Jump to content

Talk:Forumwarz

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

I can't believe this is notable but Zombo isn't. Kevin143 (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(see here) - Zombo.com was deleted because it had no reliable sources; there's three sound media features referenced on the Forumwarz article (Wired, Gamasutra and DigitalJournal have all featured the game). Neıl ☎ 00:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links... I'm aware of the reasoning here. I think it represents a flaw in Wikipedia, but I offer no solution for improving it. Oh well. Kevin143 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

To incorporate:

Will add them in over the next few days if and when I have time, but if anyone else feels like doing so, go for it. Neıl ☎ 00:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding

[edit]

Is it worth expanding the article, so it includes more about the game, such as about Klans and E-peen? Just a thought. Blazzeee (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, make sure you reference everything, though. Neıl ☎ 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To use later

[edit]

Wiki refs have to go.

[edit]

Currently references 14-24 have to be removed per WP:V. They're wikis, and any logged in user over there can edit them which means they're unusable as citation.--Crossmr (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis have a history, and each cite notes the date they were accessed. Unless any of the information is contentious (it is not), I don't see the big deal. fish&karate 10:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because anyone can add anything to them. Regardless of when they were created, or dates cited. There is no evidence that anything added on the dates cited was actually reliable. WP:V doesn't apply to only contentious information, it applies to all information.--Crossmr (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given more than enough time for someone to find reliable sources for this, or to explain why we should throw policy out the window in this case and I've seen an utter lack of either from anyone in regards to this page. If you truly feel the information isn't contentious then it doesn't need a cite, but you can't have a wiki as a reference. Feel free to remove the citation needed tags if you want, but the wikis have no place in there.--Crossmr (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original articles on the gameplay mechanics of Forumwarz were created by the game's creators. If I use permanent links to the original revisions of the articles, negating the unreliability of the wiki medium, and ensuring the content was added by the creators of the game, who would certainly count as established experts in this instance, would that suffice? fish&karate 11:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine. The only problem you might run in to there is the event that a gameplay mechanic changes, and one of the experts updates an article that a regular user may have edited since its creation.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical aspects

[edit]

regarding the single server: http://blog.forumwarz.com/2009/3/18/a-bunch-of-new-stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.206.155 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forumwarz. 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, 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) 11:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forumwarz. 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, 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) 19:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forumwarz&oldid=1202109727"