Talk:Evernight Games

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

No did you know nominations

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Page created to talk about the Evernight wiki entry

I think that Evernight's length of time providing online games should count towards its notability and reason for inclusion. I have included some additional sources to include alongside MPoGD 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Oliver Piotrowski

As far as our guidelines are concerned, length of time doesn't effect notability, only how much attention it has gained. (Have a look at WP:Notability (organizations)). Thanks for the extra sources, I'll take a look at them later. Marasmusine (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there was any word on the new links being enough to confer notability. I'd ideally like to remove the section from the top of the page, but am not sure if I am supposed to or not in these instances. Oli2001uk (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oli; for notabilty the subject needs to have been the subject of (preferably multiple) independent, reliable, substantial coverage. So far we only have press releases - for example the AudioGames reference provided states "The following was taken from the Monarchy web-site." - which are explicitly ruled out it WP:N. The other sources, MPoGD, OMGN and TopWebGames, are also press releases.

I'm also a bit concerned about the reliance on citations from forums (Tempers Ball and RoleplayGateway), which are not considered reliable sources and should be removed. Marasmusine (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A link to a printed Magazine in which Monarchy was listed (among very few other games in 2000) as accessable to the blind. Several News releases from a variety of reputable gaming sites, and recomendations from a moderator at a high traffic roleplay site about our roleplay forums. It's an online game, the links in from the internet are going to be like this. I could link in a selection of player owned Guild sites etc, but I dont really see how they progress the story. I have already provided substantially more 'Notibility' than I can see in most of the other browser-based games that have been in wikipedia for ages, many without any comment at all, none suggesting the game is not ntable and the page will be deleted. I'm not sure what else you want from me. Oli2001uk (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of independent, substantial coverage from a reliable source. A couple of professionally-written reviews from reliable websites would be just the ticket. Press releases and magazines copying text from the game's website are not independent, nor are player owned Guild sites. Forums are not (as far as our guidelines are concerned) reliable. As for other browser-based game articles here, you're right, most of them do not claim any kind of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go looking for independant reviews. Most of the stuff I can find is not all that independant. We have a selection of 83 independant player reviews on MPoGD (but they are not 'official') and I've found a review for Monarchy but I'm not sure that it would count A review. I'll keep looking, it seems bizare that there are no wikipedia quality reviews for a game that has so much history, but maybe its because it' peak occured before most of the review sites. Going back to the other browser-games articals. If they do not claim Notibility what is thier basis for inclusion so I can look at improving the artical in that manner instead in the meantime? Oli2001uk (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Corrected that link. didnt think about how the ref tags worked Oli2001uk (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. The other articles that do not assert notability are either being speedily deleted, proposed for deletion (Foundation the Game for example), or have been through or currently going through the AfD process. Others have a fairly tenuous claim to notability (DragonSpires for example has a link to a single interview but nothing else to satisfy WP:N), in any event I wouldn't follow their example. Marasmusine (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon is not a popular game anymore, and it was created long before these magazine websites existed. So, your not going to links to a game from sites that didn't exist when the game was in its hay day. However unpopular it is now, cannon/monarchy was still one of the 3 foundations games that created the browser-based MMOG genre of games. Monarchy, Archmage, and Utopia created the genre. There are thousands of clones of these three games, and MANY games alive today can trace their game system to one of these three original games. Many great games today wouldn't exist if these 3 games hadn't happened. Wikipedia documents the history of many things. It would be rather ironic if wikipedia deleted articles about historical Internet sites because they are no longer popular. It's like suggesting that an article about the Zone would be a waste of time, because it was bought by Microsoft and replaced with the MSN gaming zone, even though 1 guy and his vision of game matching created a site used by thousands of people in 1997. Forgive me if my use of wikipedia is in error, this is another site that didn't exist when browser-mmog's were created. Rylar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rylar22 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]