Talk:Populous: The Beginning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Populous: The Beginning is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 10, 2011.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
September 17, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
October 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Link to Populous Wiki[edit]

This is an established wiki that is useful for people looking for information on Populous. Now I know it's the norm to try and weed out the external links list, but now it's only an imdb link leaving people looking for more information with no help. Thoughts on leaving it in and not deleting it? Ksevio (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a fansite, and being a wiki makes it even worse. See WP:EL. In short: if we wouldn't use it as a source, we wouldn't link to it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
That shouldn't be a problem. Other similar pages such as Halo_(series) have a relevant wiki linked, and there being no longer an official web page on the subject, the fans have completely taken over the support/additions/multiplayer for the game. Basically, if wikipedia is looking for the "expert" source on the subject, these are the sites to look at, not game review sites. Ksevio (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Who defines these people as experts? There's no such established recognition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If you identify an expert as the people most knowledgeable on a subject then it's clear who to look at. People can be experts without a degree or official link to a subject.Ksevio (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability. In that, just because something may or may not be true does not mean we should publish it. Who says the wiki is a good resource? Some guy? It's not good enough. At the very least (while I'm not vouching for its inclusion) Halopedia is listed as a resource by the franchise developers and overseers. I doubt anything similar has been said about the wiki in question. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review; GA on Hold[edit]

  • The image doesn't have summary, source, or fair use subheadings
  • 3D --> [[3D computer graphics|3D graphics]]
  • twenty five --> twenty-five
  • there are often specific ways this can be achieved - sometimes the player --> there are often specific ways this can be achieved — sometimes the player
  • either by head-to-head direct modem connection, LAN, IPX, or most commonly using the Populous Reincarnated matchmaker over TCP/IP --> it might be helpful if you either spell out those acronyms, or pipelink them to their respective articles.
  • Modders added --> What's a modder?
  • which can be downloaded from mirror sites. --> Turn that imbeded link around 'mirror sites' into a reference link
  • Is it not possible to expand this section some? Such as the terrain of the planet the player is most on, if that's possible, or add in more description about the varying planetary terrain. What about moons? Do they play a part? And how do you get from one planet to the other?

It's never explained how the shaman and her tribe move to the next world. She and her tribe simply arrive there after you have finished the goals of the previous world. And, yes some of the worlds are moons of planets, but in the article it mentions how many worlds (which includes moons) there are. I take it you haven't played the game. The snare (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • The add-on offered 12 new single-player and 12 multiplayer levels --> Those 12's should be written out as twelve
  • The very first word of this section, Populous, should be italicized
  • ; producer Stuart Whyte said that "We're really proud --> There should be a comma between 'that' and '"We're'. Furthermore, the period at the end of this quote should be within the quotation since you are quoting a full line of what someone said instead of a single word or abstract phrase
  • but the name was changed by the time game was shown --> There should be a 'the' between 'time' and 'game'
  • the game's project lead --> lead should be leader
  • both the departure the game took from previous titles in the series as well as was distinguished itself from similar games --> both the departure the game took from previous titles in the series, as well as distinguishing itself from similar games
  • previous Populous titles was dropped because in practice the spell was too frustrating --> There is no period at the end of this sentence
  • And shouldn't this section come first in the article right before Gameplay? How a game is developed, chronologically, is the first stage of any game, and thus should come first
  • Gamespot, since it's just a website, should not be italicized
  • slightly modified sequel (like the earlier Populous II --> There is no closing parenthesis here
  • IGN in the prose and in the table also should not be italicized
  • GamePro in the right table should be italicized because it is a publication
  • IGN noted that with your followers automatically --> That should be 'the player's followers'
  • RTS should be pipelinked at the very least
External links
  • There shouldn't be a period at the end of the first link
  • Please add in a note about the importance of the first link; it just looks like a fansite
  • Please alphabetize the categories

-- 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass[edit]

After fixing the final issue about the imbeded link at the end of the gameplay section, I have passed this article for GA. Good work, and congrats.-- 23:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as punctuation and grammar go, anyone can go ahead and just fix it themselves. It's such a minor issue that it doesn't need to be discussed here, just go ahead and add a period, closing parentheses or whatever else the article needs. The snare (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fog of war[edit]

Fog of war = unseenable place, you must unlock. Angel of Death's are very handy =D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference material[edit]

While digging through the online print archive, I located the following preview material for this game:

One or more print reviews for this game may also be found in the archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Strategy game or god game?[edit]

