Jump to content

Talk:Anarchy Online/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Removed Citations thing

There are 4rd party sources. Fafnir665 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Active vandal on this page.. please monitor

User 24.241.245.163 Record Type: IP Address


Charter Communications CHTR-HSA-2BLK (NET-24-240-0-0-1) 

                                 24.240.0.0 - 24.241.255.255

Charter Communications SFLK-VA-24-241-240 (NET-24-241-240-0-1) 

                                 24.241.240.0 - 24.241.255.255

Lots of childish vandalism.. going to report for possible banning and have already notified the abuse@ for Charter Communications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.167.203 (talk) 22:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

It was I that reported this.. just wasn't logged in yet... doh! Camokub 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision June 14th

Added some content, started doing sources. The links and stuff need work, I'll do it slowly while I'm at work if someone else doesnt beat me to it Fafnir665 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of May 4th

I have reverted the page to it's pre-redlinked state. The edits made had several issues:

  • First, there were links made to pages that do not exist. While this in and of itself is not wrong, they were made to topics that really have no business being separate pages, like a page for each breed, profession, and expansion.
  • Second, words and phrases, like Omni-Tek and Rubi-Ka were linked to repeatedly. This is absolutely unnecessary.
  • Third, even if the person who'd made the edits was justified in making the multitude of links, the fact is these sub-pages will likely never be assembled. If they eventually are, then the links can be re-made. Until then, the page was a mess.

I also removed the links to simple terms, like Engineer and Trader, that went to pages that had nothing to do with AO, and I retained the edit that removed the POV, but went one step further and completely removed the paragraph at the start about the deal, since it's already been detailed at the bottom of the article. Baryonyx 23:54, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Revision Suggestions

That was mostly my fault. Thank you for being so incredibly diplomatic about it. There was, despite the mess, a point to my linking the professions. I feel that there was a better way of going about it, one which I didn't take advantage of. I have been creating documents offline in hopes of creating the separate individual articles, finally linking to them from this main article. The repeated linking of the words Rubi-Ka and Omni-Tek was simply do to my lack of wiki-experience. My apologies to the community. [User talk:Drmikey}

So, with this in mind, I would appreciate any suggestions regarding how to better approach these tasks. I don't think that creating separate pages for each of the professions, which would simply contain descriptions of each, would be appropriate as there are some professions which are named after common, real-life terms (i.e.: trader, soldier, etc...) which would just get lost in the wiki. Also, the thought of creating one entirely separate page just for the professions seemed appealing at first, but once logic was applied I realized that this would be better suited in the article itself. At this point, I realized that it would just make the article messier unless very delicately handled (possibly just a bulleted list with a one or two sentence description of each?). Lastly, what should the articles be called (the actual URL's) so they do not get confused with real life terms like soldier, and so on.

I feel that I have a lot to contribute but don't care to cause repeated work to those who are also contributing by repeating mistakes like these. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Slant 20:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, one of my top suggestions at the moment is to contribute over at the AO Wiki. Second, if you wish to create pages for each of the professions, I would urge you to do so, so long as they are very detailed and well-organized. One thing that tends to happen on Wikipedia is that pages are created by fans on various topics, but the pages are 10 lines long and little more is ever done with them. These types of pages inevitably end up on Votes for Deletion because of their limited scope. One of the key questions anyone should ask when creating pages, as you plan to do for professions, is: "Is this a topic that has a reasonable chance of being important enough to merit its own page?" This is a dilemma for many things (it is, for example, one of the biggest questions we're dealing with on the Characters of Lost page at the moment). If you ultimately decide they are not, what you could do is create paraphrased descriptions of the professions here, and use your full-blown edits on the AO Wiki. Good luck! Baryonyx 15:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Leets

"Leets wander the earth searching for a companion and if one comes accross you and it lieks you you can become its owner. it will then walk with you and fight by your side." Why is this listed under the title "Cultural References"? Shouldn't it be under "Leets"? -- Enlo, 20 Oct 2006

Screenshots

This could use some more screenshots, to demonstrate some more of the game;s look and feel.

ya and some pics of the different races

Professions revamp (again)

I overhauled the profession summaries to cover everyone's offensive and defensive play styles and their optimum weapons if they're a primarily weapon-using class. I also stripped all AO-specific terminology and as much general MMO jargon as I could. This page is for people who don't know about AO. Details like specific attack names and whose pets cost credits to cast aren't important to them. Jeff Alexander 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Took these out:

Practically no content.

