Jump to content

Talk:Avatar (Ultima)

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

great article but....

[edit]

a suggestion dont forget all the different kinds of avatars for every game u know like in ultima 4 or 5 ( I dont remember) he was just some kid that got sucked into the realm....

Explaining my edits. Virtues not from religious sources.

[edit]

The Virtues were not from religious sources. I own the Official Book of Ultima, second addition, where Richard Garriott explained how it came about. The three principles the virtues are based on come from The Wizard of Oz. The Cowardly Lion sought courage, the Scarecrow sought truth/knowledge/intelligence(all the same in the Ultima games stats), and the Tin made sought a heart/love. And you only had the virtues from Ultima 4 onward, that the first game where any NPC you killed, stayed dead, you previously just having to exit town then return to get them back. Dream Focus 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...that's great but how does this article satisfy notability?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's two different and unrelated edits Dream Focus 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, how is the article on a subject any real-world importance? Is there any third-party coverage in any material? If not, it should probably be merged.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the general notability criteria:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

I don't see any sources or coverage in the article. It seems to be mostly original research. It should be shortened and merged into the character list with everyone else. It's not detracting from the importance of the character in any way, notability just works differently.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eight million hits for "Avatar" and "Ultima" and some of them are notable surely

[edit]

The virtue system has received plenty of coverage ever since Ultima 4 came out. The Avatar is a key part of that. There are 8,170,000 results when I Google for "Avatar" and "Ultima" together. Eight million! He is mentioned not just in reviews of the Ultima games, manga, and anime, but also as a notable character on his own. Dream Focus 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to actually use some of them in that case. Notability is not established by the number of hits in Google. Notability stems from using reliable sources to build development and reception sections that clearly break away from the main topic. TTN (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is determined by the consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment. The guidelines are suggestions, to be ignored in favor of common sense. Common sense says that millions of people have played the games, and the character was seen as notable enough to make cameo appearances in other games made by other companies, plus into various merchandise, then it is notable. Dream Focus 17:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over a thousand scholarly articles to look through about the Avatar

[edit]

I used Google scholarly search for the words "Avatar" and "Ultima" and then eliminated all the ones about Ultima Onilne. [1] Probably some good ones that mention Ultima Online as well, but I thought the results looked better without it. I added one reference to a publication on the study of the Avatar and his path. Dream Focus 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no redirect, consensus in merger discussion was no consensus to merge, plus AFD said keep

[edit]

Consensus was against merging. The guy trying to put a redirect here, was the one who sent it to AFD, it closing as Keep. Dream Focus 17:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD said keep without affecting the merge discussion. In other words the closing editor felt deleting the article was inappropriate. A redirect is a different matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you move the discussion from the character list to here?Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. I just wanted to mention my protests to him trying to redirect it, commenting on the article's recent change. The discussion should continue over there. And please, state your opinions. The more feedback, the better. Dream Focus 18:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tag up top complaining about the lead is longer than the lead

[edit]
  • Is there any reason to have this tag there? [2] Does this encourage anyone to go and write a longer lead? It just junks up the article, so I see no point in having it. Also the lead is fine, there no reason for it to be any longer for something like this. Opinions please. Should the tag be REMOVED or NOT. Dream Focus 15:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article's lead does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points.) Just as the template reads (PROTIP: actually read the improvement templates and also Wikipedia MOS in general). And welome to Wikipedia. If you think any improvement template "junks up" an article, consider fixing the issue(s) in question so you can then remove them one you're done. --Niemti (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any possible chance that anyone will read that tag and act on it? These sorts of tags get tossed up at times, and years later, no one has done anything but ignore them. Dream Focus 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do in this particular case:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning"). It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

Which is what you would learn if you ever bothered to click on the template's link to the relevant part of MOS, instead of asking for anyone's "opinions" (it's not a matter of opinion). --Niemti (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of opinion where some useless tag should be up there or not. There are thousands of Wikipedia pages that have that useless tag on them. [3] It doesn't encourage anyone to do anything but ignore it. Also, you just added another useless tag [4] claiming a section is unsourced, when obviously the primary sources for this sort of thing are fine, there no reason to doubt it. Dream Focus 17:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how to do this? For example. --Niemti (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think these tag are "useless", go and nominate them both for deletion. Btw: the article is rated only C-class probably for these very reasons. And if you still don't feel "encouraged" to fix these issues, it's not my problem - you'll need to learn to live with these tags until someone else improves the article. --Niemti (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most video game articles, I predict, won't get past "C" class. I, for one, would love to see each and every Ultima-related article be featured someday. Scottman 01 (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its been there since (August 2012) and its May 2018 now. No one can think of a way to enlarge it, or is ever going to do so, so the tag has no reason to be there. Other articles have short leads when there is nothing that needs to be added to them. I'm removing it. Dream Focus 02:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About being the stranger

[edit]

The Avatar wasn't really the stranger until Ultima V.

http://www.atarimania.com/st/boxes/hi_res/ultima_v_-_warriors_of_destiny_origin_systems_i_5.jpg

As opposed to the Ultima IV manual:

http://c64sets.com/details_db.html?id=3152&t=Ultima%20IV:%20Quest%20of%20the%20Avatar&i=History%20of%20Britannia%20page%201

http://c64sets.com/details_db.html?id=3153

In ultima IV it actually comes across as multiple different people rising up to fight evil. I understand the ret-conning that took place, but it's slightly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.213.154 (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avatar (Ultima). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avatar_(Ultima)&oldid=1200751212"