Talk:Wing Commander: Privateer

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (6 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (2 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Batch file text adventure games

The original Privateer, and Righteous Fire both included files that began with the words "tab". Examination of these files shows that they are in fact ".bat" files and that their name is simply reversed in their placement for the install.

The storyline in the adventures is completely unrelated to the Privateer story line, as such they are best classified as "Easter Eggs".

Just in case anyone was wondering... --Puellanivis 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remakes

After trying out all of the projects listed in the 'remakes' section, I can conclude that all of them are nowhere near the quality/playability level of the original. Be it a choppy/garbled intro movie, scenes on bases drawn in a small 640x480 rectangle instead of fullscreen, horribly pixelated cockpit, very unsteady and exagerated (joystick-like) controls which make aiming really hard, or remapping the original keyboard controls... The article doesn't state what the status of these remakes is, but from the above it is clear that they're currently only rough approximations and can not yet act as "better" replacements. Theultramage (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Remakes section. All the citations were to the projects themselves; the content made no indication that any third-party sources have offered coverage or commentary. It was essentially a collection of vanity project listings and links(pam) to the projects themselves. A "Remakes" or "Adaptations" or "Continuations" section would be appropriate if any of them garnered third-party press coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What??? How about looking for third-party sources before you remove a whole section? How about putting a template message for citation in the section? How about re-writing/adding if there's something misleading/missing (e.g. changing the title of the section to "Fan Projects" instead of "Remakes" because of disputed quality and licensing. And adding status of the "fan projects"). I remember putting in alpha status for one of the projects in my latest edit (source was of course only the project's website).

Please, don't forget that these fan projects (and the number of them) also says something about the reception of the original game, how fans still want to play (on newer PCs) and expand the original experience.

This is an important section! Please put it back in and take the neccessary steps for improving it!! Thanks --Bisco (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On a sidenote: I've played the "remake", "gemini gold" and the dosbox version and was quite satisfied with the quality and most of all with the ability to play this game again :o)

I did a quick search for those remakes and saw no evidence of significant or substantial third-party coverage. If I missed the multiple reviews and commentary from the professional gaming press, sorry; please restore the removed material and add appropriate citations. If such third-party content doesn't exist, then removing references from the vanity projects (regardless of their subjective quality) was appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself has no citations, no press reviews (only the moby games entry and a self-refering source from wing commander universe) - most of it is basically original research or isn't it? So should this all be deleted? Not only because of original research but also because lacking notability when there is no press coverage.

The fan projects have at least their own websites and downloadable files for everyone to see - they exist and say something about the reception of the original game (even if they were not playable). That there is no coverage in the press doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't important (not important for the world press but in relation to the importance of the original game).

I think removing such content (with only self-referencing sources) is not common practice (with the exception of statements about living persons). Wikipedia would be kind of empty and Category:Articles with unsourced statements wouldn't be needed. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources#Unsourced material. In my opinion adding a template message like {{Unreferenced}} would have been more appappropriate.

I read between the lines of your and mine comments that this dispute is also about wether these are "vanity projects" or are relevant to the subject of the article. So how can we resolve this? My argument (purely original research of course) is that making the game playable again has made some people (only fans of course) happy. I don't know how big this fanbase is, but I have chatted in different browser games with fans and seen polls in the game forums to think that 'Privateer' (and therefore the fan projects) is still important to gamers. So I try being constructive and improving the article from time to time instead of deleting content with disputable sources. --Bisco (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Deleting the content in the remakes section when the only information available is probably the project links does not serve the interest of this page or wikipedia in general. The fanatical adherence to "wikidoctrine" is undermining the value of wikipedia itself. Jeffery Thomas 21:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added some citations. SharkD Talk 06:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Privateercover.jpg

Image:Privateercover.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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source