Commercial site.

Building tools and in-game add-ons. Useful, but too specific for a wiki entry on the overall game.
Jeff Alexander 00:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Small Revistion Nov 26

  • Corrected some grammer
  • Added a Latest version box
  • Changed the Genre from MMORPG to Sci-Fi MMORPG

I would also suggest that we get pictures of each profession and race if possable. Telon 05:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Getting pictures of professions is harder than that of race. The professions in game dont look that different overall, the skills they employ is what differentiates them. So maybe pictures of the arrival hall, or of the Jobe nano shops with the professions depicted work, but good luck finding pictures for every class where you can go "Thats a ____" 134.241.45.124 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Revisions 2006/12/24

I expanded the Character Creation section adding some new information, plus a correction or two. Breed decides how much IP it costs to raise the 6 basic attributes (strength, agility, etc.) Profession is the only factor determining the IP cost of the 80-odd skills. (Maybe there's some confusion because skills and attributes are all lumped together on the Skills screen.) In the interest of brevity I didn't explain all that, connecting skill costs to profession without going into breed and attributes. --Shyland 10:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

System Req's

The System Requirements are badly out-of-date on the official website. I'm thinking of adding a note about it. It may be technically possible to play on such a system but it sure wouldn't be pleasant. CPU, RAM and video card requirements are laughably low; I'm using a lot more horsepower than that (though mediocre by today's standards) and game performance is only passable. (Athlon 2200+, 1gig RAM, GeForce 4 4200 Ti.)

Plus, according to the website, the "large" client takes 1400 megs of disk space, while the "small" client (basic game with no expansions) takes 800 megs. I'm sure that's years out of date: on my system (with the large client installed) the game folder is occupying 2300 megs. I have no idea whether 800 is right for the small client, but I suspect it's no longer correct. Anyone got the small client installed? How big is your Anarchy Online folder? --Shyland 10:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1,160 megs for my small client. Jeff Alexander 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Expansions subsection needs cleanup

Statements like this read more like advertising material than a Wiki entry: "Shadowlands expansion was well-received critically", "the game community is very much alive with the introduction of the free-play program as well as the Lost Eden expansion". They need to be worded in a neutral fashion, and they need to be cited. See WP:NPOV.

ARK and GM

Mentioned Arks and GMs I will certainly extend on this time permitting. I will begin to create small stubs for Omni-Tek and possibly Clans and Neutrals. I understand that previously there was an issue with every time the word Omni-Tek was mentioned a link created and do agree that this should not occur.

I don't feel the factions deserve their own pages. Jeff Alexander 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to explain that there is no citation for my comments on the GMs as it has been a discussed topic in circles that would like to remain private as they have been harrassed by GMs who have as I stated in the article threaten to ban them. They would prefer this not to happen and as such I can not in good faith reference these discussions, but I can assure you that the amount of people I have heard from is over 50 (not a large number, but not insigifigant either). Gloern 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Please read Wikipedia's own policies, especially WP:V and WP:WEASEL. "I assure you, it's true" isn't good enough reason to justify adding anything to any page, even if it really is true. Jeff Alexander 09:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you that was actually a fair point, although I don't think that weasel was totally accurate in this case. What kind of a citation would work here, cause frankly I can't think of one that would meet the requirements, I could make a website with screen shots of the incidents in question, but that would not be a reliable web site as per the policies that you listed. I would ask why you feel the need to question if certian GMs are over stepping their power, but that is not important. Gloern 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of a citation that would work either, which means that you probably shouldn't have added it to begin with. How many players does it take to dislike something before that thing becomes a serious concern? Did this alleged abuse start recently? You need to supply references like these. I question the edit because it sounds like a common personal grievance -- taking it upon yourself to warn others of something you don't like. I'm not even convinced it has enough relevance to be in an article on AO in the first place. Other major MMO entries don't even mention how their games are administrated. Anecdotal player response to AO's admin policies are one step even further removed. Jeff Alexander 00:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to show the people that were bashing me, that Jeff is the prime example of how to deal with an edit that they don't feel is valid. I commend you Jeff and accept that although I still think that there was merit to my edit, it will remain MIA.Gloern 04:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AOLOGO.gif

