Jump to content

Talk:Lego Universe

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

Steam

[edit]

I just looked and the game is NOT available on Steam currently. 71.179.81.244 (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

It's not working any more. Please write system requirements in the article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.166.23 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Universe Closed Edits

[edit]

I have reduced the importance to NA as the game has close. Anyone disagree? Mdann52 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived all previous discussion about beta, as they are, and probally won't be relevent again
Also, now that Lego Universe is closed, is it worth me going through the article and putting it into the past tense? Mdann52 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:VG, importance is mandatory for all articles. I re-instated Low. Salvidrim! 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours

[edit]

As I have said (and undone) numerous times, stop adding information about Lego Universe reopening, unless supported with a reliable source. I will remove any such material, as the infobox I have added states. As WP:NOT states, wikipedia is not "a crystal ball". Therefore, please stop this, and let me get on with helping on other parts of Wikipedia Mdann52 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrisponsibility How irrisponisble of them I WILL NOT BUY FROM THEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.172.243 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lego Universe. 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) 06:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration Projects

[edit]

There are a small amount of fan-made restoration projects, that aim to write a server emulator to be used with the original LU client. All of those have successfully gotten a multiplayer server to work, though in variable degrees of completeness. As by now, these projects do have websites that could be used as primary sources, I am wondering whether it is appropriate to mention them here. Relevant projects would be: https://lcdruniverse.org, https://www.darkflameuniverse.org/ (DLU) and https://lureborn.com/ (LUR).

All of these are currently closed-source and currently only open to a select group of testers, though verifiably working (e.g. youtube videos typing 2017 in in-game chat, while completing missions). These project are similar in scope and loosely tied to the now discontinued LUNI open-source server project, though all three above-mentioned projects are completely independent implementations and darkflame and lcdr are actually older than this.

In terms of copyright and legality of these: The LEGO Group has contacted projects before and tolerates their existance, provided they, are non-commercial, notify any user that: "The LEGO Group has not endorsed or authorized the operation of this game and is not liable for any safety issues in relation to the operation of this game" and (implicitly) are compliant with LEGO policy of ensuring a child-safe environment.

Most of the above is information that I find relevant in judging whether something like this should be included on the actual wikipedia article. I'm not however implying, that all that information should be included; in fact I would advise against that. As I've been personally involved in some of those projects, I would like some feedback on whether the available source material justifies an addition to the article instead of just writing such an addition and citing material which I know exists. I can link to some additional material in case someone is interested.

Xiphoseer (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As is with most, if not all, content on Wikipedia, this will need identifaiably reliable sources, that is news magazines or gaming journals (web or print) to confirm the notability of these services. Simply using their own webpages as verification is not sufficient, as all content could (potentially) be fake, if that is the case or not. At WP:VG/SE, you can find a custom Google search engine that only lists sites our WikiProject considers reliable, maybe you'll find something there. Lordtobi (✉) 08:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute discussion

[edit]

@Wincent01 and @Goldenfullness, please discuss your content dispute here and attempt to come to an agreement without further edit warring. Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malinaccier The edits by @Goldenfullness are targeted spam. The site being linked is not official, and in fact illegal and breaking multiple LEGO Group policies (selling IP they dont own, using the LEGO trademark in a way that implies endorsement, etc). This has been an ongoing issue that has spanned multiple platforms. Those involved in that site have been banned in many of the largest community areas (LEGO Universe Community Hub, which I run, and the LEGO Universe wiki on Fandom, which I have close contacts with the admins). This is a bad actor. Luxaritas (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also per the discussion just previous on this talk page, this source is definitely not reliable Luxaritas (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Malinaccier
Hi, as you can see I asked about fan restoration projects many years ago and got a clear reply: Unless they have notable sources reporting on them, they are no fit for Wikipedia.
Since then a bunch has happened, most importantly the release of the open source DarkflameUniverse Server, which did receive limited media coverage.
We have good reason to believe that "The LEGO Universe" is a badly run, but agressively promoted instance of Darkflame, with very little regard for respecting both LEGO and Darkflame Contributor Intellectual Property.
For these reasons, please remove any mention of "The LEGO Universe" and lock the page for editing and/or prevent Goldenfullness from further causing edits/reverts promoting that project.
Kind regards Xiphoseer (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Malinaccier
User:Ohnoitsjamie I suspect the latest edit by anonymous IP are by the same persona or someone tied to Goldenfullness. Their allegations are untrue, with the explicit caveat that of course you should be careful downloading software off the internet.
I can provide more details via E-Mail if you're interested, but that should not be relevant here. I'd appreciate if you restored the original text before the edit wars, ideally with the fixed tweet references (the ref was moved back when the last sentence was added).
All the relevant events happened a few years ago. The biggest difference is that "public" server showing up and editing all kinds of wikis / forums to promote themselves and making libelous claims about Darkflame Universe. Xiphoseer (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lego_Universe&oldid=1243072986"