Talk:Master of Magic

message: The criticisms section has some claims that are unsupported and aren't NPOV
If you could have a "critics such as Y claim" type of statements, it would ease the NPOV issue.  i kan reed 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I overhauled the whole page :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed and edited the section that has been specifically highlighted for NPOV.--Soulparadox 19:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: Who wrecked this articles quality? There were over 20 mistakes in both spelling and grammar in the opening section alone! Ive attempted to fix them but I dont have time to go over the whole article right now. Poor form guys. --Havoc8844 22:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm wondering where the page ends with a Civilization template?  This is not a Civilization game. 12.107.192.178 (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality

message: This article contradicts itself by saying that Stardock is currently developing a sequel (at the top) and no sequel is planned (at the bottom).  Which is it?  Last I heard, Atari (vis a vis Infogrammes, who got it from Hasbro, who bought Microprose) had sold the rights to all old Microprose stuff to Sid Meier.  Anybody got anything here?  I didn't see a citation, so...
:both are rampant speculation.  I'm currently feeling too lazy to clean it up. i kan reed 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nah, Stardock did try to bid for the license, but it fell through. So they decided to go ahead with their own mom clone (will be called something else obviously). That's the "Sequel" that is being referred to in the article (also see cite). I'll fix it Aarontay 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of copy editing for tone, I have updated the sequel situation in the final section.--Soulparadox 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel talk? 

message: The game has uncanny similarities to MTG. Has this been discussed by any reliable source?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having played both games, I'm not really sure what you're referring to.  Other than the fact that both games have magic of different types and allow you to cast spells and summon creatures (hardly unique ideas), there's not really much in common.  Successful play in Master of Magic requires spending a considerable amount of time in properly developing your cities and populations.  There's nothing even remotely close to those elements in M:TG. --Junior612 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a really old and tired debate that has gone on the net for ages. Supporters of the MTG influenced MOM or vice versa would point out to the fact that besides the 5 color magic , there are many spells with exactly the same names (and not standard d&d names even) . E.g Dark rituals , mana leak. Their opponents would say this is just coincidence and/or that such systems are pretty generic. Obviously MOM is different from MTG in that the former is based on civilization and the latter is a CCG, but the feel of the magic system is quite close. The release dates of the two games themselves can't really help, because they are pretty close (there is some uncertainty on when MTG/MOM was released also, if you take into account play testing/beta), and nobody knows for sure except the designers of the magic whether they were aware of MTG when they were working on MOM. Speculation is that they probably weren't at least when they first started the project (assuming fairly long development times),but it is not impossible for them to become aware of it in the later stages.. but this is all original research.Aarontay 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it's fairly obvious that MoM was influenced by MTG.  I was a player of the card game when I bought Master of Magic and (to me) it was obviously inspired by MTG when I first played it.  As pointed out, many of the spells have the same names and the same general effects, the creatures often have the same names and even same relative strengths/abilities, and the categorization of the spells as "Common", "Uncommon", "Rare", and "Very Rare" even matches up with the cards.  If MoM really did come first, then MTG had to have stolen a lot of it's concepts from the game.  It plays like a card game version of MoM.  70.242.200.239 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess the only way to be sure is to interview the designers. I could see how some could be afraid to be candid, though, due to potential of being sued by the other party (even assuming the designers are cool, MtG is now owned by Hasbro... ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic: The Gathering similarities? 

message: I have a few specific concerns, so I'll highlight them here
#Over-reliance on primary sources.  Specifically, it makes it's own conclusions from the manual, which is a no-no according to WP:ATT.
#Lengthy focus on material with low cultural impact.  The section is very long and discusses details that are more or less irrelevant to the importance of the game. 
#Acts much like a game-guide, explaining how most of the game mechanics work, which goes against the policies regarding writing about video games.
If there appears to be a reasonable consensus/lack of discussion on the matter, I'll reduce the section to a simpler summary, which relies upon secondary sources. i kan reed 23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific concerns on Gameplay section 