Image:AOLOGO.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the logo, added fair use rationale Fafnir665 22:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yalm.jpg

Image:Yalm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AO AI boxart.jpg

Image:AO AI boxart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AnarchyOnline-char.JPG

Image:AnarchyOnline-char.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GSPPart1.jpg

Image:GSPPart1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TradeskillingAO.jpg

Image:TradeskillingAO.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stuffs

Can someone with the required experience put up a screenshot and/or link to the new render trailer? I put a link to the announcement of the teaser as a reference link but it could be more prominent... Also, the screenshots of the skills window... The person who took them is running a custom theme I think. Not a big deal but maybe it should be noted?--Healyhatman (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

Here's a brief summary of my edits this morning:

-Expanded some abbreviations. These might not make a lot of sense to non-MMO people.

-Elaborated on the player vs. player section and some others.

-Removed a lot of redundancy in the Free Play Program section.

-Rewrote a large chunk of the "Future of Anarchy Online" section. It sounded a little too much like an advertisement and less like a dictionary article

-Some other minor changes, again mostly having to do with them sounding too much like an advertisement or magazine article.

-Removed "Leets" Section. This one might be a little controversial. I thought it was a little too specific but somebody can revert it if they want it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.203.41 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Major Restructuring

The rationale behind such a major re-write was to help move the article towards a class-A rating under "WikiProject Video Games" instead of a class-C. This tries to follow as many of the guidelines as possible without loosing too much of other people's work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebquantic (talk • contribs) 23:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject videogames assessment

Article remains C class, but a good one, there is still some considerable editing needed before the article is ready to move up to B and be in-line for GA promotion. Here's some ideas:

  • The lack of a reception section is your main barrier to B class.
  • I'm really not fond of a separate section marked 'innovations', it's one thing to note innovation in games in development or gameplay when secondary sources state that these are innovations, but it's another to have a separate section. It's too positively-weighted. Please integrate it with development and any other section should the information be better suited there. The bullet points are not needed.
  • Where references coincide with full stops/periods, they should come directly after rather than directly before.
  • Filling out the web citations using cite web would stand you in good stead when it comes to a GA nomination, it's helpful to readers to have access to this extra information without clicking each link.
  • Images have no captions. What are they showing?
  • The 'similar games' (see also) section is redundant - these other games aren't directly related and readers can locate similar articles by using the categories.
  • Gameplay and Story need citing just as development has been.
  • Gameogre isn't an ideal source by a long shot, please find an alternative.

Hope that helps. Someoneanother 10:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your input. Sebquantic 12:50, 17 August 2008

More revisions

I spent some time this weekend making more changes to the article based on the suggestions from WikiProject, and also did a lot of proofreading. I'm really happy with the way that the "Gameplay" section turned out. I think it does a good job of explaining the unique features of the game without getting repetitive or to detailed (of course I could be wrong). Here's a list of changes:

-Merged "Innovations" section into other parts of the article. What used to be bullet points #2 and #3 are now their own section called "Subscription"

-Added more references and converted everything to citeweb format

-Rewrote gameplay section

-Added reception section (I think this one needs improvement, not really sure how to go about it)

-Added more interesting details to story section and merged the fictional parts into one paragraph

-Tried to make the whole thing sound less bias.

