Jump to content

Talk:Eve Online/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 22

Proper capitalization of the word "EVE"

The proper capitalization of the word "EVE" in "EVE Online" is "EVE", all capitals.

This was stated by one of the devs and it's final. Period. [1]

Demio (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Demio, you're right. The correct spelling of EVE Online is with an all-capitals "EVE". However, Wikipedia does not adhere to the spelling chosen by CCP. Wikipedians have set up the Wikipedia:Manual of Style that articles are to follow. Part of the Manual of Style is the trademarks guideline. The trademarks guideline says in a nutshell: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." More specifically it writes, "avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS, instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss."
Next time you intend to change the capitalization please make sure to check at least the latest archives of each Talk page. For example, the latest archive of the Eve Online Talk page, archive 15, has this very discussion about Eve Online's capitalization.
Up until November 8, 2007 the Eve-related articles were correctly spelled with a standard-English "Eve". Correctly as in that's how Wikipedia does it no matter what the copyright owners prefer. On November 8 I thought the same thing you did; that the game was spelled with an all-capitals "EVE" so I changed it without knowing I was wrong. It was only in April 2008 that I realized there was a guideline within the Manual of Style that specifically dealt with what I had done to the article. That's when I fixed my mistake and renamed all Eve-related articles to the correct version of "Eve".
I've started reverting your changes. The main article Eve Online is already back to normal. The Spaceships and Expansions articles are to follow. Changes that 62.49.110.249, 24.172.93.118, Richard Slater, RussBot and AlisonW had made to the incorrectly spelled article will be edited in here once I'm done reverting your changes. I'll post an update here when everything's back to normal.
On a side note: mext time you want to change capitalization please make sure you get everthing that has to be renamed. First of, use the Move function at the top of each article. Furthermore, rename not only the articles themselves but also the accompanying articles like Talk or To-do pages. Also make sure to change the spelling within each article.
-- Aexus (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted your changes, Demio. The Spaceships, Expansions and Eve Online articles now have their Wikipedia-style spelling back. Also, I went through the changes made to the incorrectly spelled EVE Online article in the few hours since your change. The only real change was by AlisonW. I've included that. See the developer misconduct section. As to the changes by 62.49.110.249, 24.172.93.118, Richard Slater and RussBot - 62.49.110.249 had changed the spelling of Eve to EvE, 24.172.93.118 had added a spam link reverted by Richard Slater. And lastly, RussBot had fixed the spelling of the Eve Online category after Demio's manual change. That's it.
Everything's back to normal and the edits that have occurred in the meantime are now part of the article.
-- Aexus (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you're assuming it's a word and not an acronym. The back story does not explain which it is [2], but if the builders were using Wikipedia MoS when inscribing their gate then perhaps we should assume that it is an acronym and therefore should be capitalised here... :p Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for undoing your undo so hastily. I thought you were just another vandal. I've undone my undo. Demio (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the page on eBay? That does not agree with the MoS Chaosandwalls (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
What about eBay, Chaos? And what about iPod? We may have read different revisions of the trademarks guideline. At least the current revision writes in the section Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter: "Trademarks that officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems [...]. Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules."
-- Aexus (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Images Discussion again

Sorry been away a long time... Continued from Talk:Eve Online/Archive 15#Images 2 and User talk:Aexus/Archive 1#Those images

5 images needed: 

  1. The pod for the Death section
  2. Concord ships for the Security index system section
  3. The fleet battle for the Combat section
  4. The market browser screenshot for the Economy section
  5. The Catalyst to illustrate the Background section

1. Pod: I like the one you suggested, lets use it.

2. Concord: Concord at gate, I agree the stargate jump thing muddles up the picture a bit, I'll see if I can take a similar one without the gate animation in it.

3. Fleet: Personally I prefer picture 2 to picture 3 due to some brackets appearing over the top of the helios, though the other picture does have both red and yellow in the overview, making it more interesting. Also since the recent patch that's the old helios model, so perhaps a retake in some FW battle would be better, I'll get snapping again...

4. Market Browser: image is great, use it.

5. Background section: Brutix Image] is ok, but I think something more iconic should be used. I'll have a look around at other pages to see what other games use as opening images and perhaps find some more appropriate images. Not that I think the brutix is bad, but that I think we can do better. cncplyr (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started with uploading the pod image to Wikimedia Commons. An admin has marked the image for deletion due to a likely copyright violation. Seeing that for example the old pod image has been up for 9 months it's possible that this new image will eventually be allowed, too. The old image apparently has been cleared through Wikimedia Commons' Open-source Ticket Request System, or OTRS for short. Before I upload the market browser image (and other images we're eventually happy with) I'll wait what the admin says. I'll keep you updated.
-- Aexus (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The admin has confirmed that he'll look into the issue. He's also said that maybe the old pod image has to be deleted, too, since its license doesn't state who has taken the picture. Updates follow. -- Aexus (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue with the pod image has been sorted out and I've uploaded the market browser image, too. Both images are now part of the article. As for the Concord and fleet images, alright :) I'm curious. For the new background image you gave me an idea. Why indeed not look at other articles and how they beautified their background sections. I headed out to the Anarchy Online, Dark Age of Camelot, Entropia Universe, Guild Wars, MapleStory, Ragnarok Online, Second Life, Silkroad Online, Tabula Rasa and World of Warcraft articles. Right at the beginning in the Anarchy Online article I saw its box art. We don't have to use Eve Online's box art but how about something different done by the developer? Something with a more professional touch than a player-created screenshot. After all, CCP must have had countless opportunities to make a good first impression with a single image. I took a look at the screenshots at eve-online.com and the ones posted at the Empyrean Age feature site. Here are the Empyrean Age screenshots: EA1, EA2, EA3, EA4, EA5, EA6, EA7 and EA8. And here the eve-online.com screenshots: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. What do you think of, say EA6 or EA8? Or the idea in general, for that matter ;-)
-- Aexus (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, I have to admit I hadn't looked at other pages yet, and quite a few of them lack any inspiring images at all save the box arts. Also, I don't actually know what EVE's box art looks like! haha. As for using their own screenshots, can we use them? If yes, I say go ahead! I also like EA1, but I think my preference is EA6, though probably some cropping to concentrate on the interesting part of the picture and make it more striking on the article is needed. I'm going to be unavailable for a few weeks again, so go ahead, any of EA1, EA6 and EA8 look fantastic IMHO :D cncplyr (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded and linked the EA1 screenshot. As for the permission to use this image, I think that'll be alright. When PatríciaR cleared the pod image on Wednesday she added the appropriate template for Commons' Open-source Ticket Request System to the image. In the revision history she also wrote that "this permission must be on all images from this game." See revision history of the pod image. So I think that with the OTRS template in place there won't be objections. If I'm wrong I'll know it sooner or later.
-- Aexus (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In the past I have sought and gained explicit permission for each screen shot in the article, the EA[1-8] screen shots are a little different though as they have the CCP copy right printed on them - which might pose an issue. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Errors

This article is protected, so there needs to be a section to list errors. For example: "Moreover, corporations and alliances have the ability to manufacture Player-Operated Starbases (POS) that mine resources from moons in a system. Each POS requires substantial logistical support to remain in operation, but once an alliance mounts and maintains such facilities at the majority of moons in a system, it achieves the status of sovereignty and remains so until an enemy destroys enough POSs and replaces them with its own.[32] " is incorrect. POS's cannot be manufactured - they must be purchased from NPC characters ('POS blueprints' are actually for upgrading an existing tower - there is no way to manufacture a tower from scratch). Additionally, this incorrectly implies the primary purpose of POS's is moon mining - towers deployed for soveregnity purposes are rarely moon mining towers, as using a tower for mining cripples its potential defenses. POS's are deployed for several reasons - mining, soveregnity, use as a safe staging ground, research, and manufacturing.

67.132.198.254, the article's semi-protection means that you can change it once you use an account. Since you know how to improve the Combat section anyways, may I suggest to be bold and edit the article yourself? -- Aexus (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Poor Monetary Structure

It should probably be added that the company has tried to implement a form of lending, but it is woefully inadequate due to the fact that it is only functionally initiative from the lender's side, thus it's really not used on a large scale. In other words, the game allows players to put up offers to lend their money. They cannot put up offers to borrow money. Also, intracorporate lending is the only player to player lending allowed. Such incomplete structures and capital controls hinders the economic development. However, it should be noted that including items as a option would make the lending market even stronger if the stated problems were fixed. That is a major first for MMO economies, that players may lend items.

Foreign exchange is a hodgepodge of superstition. The game takes payment in foreign currencies only, real world currencies such as the Dollar. In other words, it doesn't take payment as taxes from within the game. True, it takes taxes, but it doesn't sell those taxes into a foreign exchange market for real world currency needs since it has forbidden foreign exchange. The restrictions on foreign exchange cause massive poverty in the form of rapid foreign exchange rate declines seen at the black markets and the typical subsequent effects.

It does not attempt to control inflation through a monetary authority, an integral mechanism of currency management. Since there is no monetary authority, there is no conscious addition and removal of cash relative to inflation. Inflation statistics aren't even published at all. The alternative inflation controlling measures, the so-called "sinks", are really just taxes that make the players poorer than they would otherwise be, in effect forcing them to work harder than what would otherwise be necessary.

If inflation isn't fixed before all other problems, the economy will probably suffer record instability. The boundless real world examples should be referenced to improve the very vital market economy.

--

As a personal opinion, this probably is the result of rampant superstition among the computing industry, the hysterical response to economic phenomena. It should be expected since superstitious political economy still maintains some sort of moral superiority to actual economic science in this modern world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.80.38 (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

75.66.80.38, if you feel the need to improve a section or add a new section to the article, feel free to do so. The worst that can happen is that editors disagree with your change. Personally, I don't have an opinion about the topic yet. Wikipedia is about assuming good faith in what editors write. The first thing that came to mind when I read your paragraph was, "obvious troll is obvious." I don't understand what you'd like to change in the article. Whatever it is you'd like to improve, please make sure to provide neutral sources that support your claims. Claims such as
  1. "the economic development [is being hindered]"
  2. "including items as a option would make the lending market even stronger"
  3. "Foreign exchange is a hodgepodge of superstition"
Also, when you move onto the topic of inflation make sure to review and include sources like the Quarterly Economic Newsletter (QEN) and its view on inflation and deflation.
-- Aexus (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge "Spaceships of Eve Online" with "Eve Online"

The following is quoted from the Spaceships of Eve Online Talk page.

A Man In Black today replaced the Spaceships of Eve Online article with a redirect to the main Eve Online article. A Man In Black, if you feel the need to do that I suggest you do it the right way. You can...

  1. ... suggest to merge this article into the Eve Online article. Read WP:MERGE for instructions.
  2. ... suggest this article to be deleted. Read WP:AFD for instructions.
  3. ... discuss the matter on this very Talk page and seek a consensus with other editors.

There may be more ways to deal with this article. However, replacing its content with a redirect rule without gaining a consensus one way or the other is not the way to go. I consider it vandalism. I ask you to not do that again.
-- Aexus (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's stop faffing around about process, and talk about content.

What content in this article do you consider not a game guide? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read it - and it's a games guide - if we cannot argue on either merging of any (and I don't think it exists) content or a direct, this should be sent to AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I listed it on AfD in March, unfortunately the discussion ended in a no-consensus trainwreck amidst a number of keep votes from well-known "vote keep on everything" editors, and such ludicrous arguments as "deleting this article would ruin a lot of people's live". I don't see any policy-based keep votes there. --Stormie (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not worry about the AFDs. Let's focus on the article now and the potential for merging content somewhere appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole re-direct was a little sudden. At the very least if you're doing to suddenly re-direct it to the main article, add the info that was here to it?
Although the main reason that this page is here in the first place is because the main EVE article was getting very long because of all the info. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest - that suggests that the article needs to be cleaned up - not folk off non-notable content when the original becomes "full". --Allemandtando (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that there is already a Wikicities EVE-Wiki (eve-wikia.com), at least 1 other using the same (or a very similar) engine (eve-wiki.net) and 2 others running on or with EVE's own in-game system, as well as the announcement by CCP that they are developing their own Wiki for the game, I would suggest that this article be reduced to a minimum, with External Links to one or more of the other wikis, and that all other EVE-related articles be merged, then deleted and salted. In this way, superficial querents get the key-note version, and crufters can go read the full story elsewhere. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose and oppose; the merge proposal on the grounds that the combined article would be unjustifiably long, the reduce to a list of links (Simon Cursitor's idea) even worse; just because there is other information 'out there' in no way means that we should not seek to do our best, indeed it is a contradiction in terms of why we are here! --AlisonW (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a straight merge of the articles would leave the Eve Online article excessively long. The spaceships article reads very much like a game guide, that is not to say that it could not be re-written and re-worked to become a notable article in itself. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article was originally a part of the Eve Online article that was split off from the main article for length. To deem that it should now be moved back to its original article is unneccessary. As for the topic's significance, while it currently reads very much like a game guide, the article can easily be modified to read as an article on the fictional ships in the fictional universe of Eve in the same nature as articles on the ships in star wars, etc.TheCommodore7 (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
And why's that an improvement? most of those articles should be deleted anyway. You could make an argument about a couple of them but by and large, the material isn't there to construct an article. Where is the 3rd party analysis for those spaceships, where's the discourse? --Allemandtando (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
The Spaceships article may very well be shortened; even considerably. As an estimate, the article is currently twice as long as the Eve Online article yet it has only about 90% of its size kilobyte-wise. Since the Eve Online article has its info highly condensed I'd say the Spaceships article wouldn't lose any valuable information if we trimmed it down to one third of its current length. Or less.
Removing the article entirely, on the other hand, would remove material about an integral part of the game. In-game there are currently no avatars. Players have their portrait; other than that its the ships that represent them. For example character creation in Anarchy Online, classes an races in Dark Age of Camelot and residents and avatars in Second Life explain these games' approaches to avatars. While their versions may fit into their main articles that's not necessarily true for Eve Online. Contrary to other MMOs players in Eve are not represented by one of, say ten classes. Or ships in this case. The in-game representation of an Eve player can be one of dozens of ship classes; it can be one of several so-called Tech levels and hull sizes. Each with their own characteristics.
Up until December 2005 editors tried to fit this basic information into the main article. They eventually decided to create a separate article. The only thing that should really bother us is that the separate article has attracted game guide-like information ever since the split-off. That's where I'd like us to tackle it. Not with deleting it. What doesn't belong there are for example ship popularity assessments, usage tips, fluctuating in-game costs and ships owners to name a few. Let's condense the Spaceships article back to its encyclopedic basics.
-- Aexus (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's almost all either in-universe or gameguide, a straight AfD is probably better than a merge. (I'm prone to referring to a delete-and-redirect as a merge anyway, but that apparently horrifies inclusionists.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Aexus put is quite succinctly: spaceships are as integral to EVE as classes are to any other MMO. The article weathered a similar AFD already, and so deleting it altogether seems rash. Merging might be an option but, as stated above, since ships and their capabilities are the heart--one might say they're the whole point--of the game, there is a lot of legitimate material. Nutshell version: Trim Spaceships, yes; merge, no. Ourai тʃс 04:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Logo cutout

The logo used for the infobox is the one for Trinity, perhaps it should be updated to the Empyrean Age one? Arachon (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

But the Trinity one is just so much cooler!...Ah, well. Have to keep up with the times, I guess. (Or we could just use the original logo and not have to worry about it. But that would be too easy.) DerekMBarnes (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Derek's suggestion. I don't have anything against the former logo. What do you guys say? Instead of changing the logo for new expansions we revert back to the former logo we had until Cody's change on April 19, 2008? I'm all for it.
-- Aexus (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a place for up-to-date information. Using a five year-old logo isn't exactly up-to-date. I say go with the Empyrean Age logo, since that's the current one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.100.60 (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, 71.205.100.60. You're of course correct in that the article should have up-to-date information. The Empyrean Age logo, however, is only up-to-date for the expansion of the same name. It's similiar to the relation between the World of Warcraft article and its logo and the World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King article and its logo. Or the logos from the Guild Wars and Guild Wars: Eye of the North articles. If we were to be consistent we should move each new expansion logo like the ones for Trinity and Empyrean Age over to the Expansions article. Which would leave the original Eve logo as a reasonable choice for this article.
-- Aexus (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Aexus on this, if you look at CCPs Press Kit they only list the "trinity style" logo with relation to the CCG, the logos for EVE itself are the monochrome "EVE" and "EVE Online" logos. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with the universal logo suggestion. The article is about EVE Online, not The Empyrian Age in specific.~~ Nicholas A. Chambers (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the Trinity logo with the generic Eve Online logo. As for the expansion logos like the ones for Trinity and Empyrean Age, I haven't put any of them in the Expansions of Eve Online article yet. What do you think, does it make sense to replace the logo in the article summary with each new expansion logo? Or maybe put expanion logos as smaller images into their respective sections?
-- Aexus (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The trinity cutout I uploaded could be used as the generic EVE logo, if it just said "Online" at the bottom (instead of "Trinity"). I could try to make / or find a version of the trinity style EVE logo that just says "EVE Online" on them. The generic logo works sure, but the trinity-style one is more of an updated - and cooler - rendition of the EVE logo (I think some of you mentioned that :P). Maybe sometime we can agree on a new one to replace the generic logo :) Cody-7 (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand your preference for the Trinity-style logo but I'd like us to stick with the logos the way CCP provides them. The Trinity logo fits perfectly for the expansion of the same name. We just have to decide whether we want each new logo in the Expansions article; and if so, where we want them. For the silver-blueish Trinity logo the Trinity writing belongs underneath the logo. I'd leave it in its current form. What do you think, Cody? Do the expansion logos make sense for the Expansions article?
-- Aexus (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge "Expansions of Eve Online" with "Eve Online"

Albeiror24 has suggested to merge Expansions of Eve Online with Eve Online. The Expansions article remains tagged with the appropriate template until this discussion has reached a consensus. Please post your opinion about merging the articles and your reasoning.

I suggest we do not merge the Expansions article into this main article. Here's my reasoning. In January 2008 Eve Online was nominated as a good article (GA). See the archived discussion surrounding the GA nomination for more information. As you can see in the archive David Fuchs, the administrator in charge of the nomination, noted tasks that needed to be done for the article to be considered as a good article. One task was to remove the expansions from the article. Eve Online's revision from January 12, 2008 shows how the expansions were organized then (see the revision's Development section). Afterwards editors started overhauling the article. I moved the expansions to their own article.

In order for the Eve Online article to be considered as a good article the expansions had to be removed. Alatari and I were convinced that the expansions were too important to be simply deleted. That's were Expansions of Eve Online came into play. We were aware that an editor might suggest merging the Expansions article back into this main article. However, that's neither an option in its current form nor in its form before the revision from January 12, 2008. Either way would be prone to hamper the next good-article nomination.

On a side note, on the Expansions article's Talk page Alatari and I have collected arguments to keep the article where it is as well as possible counter-arguments to expect.

What do you think about merging Expansions of Eve Online with Eve Online?
-- Aexus (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The main article is large enough as it is without the added content regarding the expansions. There is enough information and detail in the expansions page to warrant it being separate. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 10:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As TheChrisD has said the article is large and unstable enough as it is, whilst I am keen to avoid trying to turn Wikipedia into a tome of EVE Information, the expansions section is a page that is going to increase in size and change reguarly and could eventually equal the EVE Online article in size, as such I believe that is sufficent justification for having a separate article. I also believe that the expansions do warrant their own article as it charts the history of EVE development. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
OpposeThe main article is too long as it is, and cannot support the addition of the expansions article, and the information in the expansion article is notable enough to deserve it's own article.Mdlutz (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Opposecncplyr (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Both the article are very long merging expansion set article with eve online makes the article even more longer. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Aexus (talk explained the argument against merger incitefully. The current article has already been tagged with a 'article maybe too long' tag. Eve Online is a popular MMO with a growing user base and it's Python Software development software is a platform for other popular projects. The developmental history of it's expansions is therefore notable and written in a viewpoint that an otherwise interested reader who never played the game would draw useful information from. Alatari (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eve_Online/Archive_18&oldid=1144743123"