# Talk:Escape Velocity Nova

I recall authoring about 80% of the material (after there was a "needs improvement" or stub tag, forgot which). Apparently all the "significant" material (how it differs from previous EV games, its innovations and shortcomings, etc.) was removed, and almost 0% of my... 2-3 pages or so remains. While I understand that people have recently been feeling "less is more", what you have done is removed ALL the encyclopedic content and all you've kept is trivia (a giant list of the races) which I didn't write and belongs in either a highly condensed form or a specialized EV-wiki. Is it a fact of life on wikipedia that when an expert on the subject takes 3 hours to write a LOT of content, that NONE of it is kept? I'm fine with rewrites / condensations / modifications / outright removal of sections... but completely removing everything and replacing it with uninformative blather (no offense) is ridiculous. The only encyclopedic thing that was kept was the mention of the Plug-in system and how it affects gameplay and meta-gameplay. --Ninjagecko (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is pretty useless now. CryptoQuick (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is long and clanky enough already without the extra weight of ATMOS Software. --huwr 08:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible amendments to various sections can be discussed here:

   * 1 Overview
   * 2 Gameplay
   * 3 The EV Nova Universe: Setting & Plot
   * 4 Gameplay Criticisms and Comparisons
   * 5 Similar games
   * 6 Development
   * 7 External links

I've made the following changes:
Elaborated on gameplay greatly, corrected a few mistakes, and added the following sections:

1 Gameplay
   * 1.1 Genre and Overview
   * 1.2 Missions, Storylines, and Plot
   * 1.3 The Universe
   * 1.4 Gameplay Criticisms and Comparisons

I tried to flesh out the article by making it clearer for unfamiliar readers.
I also brought up a few controvertial topics (while trying to be as unbiased as possible).
I added a few links (e.g. to EVula's survival guide and mission walkthrough).
I also created a section on Development > Miscellaneous Facts to put some things that didn't belong in Gameplay.
Ninjagecko 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Ninjagecko

While I agree that the changes are good, I think what this article needs is less, not more. huwr 08:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed -- for one, the Factions section still seems to exist.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to only partially agree here. Clearly you cannot get a good article by taking a bad article and shortening it. Nevertheless, I've  removed the Faction section which someone posted (illegal copyright violation). I've wikified many things here and there, though there's more to be done. I've additionally rewritten the entire article, so now about 95% of material (excluding the factions section) has all been originally authored and revised multiple times by me. Consequently I've removed the needs-revision marker on the page ^_^. I think most people will agree that this is now a competent article. 18.243.2.31 11:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Ninjagecko
A few minutes after I made my revision, Misza13 reverted the article to the old state -- this was the state in which many people on this talk page considered unprofessional and in need of major revision, and which was also in violation of Ambrosia Software's copyright. Misza13 additionally left no mention in the talk page after reverting (as suggested by official Wikipedia policy). I thus un-reverted pack to the much-much-improved version.Ninjagecko 07:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last)  06:09, 21 January 2006 Ninjagecko (un-revert; revert by Misza13 has no comments on talk, and destroyed much material and re-added sections (e.g. factions) which were a copyright violation)
(cur) (last)  11:18, 20 January 2006 Misza13 (Popups-assisted reversion to revision 34589820)

[Added this section to the talk page. Ninjagecko 06:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Ninjagecko]
Some of this article seems to be a copyvio of the EVN Survival Guide.
I would think (please feel free to correct me) that the proprietor of the EVN Survival Guide is OK with part of it appearing on Wikipedia, due to the close-knit nature of the Nova/Ambrosia Community. I however, make no guarantees of this. Nfreader 02:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur that it appears to be, for the most part, a copy-and-paste operation.  As such, it is really unreadable and for someone not already intricately familiar with the series, mostly useless due to poor formatting.  I have tagged the article as in need of wikification.  Perhaps the article is in need of a Complete Rewrite in order to make it more useful. Lumbergh 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself to be familiar to the series, and even I can't handle this large article!  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think this "article" is nothing more than a guide to EVN. And that's exactly what Wikipedia is not. Most of it should be moved to Wikibooks. Maxistheman 02:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, could certainly do with some major cleaning up. Apart from a brief overview most of the factions section should go; it's also where most of the potential copyvio stuff lies. There's also a need for some more meta-information - how the game was written; critical reception etc.. -Scott Wilson 00:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The ships sections are copyvios from the game's description resources, I can guarantee (although likely taken from the Survival Guide).  Those should be cut ASAP except for a brief mention.  Yes, the whole factions section itself should be drastically cut down.  Once that's done, it will be back to a more proper stub. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the entire `Factions' section can go. In its stead, short paragraphs briefly explaining each major story-line in the `Gameplay' section. Once the Factions section has gone, writers can write about actual information; a section on the graphics engine improvements from the original EV could be nice. --huwr 03:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[Note: I didn't write the Factions section.] I agree with the Factions section being rather large; but it still maintains the feeling of an expository piece... it's not a guide or anything. I think the unwieldiness is rather a fault of Wikipedia for not having expandable subsections than a fault of content -- it just seems large and unwieldy I bet because it's a giant fully-written section plopped into the middle of a barely-started article. I've made it fit better into the flow of the article by putting 'Factions' in a section called "The EV Nova Universe: Setting and Plot".
I did some sleuthing and found the factions materials to be in copyright violation of Ambrosia Software (not EVula's webpage as someone mentioned). I took it down and completely rewrote it to be more ammenable to an article. Ninjagecko 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I re-added a chunk of the faction section, cutting out all the ship and outfit description which were confirmed copyright violations of the in-game descriptions. Any additional copyright violations should be double-checked and removed if they exist. I've additionally added a note at the top of the factions section saying that much of this information can be found in the plot addenda in the documentation folder of the EV Nova directory.Ninjagecko 07:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'd like to thank the people who removed the copyvio content that was pulled from my site. :) EVula 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that you could finish all of the plotlines with only one character.  I know that my brother visited that last system at least twice as the same pilot.  Can someone clear this up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaeamil (talk • contribs) 09:01, 4 May 2006  (UTC)