message: I am going to undertake the task to rewrite this article into more of a Wiki-article describing Master of Magic to those who have never played it, and less of a "game-guide" as per some of the observations above. The aim is to:
* reduce the gameplay section to be less detailed but descriptive enough to emphasize the spirit of the game (This will definitely help to reduce the length of the article)
* promote what makes the game stand out in its genre at that time without going into minute details
* point out with sources that it is a game entrenched in the minds of strategy gamers even till now
* bring in established sources for references instead of over reliance on the game manual (If anyone has any game magazines from the 1990's talking about Master of Magic, that would be great)
* remove any links to sites which might bring legal issues to Wikipedia (Unfortunately that would mean Underdogs)
It is likely that the structure of the article would be:
* Lead-in
* Plot and setting
* Gameplay
** Magic
** Combat
* Reception
** Legacy
* References
* External links
There will likely be no development section as sources are scarce for it, and I believe MoM's development was low-hype and rarely reported of. Of course, if any one knows sources chronicling such details - like the history of its development, how and why decisions were to implement the game as it was, and such - that would be of help to establish such a section.
Any help (sources, screenshots) is very welcome. Jappalang 05:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes are in, please critique. Appreciate help on expanding product's development with source. Jappalang 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks way better.  So many fewer sources read "the manual."  I'm kind of distressed that there really doesn't appear to be any information about the history of its planning and development.  There was no E3 until a year after MoM was released, and I doubt there's any internet documentation of its announcement.  I've got access to lexisnexus so I'm looking there.  i kan reed 05:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up: All I can find from print sources is some earning reports that state Master of Magic was among Spectrum Holobyte's top sellers, and a brief statement by a PR rep stating that "Master of Magic" was meant to be part of a broader series of "Master of X" games.  The former is not really informative about the game, and the latter is trivia at best.  I'm not sure there is published information about the development of MoM i kan reed 18:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Rewrite 

message: This is still a B, and I reckon it's low-importance. This is currently nicer than a lot of B-Class articles, but there's still quite a bit of work to do before wandering down the road to GA. Here are some ideas for your idea-implicating pleasure:
* Currently the gameplay section is quite long and goes into excessive detail per WP:NOT#GUIDE. If it's not useful to someone who doesn't want to play the game, then it shouldn't be in the article.
* This article needs more sources, though I understand that given the age of the game in question this may be tricky.
* Do you really need all of those screenshots?
* There's a setting part, but no real plot part of the "Plot and setting" section.
* As is mentioned above in the Todo list, a development section would be really nice.
Hope this helps, Una LagunaTalk 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the assessment, and feedback. I will try to see if I am able to brush up the article further. Jappalang 16:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rating it as low priority within gaming is absurd. Should be high, or mid at least. Also, I didn't know screenshots=bad, but the banishment screenshot can be removed. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the article and this, and I think you're right when you say mid. My bad. Una LagunaTalk 10:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:VG]] assessment 

message: Said issue of Game Informer has stated Stardock is making a remake/sequel of Master of Magic (as contributed by TheodoreLarson). However kryo of Stardock has clarified in their forums this is false. (Link posted here instead of in the WP as it is a forum post.) So officially there is still no remake/sequel for Master of Magic. Jappalang 16:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Informer Nov 2007 article 

message: I did a quick research on the release date of Master of Magic, and I've come to the conclusion that this game has been officially released in late 1994. There is a preview of Master of Magic in the Computer Gaming World number 122 of September 1994 () and a complete review in December (). I also found another proof in the Google archive of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic ():
I called a couple of mail order software companies and they have a release date of mid October, which seems to follow the usual pattern of two or three weeks past the dates quoted by magazines that review the games.
So I think that the release date should be corrected since it seems that the year 1993 is completely wrong.
--99.246.165.220 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Seems reasonable, unfortunately your first 2 links aren't all that useful.  Just because a magazine reviewed the game on those dates isn't 100% proof of when exactly the game was released.  It might have actually come out in 1993 (I remember playing it in the fall of 1994 and did not exactly have a source of 'current' games at that point, so it might have been 'old').  Anyway, we need a better source to change this.  I've tagged it for sources in the meantime. DP76764 (Talk) 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The MobyGames website (Master of Magic for DOS) reports a release date of 1994 and ALL the reviews mentioned in "The Press Says" section are dated 1994 or later. The Coming Soon Magazine website too (Master of Magic) reports a release date of October 1994, confirming my previous conclusions. Instead there is no reliable source that reports a release date of 1993, except for Wikipedia.--99.246.165.220 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia isn't technically a 'source' ;)  The Moby article might be adequate, I'm just not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source.  If you look at the bottom of the article, it was apparently submitted by a 'user' at the site.  I don't think that meets WP:RS standards.  But what the heck, lets give it a try. DP76764 (Talk) 21:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also found that both imdb.com () and Amazon.com () report a release date of 1994. I think we should change any reference related to the release date of Master of Magic (for example the first line of the page that states that is a "1993 PC game" or the 1993 in video gaming page).--99.246.165.220 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *take a look here .  How could this have won an award in 1993 if it wasn't released already? DP76764 (Talk) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's exactly the source of error! If you read carefully that page you will find only that "Master of Magic was named Runner-up Strategy Game of the Year by Strategy Plus magazine", without specifying any year. In fact the same website you are referring to states that Master of Magic has been released in October 1994 as I reported before (). --99.246.165.220 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, that's sorted out then. =) Only 1 last piece to change from 1993 in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 23:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: That's not at all what the IGN review says. It merely lists it in the chronology of Simtext games, not in the greater context. That line should be rewritten, but I don't know enough about the game to rework that paragraph appropriately. 65.30.31.2 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Master of Magic falls among the games which pioneered the 4X game genre." 

