Mardek RPG

Well, first post! W0000!

I'd presume the talk page will be the place for all the discussions about this when we're not on Figgie, or will we just keep it all on Fig Hunter?

--Phoenix Pyres (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

(I assume we can just divide up this article according to which section we want to talk about, and have all the general discussion at the top?)

What are the criteria for being a "permanent party member"? Is it that they're a party member every chapter after the one they appear in and join your party? If so, that would apply to all party members except for Deugan and Emela. Ben1005 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot say any more defined criteria for permanent party member. I figured that I wouldn't count Steele as a party member, but he was in the party once after all. I suppose that permanent members can be selected to the party for a prolonged amount of time, not for a single battle only like Steele, Bartholio and Aalia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostguard (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am more or less finished with the 'permanent party members' part (in fact, all characters who are played throughout the three chapters, except for Steele, Bartholio and Aalia as they are available only for a single battle each) - for the time being, that is. I am definitely going to revise this section in a short time, but... I am facing some problems. I am getting the feeling that I am using certain words too often, and I thought that it may be a good idea to create a 'mini-thesaurus' here, so that we all have a wider selection of words to choose from. I'll list the expressions I have trouble with (generally), and add the alternatives I have been using. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience I'm probably causing with this, but I've never been that creative type and prolonged writing can make it even worse. -- Frostguard

Character: Party member
Skill: Spell (I used it only when referring to magical skills), ability(?), attack(?)
Statistics: Attributes, Stats (I didn't use this one, it seems too informal to me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostguard (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to write bios for the rest of the characters? If you don't mind, I was going to start writing for characters falling into the "Heroes, Other" category. I think those would only include Bartholio, Aalia, Vennie, and Bernard. Ben1005 (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine by me; there are other sections to work on, I think it's the best if everyone does what they want to. Frostguard (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving that category to you, then; but I thought that I'd start working on others (such as the Governance de Magi) as I wouldn't like to be idle. Frostguard (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay tables

Moving some comments here...

Are the tables really necessary? I would think that it would be better for a Wikipedia article to talk more about the plot than to talk so much about details of the mechanics....
— LurkingShoelaces (SilverShoelaces)

I'm not sure. If the people think that if they aren't, feel free to delete them; It seems that it's just me, I'm prone to start wandering around to details when writing. I'm sorry if I'm causing any inconvenience.
— Frostguard

It's best not to describe gameplay in such detail that you would need tables. In other good video game articles, it looks like a few concise paragraphs should be used. Also, this is useful to look at when writing a video game article, in general. Merlin^s orca 04:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree. Do read WP:VG/GL and follow its suggestions. The tables are, I think too much. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll get rid of them, then. Frostguard (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Review

Hi guys hope the article is going well, and it certainly looks pretty good thus far.

I've asked an independent editor and admin on here to take a look once the page is done to check it complies with Wikipedia standards. His user page can be found here if you want to check the validity of the editor, or check whether he has replied to me on his talk page, as I may not visit it very often: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DESiegel

Best of luck guys, and good work!

--Phoenix Pyres (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking and I'd be glad to review a draft article when ever you have it ready for review, or close. Perhaps the most important thing is to clearly indicate why the subject is notable -- without this any article will be deleted fairly rapidly. Notability should be supported by citations of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This means no blogs, no fan forums, no press releases. Feel free to ask me or any experienced editor or at the Help desk if you aren't sure what a reliable source is in a given case. DES ^(talk) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a quick look at the sections you have drafted so far. The level of detail is high -- quite possibly too high already. What is strongly needed is a "lede" (or lead section) which explains what the game is and gives context to the whole article. More reviews and references are crucial, and ones cited to more sources would be good. If there are reviews in print magazines that will be particularly good. DES ^(talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reliable sources

WP:SPS says that we generally shouldn't use stuff such as blogs as references, but we can use blogs as "sources on themselves". So we are allowed use some of the resources on Fig Hunter by Pseudolonewolf to describe the MARDEK games, but not blogs of other people. Merlin^s orca 17:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can, but you should do so sparingly. The classic example is an article about a person. Then that person's blog is a reliable source to confirm that the person has said this or that, and for basic biographical detail, such as the person's birth place, residence, etc, if these are not disputed. Factual statements about gameplay may be sourced to a blog by the game's creator, although if they can be sourced to the game's or the game company's official site that would be better. Statements about the creator's plans or intentions can also be sourced to such a blog, although if there is, say a published interview that would be better. But don't overdo such citations, and don't use them to support statements of opinion. In any case having multiple independent reliable sources cited is crucial to establishing notability. The blog will not help with that at all. Statements of opinion should be attributed to a specific person (or entity, say a publication for an unsigned review) and should be cited specifically to the place where the person whose opinion it is published it or is quoted by a published reliable source. If negative opinions have been published, those should also be mentioned and cited. Oddly, those can actually help establish notability -- the more that has been published about a subject, good or bad, the more notable it is, as a rule. But in any case including both positive and negative opinions is part of the neutral point of view. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently

Always replace "currently" by, or qualify it with, an exact date. It may stay in an article for years, and readers may not know when it was first written and so what date it applies to. Similarly, never give dates as just "June" or the like -- always give a full year. Think "how will this be read if it is still in the article three years from now?" DES ^(talk) 03:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, that makes sense...thanks! Merlin^s orca 07:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and sources

If you need more sources for reception, here are a few: 1 2 Even this page can be a valuable source; as of August 2012, the game has 4.26/5 stars (rated by 31,835 people), and has been played over two and a half million times since it was released in 2010. On Kongregate alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverShoelaces (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 August 2012‎

Unfortunately 30minutegamer is a blog, and so is not considered a reliable source unless it can be clearly shown that this blogger is a recognized expert in this field (video games, or some related topic), and tvtropes is an open-content wiki, and so is pretty much never considered a reliable source. Do read the reliable source page linked above. If 30minutegamer were a reliable source, this would be exactly the sort of review to quote and cite as a source. Play counts and user ratings are of less value -- they can be quoted, but don't much help to demonstrate notability. DES ^(talk) 01:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length

The draft is getting rather long. In particular, the Storyline section seems significantly longer and more detailed than I would advise. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Inappropriate content, particularly #5 "Excessive fictional details".

You might look at the article Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars, particularly the relative length of the plot and reception sections. Also have a look at Talk:Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars to see the work they did to get "Good Article" status (this is a fairly high level, which most articles do not ever attain). DES ^(talk) 02:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'll start working on making it shorter soon. Frostguard (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make a shorter version. I hope that this will be better. Frostguard (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]