You can get back to the final system via plug-ins. In the stock scenario, you can only complete a single storyline with each character. EVula 15:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Criticisms section seemed a little misleading and argumentative to me, so I edited it slightly- hopefully giving it a more neutral perspective.Artifex0 5:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job. —Centrx→talk • 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just got the board game version of this game, and noticed there seems to be no mention of it on Wikipedia (aside from a short mention on the EV disambiguation page); Someone may want to make an article or add a mention to this article about the board game version. Details:
http://secure.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/store/hazel.cgi?action=SERVE&item=evncg.html
http://www.dgagames.com/EVN/EV_Nova.html
Essentially, it's a card-driven board game made by DGA Games (w/ exclusive license from Ambrosia SW) that is based on EV: Nova.
Keilaron 04:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do the criticisms have any basis other than the opinions of the author of the section?  Were they widely voiced in reviews of the game? If so, shouldn't they be cited?
Sections like this:
"Many missions require the player to repeatedly try and gain access to a planet or station while being blasted at by overwhelming forces. The idea, apparently, is that eventually the player may get lucky and be able to enter the planet/station or that the player might actually learn to use hit-and-run tactics as they should. Once the mission on the planet/station is completed, the player will have to try and get out of the system while being once again blasted at by overwhelming forces, though the game allows the purchase of an Afterburner specifically tailored for quick retreats."
... make it seem like someone got mad that they couldn't beat the mission and decided to complain about it on Wikipedia :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.127.51 (talk) 
I removed the one you pointed out, because:  A) It's not NPOV.  B) It uses an inapproperiate tone.  C) No real sources for it.  I have seen it as a complaint by some new players occasionally in time long time on the Ambrosia EVN Boards, but it never has been a criticism.  Most of those others crop up frequently enough on the boards, though I'll look into them with more detail later.
Addtionally, I removed a criticism about game-stoping bugs.  The current version of Nova doesn't have any bugs that prevents the player from completing any portion of the game.  TwilightPhoenix 06:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a merge template placed on the top of the page, suggesting the article to be merged with Escape Velocity (computer game).  I have to ask, what could possibly be a good reason for this?  The two are entirely seperate, notable games, with too much information to be condensed into a single article.  The games are not set in the same universe, nor do they even run on the same engine.  The only similarities are the gameplay, the name, the publisher, and Matt Burch owning the EV name still.  Unless there's a very good reason as to why the articles should be merged, I am going to remove the template, as at best there's no point.  At worst, merging would violate policy.  TwilightPhoenix (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The games are distinctly separate and are independently notable. Feezo (Talk) 21:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Totally agreed, merging them would be a Bad Thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
We still have yet to get a reason for merging.  If nobody objects, I'll remove the template tonight.  TwilightPhoenix (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't provided a clear reasoning - I could be mistaken, but it isn't clear to me that the games are separately notable (i.e. Nova is notable by itself, rather than as a continuation of the EV series) and it made more sense to me to have an article on EV alone rather than one on each segment. I thought this even in view of the fact that they are technically different, etc. I find it hard to credit that there is 'too much information' on EV and EV nova to fit in a single article - perhaps we're including too much information, or the view on what is too long as an article needs to be revised.
FYI - if you object to this merger, you may also object to the EV Override delete after that content was merged into EV (unless thats been reversed). Avruchtalk 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the redirect pending the outcome here. Avruchtalk 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
All three articles have a bunch of cruft in them, but they are still independently notable.  None of the games are a continuation of each other, they're just related in name, gameplay and some similar elements, much like how the Final Fantasy series is.  Plus there is plenty of secondary sources covering each game, though for the earlier two you might have to browse internet archives or dig up some old magazines to find them.
By the way, I've also looked into the EVO deletion and had it reversed so I could turn it into an article that meet's Wikipedia's standards and, hopefully, some day into a Good Article.  It'll be some time before it is in a good shape.  Check its talk page for more info.  I plan on fixing up EVC and EVN once I'm finished getting EVO into proper shape.  TwilightPhoenix (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is over-long and not particularly effective, but I can’t see a merger doing anything other than make this worse. David Arthur (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree against a merger, as well. 71.190.132.95 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the merge tag. GlassCobra 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Battle2.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 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 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) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a rationale to the picture.  I believe it should do, but it'd be great if someone else could take a look and make sure it suffices.  Now I need to really work on the EVO article...  TwilightPhoenix (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, it's good. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Can an owner of the content allow use? --pipeline (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, though there are certain conditions on what sort of permissions are needed for it to count as a ‘free’ image. Per WP:COPYREQ, the licence must allow the image to be not only redistributed, but also modified, and used for any purpose, including commercial ones. Wikipedia doesn't accept images that are licensed for use on Wikipedia only. David Arthur (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, David; I'll see if I can arrange to release the required images under those conditions. --pipeline (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