message: mentioning of the OS it was released for - rather basic info for an encyclopedia article --92.202.76.239 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed in the infobox too, but another mention doesn't hurt. DP76764 (Talk) 19:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: this could really use 

message: Per WP:RS, WP:VG/S, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches, rpg.net has nothing to demonstrate its reliability in the Wikipedia sense.  It is simply "an independent web site about tabletop roleplaying games" with no editorial policy nor heavy reliance by academic, scholarly, or media sources.  Jappalang (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to have the other review restored; for now I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reviews_from_rpg.net. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPG.net 

message: there is an significant (but maybe not notable according to wikipedia guidelines) unoffical patch available, created by an guy with the pseudonym kyrub. this patch was produced with binary disassembling and hex-editing and fixes critical (in the MOM community) well known bugs, like the raise dead spell, the vortex crash bug or the inverse effect of the fear spell, see readme in the mirror link: http://koti.mbnet.fi/ton_hur/files/mom/MoM_Unofficial_patch_140f_fixed.7z . Last version was 1.40f from this year and the development was described and supported at the now defunct dragonsword.com forum ... (webarchive has no backup or up-to-now not opened to the public).
I would be interested if and how such an significant fix could be integrated into a wikipedia article fitting the policies. thx 141.52.232.84 (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it should not be integrated at all.  Only official information from the makers of the game.  Unless you can find reliable 3rd party sources that discuss it (unlikely). DP76764 (Talk) 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: like conventional art, software-art (as games can be interpreted) can have new interpretations, adaptions, presentations in new contexts which might arise even years later...  I interpret it like that: Master of magic was accepted to be relevant at all enough to be in wikipedia, so ... why the "history" of master of magic is defined to be ended, when significant progress is still happening? software is like other forms of art not finished at some point, it might change, rot, burn whatever ... or it might even evolve and get new aspects because it is more flexible an vivid then other art forms. so why do you state only "official" sources are relevant only? as this is an example like many others, "art" has an importance and evolving history even when the intrest of the official developers and creators has long faded away. 95.114.50.43 (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a grand philosophy (and I agree on some of the tenets), but it goes against what Wikipedia is supposed to be.  Making 'interpretations' is expressly what's called original research, and that is definitely not material that belongs here.  For further reading, I suggest looking through the policy on what Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be. DP76764 (Talk) 01:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  Adding on, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to any article here, including those on art pieces: "reliable" sources (i.e. those relied on by the media and industry, or offered by respected experts of the field) are the prime component used to build the articles here.  If the subject is not reported by reliable sources, it is very unlikely for it to be mentioned in any article here.  This project is for collating information that has been reported by sources deemed to be reliable; if the media publishes an article of MoM mods, such information might be suitable here, otherwise, no.  Jappalang (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  I agree that the reliability policy is one of the corner stones of wikipedia... for many articles and edits from specific areas (history, medicine, etc) in which ensuring "truth" in a better way is impossible, to demanding or only for specialists. reliablity works because someone reliable (hopefully an specialist) stand with his own reliablity for the truth of some information... but at least checkability is provided. But the "reliability" property is for this specific addition not so relevant (or maybe the best metric to define quality or "includeability") because the information is really (and pretty simple) proofable in a even better way: the scientific way by "test and check" (will fix this patch the mentioned problems...*test*test* ...yes it do!)!  ...and for this specific software, fixes which finally implementing the original intended "specification" (read the spellbook guide) is imho an significant and valuable information addition, which is fitting perfectly the original intend of wikipedia as source of all "relevant" information about an topic. 95.114.50.43 (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're failing to grasp the concept of original research here.  'click and test' is EXACTLY the definition of original research.  Also, reliability is never irrelevant (or less relevant).  As the policy goes: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability (via reliable sources), not truth. DP76764 (Talk) 15:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, can't resist to answer that ;) i would argue reliability (a guess ... based on the weak hope that someone making somethign correct will do i more likly again) and verifability are pretty shacky and weak metrics for encyclopedic content, but indisputable the best (normally) available. This metrics are taken because truth is normally hard or not at verifiable at all... (someone some time-machine available for history checking?) But, if that would be possible also inarguable the right policy for wikipedia, would be "only truth proven stuff"! here, in the software context, truthfulness is maybe in reach! it's for everyone checkable, because software is democratic, duplication is perfect and cheap, hardware and knowledge widely available ...so everyone can verify the original! ... the open-source movement has driven this to the maximum... you don't have to rely on someones fame that his product or service is and will do what someone is stating, you always can check it for truth ... (yes, and verifiability is also always provided) 95.114.208.62 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, it's not how Wikipedia works. Checking things for yourself, as a basis for inclusion here, is expressly original research and is not acceptable.  If you don't agree with that policy, you'll have to take it up with Jimmy Wales and the other founders. I suggest you read about the 5 Core Pillars of Wikipedia and see if you can get on board with its thinking. DP76764 (Talk) 22:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

