User talk:Eik Corell

Archives

Star Trek: Klingon Academy

Hi, Erik. May I ask what kind of source would be good enough for you? Would it be sufficient to reference the http://www.klingonacademy.com/index.php main page which talks about it as well? Jiri Dvorak (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are generally not considered to be reliable sources, unless they're official, or in some other way recognized as a trusted authority within the field. For something to be covered, the source should ideally be a neutral, third-party, which is to say that it's not affiliated with the subject matter, and and not biased in favor of or against it, which is why fansites are usually not sufficient. An exception can be made if a fansite reports something, and a reliable source picks up on it afterwards, then the fansite can be used as the primary source, and any neutral third-party sites as extra sources. It might seem a bit confusing, but there's a list of allowed and not allowed sources here, often with info as to why they're listed as they are, for example one not being allowed because the site has no editorial oversight. Eik Corell (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Blue's News is listed as reliable source. Would be following link sufficient: http://www.bluesnews.com/s/118767/klingon-academy-modern-systems-patch ? Jiri Dvorak (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would be a game fan site considered as biased source for technical thing like this? Whether the patch improves the compatibility or not is imo not something you can be in favor of. Usually not many third-party sites care for news about game which is over 10 years old so having neutral information might be a problem. Jiri Dvorak (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for smaller games/MMOs

Since you are very hooked on articles having sources for every information, then I would like to ask you how we are to proceed with smaller, but notable subject articles on games or MMOs. Especially MMOs will lack non-fansite coverage or lack coverage of certain important topics, policies and information. This makes it very hard to make complete and proper articles, as they end up being outdated and severely incomplete. (for example, Ultima Online article)

So how are we to approach these subjects? I think there should be some leniency towards game topics as long as the game itself is notable enough to warrent a full article. I would certainly think that an article riddled with outdated, missing and wrong information is worse than an article without many sources for everything.

But I'd like to hear your advice and opinion on the matter. AndersJohan (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just post the info you wanted to add for the sake of perspective -

3rd party transactions involving real world currency. Ultima Online has permitted 3rd party transactions using real life currency, creating confusion and controversy amongst players, especially those who are used to other MMORPGs that do not allow such transactions. Mythic, the developers of Ultima Online, has tried to downplay this aspect of the game, by not allowing fansites to advertise for sites that use real life currency transactions for in game items and remain silent on the matter in public.

The very first problem comes in the form of WP:V - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This info was added under a category titled "controversy", and what often happens on video game articles is that fans/detractors of a game vent their frustration or spread rumors they've heard under just such a category, almost always without sources. Ideally, ALL information should be attributable to a reliable source, and this is especially true if we're talking about a big claim like the developers distancing themselves from a part of their own game. If the developers themselves have made a statement on the matter in an official capacity, that would qualify as a reliable source. Bear in mind, though, that this would be a primary source. It seems like a lot of the above info is analytical and interpretive in nature, and per the WP:PRIMARY rule, you will need a secondary source in order to include it. A good list of secondary sources can be found here: WP:VG/S. Eik Corell (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're getting at with that. The problem is that there are preciously few sources if any for that game (as prime example) and the information is just about impossible as such to give verifiable sources to, even though its a major thing in the game, the game just isn't covered enough because its over 13 years old. Even fansite information is sparse. I am really at a loss of what to do in those situations, had it been a written medium, it would be easier to rely on the editor being knowledgeable enough. This creates an incredibly poor article. Another issue with it, is that a lot of the information is either outdated or flat out wrong now, which gives an unnecessary bad view of the game for readers. Ultima Online might not be an important topic as just another MMO, but its important and notable because of its status as the very first real commercial MMO and has won many awards, including Hall of Fame awards. So its very hard to deal with and it needs to be dealt with, as Wikipedia should be an informative source whenever possible. AndersJohan (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BZ3 Genesis

Hey Erik, I'm new with wikipedia and really not sure why the page BZ3 Genesis is going to be deleted. What kind of source do I need? It is a legit video game being developed on the Unreal 3 Engine using the UDK kit. Also, I don't know exactly where to put the "hang on" text at. Nvm I figured where to put hang on at. ~Hi there. I've responded on the article's talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you killed authors section in SpaceTanks article?!

'think it's vandalism ! the information you'll find in credits ...learn to read! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.94.226 (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting undue weight on details that are not about the game as much as they're about the people who made the game. That's why I removed it. Eik Corell (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the authors are important because they also did the concept -what about other games ?! you'll find for sure the names of the individuals who thought it out- that's the infos one wants to read if one surf on wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.94.226 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cool ! pictures and authors were erased every few weeks ... but nobody cares about the terchnical WRONG aspects in the articele like "different weight" etc.. . thats pure! wiki is PURE!

The article is about the game, not the team. Putting "undue weight" means that one gives special attention to something that is trivial. For example, a video game article needs info about who made the game. However, if you start putting in lists of the individual people involved in the development, you have have entered WP:UNDUE's territory. Eik Corell (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well

Can't have a description of the active efforts of a community which develops patches? Billy Bread (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) As said by Eik Corell in their edit summary, discuss this in the article's talk page. Thank you. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acclaim Forsaken

A while back me and another enforcer for this page agreed to leave a link to my site which is the only up to date location of the game (since the official company is bankrupt).

I'm not sure who added the giant paragraph to this revision but I agree it shouldn't be on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forsaken_%28video_game%29&diff=420278247&oldid=407722196

I understand completely the verifiability of wikipedia must be maintained. All I'm asking for is something of a "See Also", "Related", "Other Links", "Semi Related" etc.. Which I have seen on many other pages.. At least I believe so..

My site is the final and only resting place of the game, it's online community and it's only working version on modern systems. Thus I respectfully request to add http://fly.thruhere.net to one of the above proposed sections.

Much thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.danielaquino (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. It doesn't have enough info to qualify under the criteria that it offers more information than the article at the current time can provide, and the information it does have qualifies as gamecruft and gameguide material. Per WP:FANSITE, the only way I can see a possibility of this being included would be if this was written by a recognized authority, and being a fansite, that doesn't seem to be the case. Eik Corell (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."

We would fall within this line as the site is the only place that continued development on the game is occurring. Do you agree ? Many other game pages would include lines from, "game version 1" to "game version2" .. So the site should at least be in a section considered, "current developments" or "forsaken 2" or "forsaken community edition" or "forsaken sequels" ?

For example would you consider the, "see also" and "external links" section on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_2:_Sauerbraten to be appropriate ? I believe fly.thruhere.net is exactly the same thing for forsaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.0.78 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Outlasting the competition doesn't mean that one fansite is authoritative(or more authoritative) than another. And by whom is this site regarded to be such? A quick google search doesn't reveal any major publications or anything to that effect mentioning this site as such. Now, the websites on the Sauerbraten are appropriate because they're all official. The problem with linking to unofficial websites or projects that haven't received coverage in reliable, third-party sources, is two-fold: The first is spam concerns, the second is that of putting undue weight on info that only benefits players of the game, or the people who are associated with the site, which goes back to the spam thing. Eik Corell (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the question of, "what is official" would cause allot of problems here too.. I could easily go and start some game review site and post my game there.. Then what ? Is it all of a sudden official enough ? Perhaps you can give me a list of these official sites so I can setup and interview with them and get our updated game some coverage from, "official sources"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.0.78 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official in this context would mean sites such as the official company-run website for a game. Now, there's a problem with your request for a list: You contacting them to get coverage for the website would qualify as self-promotion. To quote the guideline:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

So you see, in contacting them, any coverage they might give the website would be tainted. But in any case, there's a list of reliable sources typically used for video game articles here. Eik Corell (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

apologize that

excuse me are you adminstrator?

i think should link into sand box because that composer has not a page and i think if can not write in page to write on sandbox i think suitably

and i am student composer to if i have work i want to link to my user box from page to because my dean wrote his page and adminstrator has been delete

so my dean reconcile admin to have a page

my dean page http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%94%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%99_%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%90

up to your decide thank you KLL_Joe KL Joe (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a sandbox page in a real Wikipedia article is never acceptable because the purpose of the sandbox is for users to experiment. The article in question was deleted, and seems to have reappeared on a user's sandbox, and after that, it was added again in this form. This can constitute gaming the system. Wikipedia articles are usually deleted because they lack notability(Thai version here: [1]). Eik Corell (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how i can upload files

i upload files and you delete it, how can i upload files

i think if you delete this files why you don't finds picture to upload by yourself and i will not up load it

so you are not adminstrator i understand about illegal but you should not warn me by yourself you should notify adminstrator

i think every article should have least one picture if you delete at all i will not forbid but my interest article is motoi sakuraba

and i will find better motoi sakuraba picture for you

--KL Joe (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External Links Problem

What I think is that since Korean is not the official language in the English Wikipedia, why add it then? Just because they made the games does not make them more superior than other countries' website. In fact, the publishers of the games probably earn more than the original company. As a matter of fact, you show only Korean website makes people think, "Why only Korean?". Especially non-english speakers who can understand English, they think it is an act to promote national pride. Also, for English speakers, Korean, Chinese or Japanese make no difference to them(Because they cannot understand). The purpose we add multi-language links is to give readers opportunity to explor the topic deeper(such as the update and the difference between each countries' CSO) which we cannot show on Wikipedia because that would be unneutral. However, just by showing Korean website is simply conveying that you want the readers to ONLY read the Korean CSO info. Jjj84206

The Guideline of External Links

A video game's official home page (provided by the developer or publisher). Only the English version of the page should be included if there are multiple languages. If no English version exists, then the official page in the language of the country of first publication should be provided, but indicate that the site is in a foreign language. If the developer and publisher each offer a different site, include both.

Please read the guideline properly. The links we provided are the links of the publishers'. As indicated in the guidline, we should include them. Also, I indicated what foreign language they are in. Eik, if I were you, I would focus more on making the content better. From what I have seen so far, you are provoking other wikipedia users rather than making wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

--Jjj84206 (Jjj84206)

Please assume good faith here - I'm not trying to provoke anyone. Anyway, I've posted about this issue on the WP:VG/GL, which is probably where we should have taken this to begin with. With you saying one thing, and another guy on that talk page saying something else, I'm still left unsure. I'm gonna disengage, which I should have done long before I violated the 3RR. Eik Corell (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dune II

Hi, I've reverted your removal of the Dune II link. I've read through it and it has a lot of useful information, and it's also a professionally published source. Ideally the information contained in the magazine will be worked into the wiki article but for now I'd say it's suitable as an external link. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]