2006/2007? I played Nova back in 2004. ;) But you already removed the message, so this is redundant. --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 12:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I love EV Nova, and I was sad when I upgraded to a Win. 10 computer and could no longer run it.
When I checked Wikipedia to see what happened to Ambrosia Software, I was overjoyed when I saw a link to Endless Sky at the top of the page.
Buuuuut, that really isn't relevant. While I can understand why it's there(for old EV fans to find a new game), I can't find a good reason to keep it there. I'm keeping it for now, but...you know...it's not really meant to be there. CommanderStellar (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Why is there a link to Endless Sky? This is an inappropriate advertisement. There are countless titles similiar to Escape Velocity, for desktop operating systems or mobile. There is no reason to advertise Endless Sky.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.129.189 (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC) 
Agree that it seems like an unnecessary advertisement. There's a number games in this genre, and Endless Sky isn't even the only one that could be described as an EV clone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:150B:2F3:BC73:F04B:4D8D:E697 (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Escape Velocity Nova/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Overall a solid article, if short, but I understand that Mac shareware games are sadly not a huge wealth of information.

The lead could use a line explaining the general premise of the game.
Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or failed verification.
File:Escape Velocity Nova Gameplay.jpg could use with some beefing up of its fair use rationale to explain better why it's necessary to include.
The main weakness of the article is coverage. The reception section is rather lacking, both in reviews and substantial content from those reviews.
I found a few additional reviews of the game in MacNN, MacObserver, and GeekInsider (not entirely sure about the reliability of the latter, but might be worth hitting up WP:VG/S about it:) [1][2][3]
In terms of old Mac mags there's MacAddict [4] and MacHome (June 2002, although I can't find an online copy in a cursory search.)
There's a solid passage detailing how the original plugin for Nova was developed in The Secret History of Mac Gaming [5] that could be used to beef up the development section.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Absolutely, the coverage has been the Achilles heel, and it has been extremely difficult to find.  Honestly, I was very on the fence before sending this to GAN as to whether or not I was able to find enough.  I do want to thank you for turning up the MacAddict source; now that I have seen it, I actually recalled reading it myself in 2002 when the magazine came out.  I had been hesitant, though, to include MacNN and MacObserver because I questioned if they were indeed reliable sources or not - I'll defer to your judgment if you have one about any of them.  I haven't spotted the MacHome issue yet, either; I'll keep my eye out.  Otherwise, I have addressed the issues so far, as well as incorporated info into the development section as recommended.  Let me know what you think on the sourcing - I've added MacAddict and MacNN for now, and I'm not sure what to make of MacObserver.  Red Phoenix talk 23:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I think MacObserver works; it's been around for more than 20 decades, it's got an editorial staff, and it's got a number of bigger Mac journalists who have contributed. I dunno if it'd meet any higher threshold akin to FA standards, but especially since it's being used for opinion in a review I don't see an issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I've got a little more confidence in it now; the author of the article you shared is the same author as the MacAddict article.  I've added it.  Red Phoenix talk 00:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the reception section could still use a bit more work. Right now, it's just reading a list of what different critics though, rather than synthesizing them into a more useful and broad summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I buffed this up a bit more.  Past reception in video games I've done, I've received mixed messages during reviews on "synthesizing" and whether that's OR or not, but I think I've got it pretty ironed out where it's not like we need a cited source to say the sky is blue.  I'll let you have another look.  Red Phoenix talk 01:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, it looks a little better. I probably shouldn't have used the word "synthesis" since that ties into original research on WP, but what I mean is you want to summarize critical opinion where possible versus just layering individual opinions one after another. I will take another look at the article today or tomorrow and either pass or come back with anything else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)