text: For your convenience, from Pillar 2: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources..." DP76764 (Talk) 22:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  again, i would argue that for software (knowning that this is not canon) an "source for verification" is the software itself (if available, preferable as source). this software is available and therefore always verifiable , no personal interpretation required 95.114.208.62 (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that would be considered a primary source and those are also highly discouraged as they lead to original research. DP76764 (Talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  i agree, normally primary sources are an problem because not cross-checked (verfiablity) by others (secondary sources) and notability is also not ensured with them... e.g. let's think about an new interpretation of an histoical age... without secondary sources in the first source everything could be stated. because the VERY source, the history itself, is NOT available. But things are different in the digital software world ... the very source (not the first research, the uninterpreted SOURCE, the original!) in the very original form IS available ! for everyone! without timemachine, cheap and easy... so verifiablity IS ensured, better then by secondary sources. another question might be the notability (which was up to know not mentioned from no one beside me) ... which is backuped by this one page and several forums, maybe not enough. 141.52.232.84 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that things are different with digital software is completely irrelevant.  The 2nd Pillar of Wikipedia still stands: "Editors' personal experience, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here".  Please read and try to understand some of the foundational policies and guidelines. DP76764 (Talk) 19:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, to bring this discussion back on track, at least one third party source I found: an german online game magazine http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&u=http://www.gamersglobal.de/news/23243&client=firefox-a (and there are several forum discussions e.g. http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=43788) 95.114.208.62 (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is a site that allows anyone to join and write articles reliable?  It gives contributors EXP that lets them advance in levels... is it supposed to be a professional video game site or an RPG?  Am I to believe Level 12 Junior Reporter Leonard McCoy with 5240 EXP is a highly respected journalist whose works are stringently checked by an editorial team for errors?  Aside from the policies pointed above (which I presume you did not bother to read, judging by your reliance on this site and forum posts), please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged.  That site fails terribly on all measures of reliability here.  Jappalang (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was expecting that ;) (and i didn't try to call this page reliable in the very strict encyclopaedic sense) this reference just proves some wider awareness about the patches: it's presented here, its discussed in various forums, its rated high... indications for notability.... that the stated stuff is true everyone can check themself with the patches (verifiablity)141.52.232.84 (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And drawing a conclusion that there is 'wider awareness about the patches' via a source like this is, again, original research.  Boy that stuff's a dickens!  'everyone can check itself' = original research.  End of story. DP76764 (Talk) 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  one note more side-note to jappalang's statement of the unreliability of that page: "every on can join" and "contributors advance in level" ... hmmm, wait a second, this sounds familiar ... the same (or worse) is true for wikipedia!? you can even edit without loggin in! ...and worse, only an obscure rating system by personal connections (before adavancing to admin) is applied or quality of contributors is assumed by "barnstars" ... they just have an more transparent and consequent social control system for the editors. ...so this page might be even more reliable then wikipedia(but even wikipedia seems to work, so why blame them?) ... according to your metrics ;) 141.52.232.84 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: No, Wikipedia is not the same as an anonymous site like that; there is a thing called oversight here.  Sure anyone can edit, but if you start putting in a lot of unsourced nonsense, I guarantee it will be removed (and you may eventually be blocked from editing).  You still seem to have not fully grasped some of the concepts behind how Wikipedia works (not said to offend, just an observation); this discussion is approaching the dead horse beating point. Also, a reliability comparison between that site and here is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for use in articles in the first place! DP76764 (Talk) 19:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: but hopefully wikipedia is an source of reliable information (nothing else is of interest in the end) ... and i'm not as optimistic like you, wikipedia is more anonymous then the mentioned site, less specialized and the hierarchical organisation is intransparent ... both are reviewed, the other one in a more stringent way because log in is required ...and yes you're right this discussion was on an dead end from the very beginning, because the original question from me "how this significant/notable information can be included without conflicting the policies" was not discussed at all, to reject them under dogmatic policy interpretation seems to be bigger fun 141.52.232.84 (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As has been said, this page is not for deep discussion of policies, which affects the entire project and not this article alone.  Go do it at the appropriate pages where people have kindly provided you with.  This talk page is meant to improve the encyclopaedic article of Master of Magic according to the rules laid down.  Your actions here are approaching tendentiousness, not listening to or even attempting to comprehend what has been said.  You are exhausting the patience of other editors, who are trying to approach you in good faith, ignoring your single-minded persistence to advertise a fan-made software patch.  If you are unable or unwilling to learn what this project is about or heed the advice given, then perhaps you are better off on www.gamersglobal.de, gaining experience for advertising such patches.  Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: first, you think a good and valuable discussion is based on unreflected citing of multiple policy pages? i call that narrow minded and dogmatic. second, you call me ignorant and not focused on this pages topic?, it's way around, you use unreflected the general policies for everything, I was trying to find a differentiated usage for this very specific topic of the wiki policies, which encode (hopefully) the wiki-spirit of being a good and valuable encyclopedia. and, third constantly blaming IPs of not knowing the policies is not the way to go, read the appropriate policies for handling new-comers and IPs (i know you will find them), and specific my case, it was pretty clear with the starting question that i'm aware of the policies (i'm active for years now) and i'm intrested in finding a fitting solution. Everything i was getting was dogmatic answers or arrogant "RTFM". not a good faith approach ... and response is also completly inemphatic for noteable new content, ... has something of an museum attendant, "don't touch, don't change, it's unmoveable" , shows no heart for the topic MOM itself. but i will bother you not further with this minor topic. 141.52.232.84 (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (Final thoughts): The policies suggested to you have not been blindly suggested; they have been learned, understood and supported for many years here.  Nobody is blaming IP's for not knowing policy; the appropriate policies have been repeatedly linked and suggested for reading; there has been plenty of good faith assumed.  There is an easy solution to this (as been mentioned ad nauseum): find a reliable source.  The fact that there are none belies your claim that this content is 'notable' so far; it may be notable in your small circle/fan community, but to the real world, as a whole, it is not. DP76764 (Talk) 14:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  what a pity that this is interpreted like that, because notability is pretty obvious :/ 141.52.232.84 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not much interpretation; that's pretty much the letter of the policy.  As mentioned above: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here".  Feel free to try to persuade the founders or high level admins if you want to try to change the entire philosophy of this site. DP76764 (Talk) 18:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  To clarify, would being mentioned or hosted on the Master of Magic Abandonia page (Link to copyviolation removed per WP:LINKVIO--Jappalang (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not post links to copyviolations; Master of Magic is copyrighted to Microprose (and whomever is its owner now) until 2090.  Its proliferation by those sites is not a notable concern nor is Abandonia a reliable source by Wikipedia's policies/guidelines.  Jappalang (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial Patch 

message: I added a link to Good Old Games at the end of the Legacy section and provided digital release information, namely that the game is distributed with and runs under DOSBox 0.73 (not the latest version, but the first one to fully support Master of Magic). I added GOG because that's where I buy all my legacy games, but if you know of other sources where the game can be purchased, please feel free to add them so my addendum doesn't look like a sales pitch! THatfield977  —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reverting on the grounds of WP:PROMOTION.  While we can use GOG's editorials and data to present certain information, the project is not here to direct people to where to buy items; i.e. we are not a consumer advisory or promotion.  Jappalang (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...but wikipedia stores information. and it is true that MOM is available now as gog download which is an distribution form. and I don't see an undue promoting here in the inclusion of the small reference in the infobox. Shaddim (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is aiming to be an encyclopaedia, and not a repository for indiscriminate information: just because there can be information for something, it does not mean an article has to have it.  Neither is this project a storefront, directing people where to go to buy stuff.  There is already a consensus against putting up "this game is available on GOG" type of information (Ref: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 87#Is OnLive a Computing Platform?, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Are GOG.com links acceptable?).  Jappalang (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to interject a correction here.  If there was news or similar reliable sources discussing the release of MoM on GoG, that would in fact be potentially encyclopedic information, and could be incorporated into the body of the article(potentially in the legacy section), but seeing as the closes to reliable you get is CNET when searching for news, it's not promising as a possibility.  i kan reed (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be careful there.  Verifiability is a threshold; i.e. the minimum requirement for inclusion of an information.  It is not a requirement to include something just because it is verifiable (by reliable sources or not).  Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fine, I'd be careful, but I do like good old games and think they provide a unique service, and coverage of the inclusion of a game like MoM is a lot less crufty that a lot of what's in this article already i kan reed (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