Sebquantic 12:58 August 17, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Good job on this article. I've promoted it to B-class. I do, however, have some issues which I would love to have fixed. For example, none of the images, with the exception of the box-art, has anything to do with the text around it. That needs some re-organization and better image choice. Perhaps a revision of the image captions would help greatly.

Secondly, the lead is a very important aspect of the article, and it is only 4 lines long. I suggest the lead be organized the following way:

  • Paragraph 1: Name and developers/development process
  • Paragraph 2: Gameplay/maybe a little plot integrated
  • Paragraph 3: Aggregate reviews and release date

I would also like some more refs in the lead.

Another minor addition that would make the article look appealing is {{VG Reviews}}. Be sure not to over-fill that box; keep it at a minimum as to not expand beyond the text.

As for the cites, if you can wikilink the publishers, such as Funcom from current ref #31 and 32, or Gamespot from current ref #16 and 17, please do so.

Besides that, good job! This article is well on its way to becoming a GA if you keep up the great work. Congratulations! --haha169 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansions

Shouldn't the expansion articles (Shadowlands and Lost Eden) be merged to this article? --Mika1h (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


This sounds good to me, although the Shadowlands article is only a few lines long and doesn't really cover anything that isn't already here. As for the Lost Eden one, maybe we could add some sentences or a small paragraph in the Gameplay section about the mechs since they're definitely a unique feature. Then that Morten Byrom quote, and something about how Lost Eden and Notum Wars were geared toward player vs. player, could be put in the Development section. --Sebquantic 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anarchy Online/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA and will be adding comments below. It looks like an interesting, well referenced article.

  • "Anarchy Online is often referred to by the stability and registration issues present after its release in June 2001" - I think this sentence in the lead could be improved to be more clear.
  • Under Gameplay, you have three different wikilinks that redirect to Experience point, both Experience points, skill system and free-form. It is especially frowned upon to use misleading piping, as with skill system, especially since they all go to the same article.
  • "unique characters based on gender as well as several professions and breeds." - it might help at this point to give some examples, as later you refer to doctors and engineers which presumably fall under these categories.
  • Some more explanation of the Gameplay would be good.
  • In a third method to augment skills even further, player's can designate a percentage of earned experience towards "Research." - why the quotes and what is Research i.e. how does it help or benefit the player. What does the player do with it?
  • Just curious - can players form their own groups or organizations, or does the game have ready-made ones?
  • Under Development you mention "MMORPGs and MUDs" - you have not previously mentioned MUDS, so you should specify what it stands for. And why are you mentioning it for the first time here?
  • Especially under Reception, it would be good to combine some of the short paragraphs. It is not good to have many short paragraphs. They should be used only occasionally for effect.
  • "Alien Invasion's release in 2004" - you might explain here that this is an update. I had to hunt through the article to figure out what these names referred to.
  • Was there any Legacy, Impact or Aftermath to this game? Did it have any lasting effect in the game world or in popular culture? Especially since the article ends on a negative note that subsequent releases were not effective, it would help to explain if this game has any lasting importance.
  • "Craig Morrison said in an interview with MMORPG.com that "we hope to start comprehensive beta testing sometime [this] summer." - which summer is he talking about - give a year after his quote.

Thats all for now. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article Mattisse. It's always nice to get some outside feedback. A lot of your concerns about the Gameplay section were also brought up in this article's peer review, and I am currently working on parts of that section in my sandbox. Hopefully I can get all of what you mentioned fixed within 7 days. Sebquantic (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that I've fixed all the issues that you and the peer reviewers brought up about the article. Generally, smaller paragraphs were merged, "words to avoid" were fixed, the gameplay was elaborated, other subjects like the expansion packs were clarified, and other fixes. I added a few lines in the development section about the game's impact, although its hard to find more sources for that type of thing. The article in its current state is the closest I can get it to a GA nominee in my mind. Feel free to make your decision when you have time. --Sebquantic (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I have delinked the second instance. The article passes GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Sebquantic (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchy_Online/Archive_1&oldid=306838087"