In the penultimate sentence of the lead, the game is reported as being criticised for unclarity as to which style of game it is. Should the article, therefore, describe it uncritically as both, with no sense of compromise or discrepancy, in the first sentence? Kevin McE (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Critical opinion is just that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
If there is no contradiction betwen the two, then the criticism is uninformed and does not merit mention (at least not in such a high profile position as lead para on a FA, and front page mention in TFA blurb); if the critic is correct in saying that a game cannot be one without being the other, then we should not contradict them. What was the balance of critical opinion? Kevin McE (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Because 'god video game' is very much jargon to a non-gamer, I edited the first sentence to read 'god-style video game'. Hopefully that's acceptable to the insiders. Ocaasi c 12:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
All god games I know are strategy games (since the very first one, the original Populous). The question is completely absurd. -- (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


Neat article. I get the feeling it's a little heavy on comma and semi-colon use, but I'm not quite up to sorting through each one. Perhaps something to look at after the joy of having it up on the main page fades a bit. Ocaasi c 12:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I got most of the semi-colons. Comma use is still a bit high, particularly with phrases at the end of sentence (<-- like that). But they still read well. Ocaasi c 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Technical Constraint[edit]

This sentence confused me:

In some aspects, the developers were forced to remove features due to technical constraints; for example, the "Plague" spell from previous Populous titles was dropped because in practice the spell was too frustrating.

How is frustration related to technical constraints? Ocaasi c 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Player type[edit]

Description of one of the characters is a bit vague:

...weak, ranged, Firewarriors

Could someone explain what 'ranged' means, and how Firewarriors are best characterized? Ocaasi c 23:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It means the firewarriors are similar to the archer class that use weapons from a range as oppose to hand-to-hand. Ksevio (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


Is there a consensus about using The Beginning in the article where possible? Currently it alternates between that and Populous: The Beginning in a somewhat inconsistent way. Ocaasi c 02:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it should be consistent one way or another. I tend to use a shorthand when dealing with longer titles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
"The Beginning" isn't a standard way of referring to the game. It typically is called "Populous", "Pop:TB", or the full "Populous: The Beginning" among the community and developers (at least in interviews). As for what to use in the article, the full title or just "Populous" would be best. Ksevio (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Considering the other games are referenced in the series, it's a much better usage. There is another game called Populous, so it makes sense to disambiguate. We don't really take fan terms into account unless they are popular enough to be referenced in reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I checked all the sources in the article (mostly review sites, a few are dead), after initially referring to it by the full name, almost all of them switch to simply "Populous" or "Populous 3". In text interviews with the producer, he refers to it by "Pop:TB" or "Pop". For a shortened version, "TB" or "3" could be added, but using just "The Beginning" is not a standard form.Ksevio (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Artefacts vs Monuments[edit]

Monuments is a more appropriate word than artefacts. The instruction manual (I can't find it online anywhere) may describe them one way, but as the word is not used in a quote from the source, there's no downside in replacing it with a more descriptive word. Ksevio (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The instruction manual only refers to them as artefacts. We shouldn't be in the business of substituting our own nouns because we don't like what the developers used. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
We're not looking to write a description for Bullfrog, the article is to present information accurately to readers. We shouldn't be keeping words that don't provide accurate descriptions just because the writer of a manual used the wrong word. Ksevio (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The term "artefacts" is clearly described. Who are we to say the manual uses the wrong word? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
According the the article on artefacts: Examples include stone tools such as projectile points, pottery vessels, metal objects such as guns, and items of personal adornment such as buttons, jewellery and clothing. Other examples include bone that show signs of human modification, fire cracked rocks from a hearth or plant material used for food.
The article on Monuments states they include: Columns, Obelisks, Statues, Temples or religious structures
The worship items in the game are: Stone heads, Obelisks, Totem Poles (monumental sculptures), Gargoyle Statues, and Vaults of Knowledge.
We're not editing the manual here, it can say whatever it likes. We ARE editing a description of the gameplay and should seek to make it accurate. Ksevio (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
What "artefacts" are is explained right after, but it's disingenuous to change the terminology. That's not being a shill to the game companies, it's just being an accurate representation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It is defined, but why use an inaccurate word just because one piece of literature from the game company says it? There's only one reference to the word "artefacts" and it's not even verifiable at this point. Internally, they are all referred to as "Head"s, but that's not a very fitting description of all the monuments that can be worshiped. The official strategy guide refers to them as "Magical Devices" or "Mysical Statues" (statues would work, but totem poles aren't exactly statues - more monuments). Ksevio (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a prequel?[edit]

I started to think this, since in the other games you are a god and that is the goal of the shaman in this game The snare (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I've never seen material that said this from the developers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I started to think that "The Beginning" is what that's supposed to mean. The snare (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fan site added to external links[edit]

I added a fan site, Populous Reincarnated, to external links eventhough they are usually frowned upon, but I think it's appropriate in this case. Here are the reasons: