Talk:Forge of Empires

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forge of Empires. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702001032/http://www.deutscher-computerspielpreis.de/226.0.html to http://www.deutscher-computerspielpreis.de/226.0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Needs Overhaul

This article is very poor: factually incorrect in many places; often out of date; and excessively detailed in spots while overlooking some major game elements. It's useless as an introduction to FoE for a new player; hopeless as a description suitable for a general audience -- even for heavy gamers who don't play this but want to check it out.

The unreliable game forum is used to cite article statements. It's hard to think of a worse place to find good info without an exceptionally careful search. Admittedly, there are few good sources. Inno changes the game frequently, often in critical ways. It's not easy to keep up, even as a daily player. Inno's official statements are usually true but rarely informative.

Suggest a considerable amount of cutting and tuning. There is no need for a tutorial or players' manual here; WP:NOT, MOS:VG. But the article should not be misleading and inaccurate; we should not distort the subject out of recognition; and there's no excuse for garbled, muddy discourse.

— Xiong熊talk* 20:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Forge-of-Empires-Battle-Map.png
• Forge-of-Empires-City-Management-Screen.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Re. Inline images.

The images were put "in line" because they related to, and illustrated the adjacent text. Orphaning them to the margin would have made them look like odd, random screen shots, not naturally linked.

Wikipedia is very keen to have evidence/references to what is said, not simply opinions, or assertions. In the absence of being able to point to links in the actual game, this seemed the best way to achieve that.

(This method of presentation may not be widespread within Wikipedia, but I'm sure it's well within its principles of accuracy and accessibility.)

The uploaded images had been of a higher resolution, but a bot automatically reduced them; whilst they are less clear, they are still legible, and do serve their purpose.

Chris uncle (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Inclusion of ("free-use") screen shots

It may not be a common way to present images, but it is against neither WP:OR (contains no "original research"), nor the Non-free use guidelines.

Wikipedia's raison d'etre is to be "widely accessible", in an "accurate manner with a straightforward, 'just-the-facts style'."

As argued before, they were put "in line" because they related to, and illustrated, the adjoining text. Placing them to a margin would have made them look like odd, random screen shots, not naturally linked.

Also, in the absence of being able to point to links in the actual game, this is as close as possible to meeting W's "verifiability" principle.

Chris uncle (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what Furious's argument is. I don't know if my comments above were read, but there's nothing in the guidelines which preclude inline images, especially the section cited (WP:OR). They just add to the comprehensibility. Chris uncle (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chris uncle: It's fairly unusual for sure and I don't know whether aesthetically it works as well as intended. I have not been against them as such to the point of wanting to remove them myself, but I do see the point of Furius too in thinking they're being used in a way not intended. If it came to a vote, i'd probably lean not having them in-line if the choice was that or the status-quo and it may get to a point where that needs deciding upon. Wikipedia is not a game walkthrough website. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There are two separate issues in my view. One is the formatting issue - the inline images totally screw up the line spacing of the page. The other is the Original Research issue - points should be cited to reliable secondary sources unless they are totally trivial. Saying that the introductory screen falsely represents gameplay is not a trivial point. If true, it ought not to be hard to find a reliable secondary source that points it out. Furius (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)