User talk:Thomas Auge/Warring Factions

I think it might be worthy to point out that having things like "notable features" while not going in-depth into anything is like the product description you find on a software box and not up to Wikipedia standards. We should do some brain-storming and figure out exactly what's extraneous information and how in-depth we should go. Should we talk about research, ship designs, buildings, planet types, factions, etc? or should we give a brief overlook of the game taking into account all viewpoints? --TheMadjester 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to be as brief as possible. I saw a discussion in another deletion topic for a game where information about the game posted by the author himself was considered original research. I think that's kinda ridiculous, but if that's the general oppinion, then we can only post the very obvious. The features are listed on the WF about page, so they are sourced. (Ignore the fact that I posted them there and here. :) Basically we can only include information which are obvious on the game page or have been mentioned on other sources. Admitted the "notable" part is oppinion, as it's a collection of features setting WF apart from other games. Right now the main concern is to find/get news coverage for WF to prove notability.

By wikipedia standards the history part is already pretty borderline.