god links[edit]
Just a minor thing - I'm not sure having links to all the gods just point to finger entries is really meaningful, other than to prove that they all exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.51.95.68 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Critical reception[edit]
I find it a little worrying that the Audyssey review was accepted as a reliable source (to me, the shocking spelling and grammar suggest a lack of editorial oversight), but I've started a "critical reception" section and move the reference there. I'm having trouble extracting any critical analysis from that review, since the author describes how to play the game but not much else. Any expansion is appreciated. Marasmusine (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)