Talk:Star Trek: Birth of the Federation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Zone

This game may not be playable on the Zone anymore as the Zone site has delisted the game

KatherineVee 04:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

MESSAGE FOR::KatherineVee You can still play this game on the Zone, even though its deleted as the Zone still allows it through "Direct Play" option. --SanityFreeZone 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to the "unreferenced"-tag (November 2007) in main page, searching the net does not reveal any official pages or reviews about the game which qualify as reliable in the given wikipedia terms for source reliability. All remotely usable reviews are 8 years and older: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/startrekthenextgbotf/review.html?tag=tabs;reviews and http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9906/25/federation.idg/index.html . Since the vanishing of Microprose, no official site was put up again. The Atari BotF support site linked in the External Links section here on main page is the only official site to be found on the net and it is not very informative. Atari main homepage does not even list the game anymore (check via search there). I would say that in this case we either erase all data since it cannot be validated anymore or we agree that the data given here in this very version of the wiki is from now on our new "reference". In any way, we need to remove the "unreferenced-tag" on top of the wiki and replace it with a "unreferencable-tag". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.142.183 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

well, just a day after I wrote the remark directly above about botf being unreferencable, there's a brand-new review on ign dated December 7th: http://rr.pc.ign.com/rrview/pc/star_trek_the_next_generation_birth_of_the_federation/10395/77626/ so there is new material for this wiki entry to improve overall quality of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.158.110 (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Botfboxshot.jpg

Image:Botfboxshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista

Can it be played on Vista? If so, how? Tom Green (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 It can be played with vista using the inofficial 1.02 version patch from the afc forums (see link 
 in main page). Depends on your graphic cards though since there seem to be problems with 8800 
 cards..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.50.34.186 (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 

Interesting. You should add that to the article, down the bottom in the compatibility section. --Hibernian (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's still a random issue. From what people at the forums say, the game runs fine in vista without even compatibility modes or any patches. A few of them need the patch for some unknown reason (unknown because they can't or don't tell us) but generally it should work just fine.

Another thing is with Nvidia 8800 GTS cards. The original driver strikes. You need the omega drivers from omegadrivers.net but we only got 2 people reporting that issue cause they had that card and vista so it seems to be the solution, but I leave it up to anyone who actually has that equipment and can prove it with their computer to write it in main page. I simply don't have any proof about all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.50.8.43 (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename article

I suggest renaming the article to Star Trek: The Next Generation - Birth of the Federation. At least, this is how MobyGames lists it. SharkD (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

More discussion has occured here. SharkD (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

recent additions of text

I have reverted this edit for the following reasons. Lazarus did not create the multi installer, he also did not create the ultimate dominion mod as he is claiming. The site is a new one and is not by any stretch on the mind more popular the AFC Botf site. The site accuses a modder of theft and plagerisim. Which i know for a fact is untrue. Until such a time as these issues are resolved the changes being made are just not on mark nutley (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you can not remove someone's site as a result of your petty dispute. I am putting his site back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamergeek343 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding of neither fan site. They are not needed for wikipedia articles. --Vote4green (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing the link to Armada Fleet Command (AFC). It's not just a fansite, but is in fact the *only* site -- period -- of any real size still dedicated to Birth of the Federation (BOTF). In terms of membership size, playing experience, modding expertise/support, etc., there's no other site that provides anywhere near the same amount resources and support for the game. Removing the Wikipedia link to AFC would needlessly cripple the ability of other BOTF players' ability to take advantage of this. -- Rotarrin

Yes, but then the argument is why shouldn't www.birthofthefederation.net also be included? That site has a better design, more members and better organised content including youtube videos etc. --Vote4green (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

More members? Not hardly. AFC has over 8000 members at present. Lazarus' site has maybe a dozen or two. Also, as mentioned previously, virtually all the content on Lazarus' site was created by other people, yet he's claiming it as his own. This is not a site that should be promoted. -- Rotarrin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotarrin (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Any material not supported by independent reliable sources should not be included. This includes descriptions of fansites. Wikipedia also is not a repository of links, so any external links would need to go only to the official game site. TNXMan 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Vote4green (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Socks do not get to agree, not does your new ip 86.182.194.141 which has removed reliably sourced material, do not remove content which is wp:rs again mark nutley (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, are you claiming I am a sock of Tnxman307? As for my I.P. I forgot to login on that edit...yes that's my IP.. so what..--Vote4green (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::No you are a sock of banned User:DarrenBrown4645 your other sock is User:Gamergeek343 mark nutley (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC) ::::::Stop removing my talk page comments mark nutley (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you removed my question regarding COI.. I will add it again now..you can ignore the question if you wish but please do not remove it.. --Vote4green (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think we have a Conflict of Interest here.. mark nutley are you an Admin at Armada Fleet Command, correct? --Vote4green (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also it mark nutley's history reveal he has been banned from adding sources into other articles. Given the above discussion I wonder if it would be appropriate to extend that here? Here is one example (note this was originally brought up on another users talk page but I thought it would be appropriate to keep that discussion here. --Vote4green (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

4X GAME

Can I ask what is the source for calling this a 4X game and stating that it is similar to earlier Microprose works?

I know this to be true because i've played both games with my grandmother's help. We are Native Americans and are almost extinct -- before we die, we'd like to add a link to the 4X page -- but the reversion says there is no source for calling this a 4X game that is similar to earlier games -- but this article itself says it is 4X and similar to earlier games. But when i add deleted by birdman saying no sources

Why is it not possible to make this same statement on that article when it exists here? Why nerd no like us Help she is dying last of our chinese kind. -- 68.9.50.187 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved title to Star Trek: Birth of the Federation

Moved title to Star Trek: Birth of the Federation, per WP:COMMONNAME, more results in secondary searches for sources under this title. — Cirt (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality improvement project

My thanks to Miyagawa for the helpful ongoing Quality improvement project for this article.

Most appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)