text: jappalang, neither of your arguments is fitting here. relevance of this "information" is already given by the existence of the infobox field "distribution/media", therefore no secondary source should be reqired here, this primary source should be acceptable. also, i don't see at all a chance to interprete this small information (2 words) as kind of storefront. your given links discussing external linking (not referencing!) or the question if such services are a platform or not, both fits not to this discussion. if your objection aims the gog brand name in the reference, this i could understand. And then the media type should be change from gog download, to download instead removing the information overall. cheers Shaddim (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The relevant information in those links are: "Are GOG.com links acceptable? ... Would probably fall under "advertisement". Even IGN and Gamespot include some information we don't. --SharkD", "Storefront, not platform It is a "dumb" client service, running games on a virtual client that is running the PC or 360, modified enough for Online's network play. This is, effectively, no different from Steamworks-enabled games, or games from GOG that have been updated to play on Vista or W7. As such, OnLive should not be mentioned in games that it supports, but certainly a list of games provided by the service is appropriate.  --Masem"  They point that GoG is a storefront.  A store's distribution of a game is insignificant if it brought no huge impact on or reaction to the game; GoG's distribution of software is in no way unique that demands explicit attention, especially in a manner that promotes its distribution and barks its pricing, contrary to consensus against commercial promotion on this site.  If the intent is to only show that the game is legally available through transfers over the internet, then simply noting "download" would be enough like so.  Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: beside that you confuse link and reference, great that you agree in the proposed compromise. Shaddim (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to buy the game 

message: "[...] plus races unique to the game like the insectoid Klackons."
How are they unique to the game, if they also get featured in Master of Orion?  77.64.129.103 (talk)
:Wording proposal, please. "non-high-fantasy races" , "simtex created races" ? Shaddim (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Races 

message: :Master of Magic was recognized for its introduction of concurrent gameplay across two planes of existence, allowing for greater tactical play, which was later implemented in the Heroes of Might and Magic and Age of Wonders series. While the acclaimed Warlords series later allowed customization of heroes, Master of Magic was the first major fantasy strategy game to feature individually distinct heroes, with unique abilities, which could be equipped with customized items.
It seems to me that Ultima (i.e. Ultima V from 1988, and even earlier IV) did have an underworld, as well as multiple characters of various races and speciality the hero could control.  Therefore I'm not sure if this paragraph is correct, especially that these claims appear unsourced.  There is a source later pointing to a review but it does not seem to make that claim. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have finally removed that sentence for now. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly erroneous claims 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Master of Magic. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218005951/http://pc.ign.com/news/25828.html to http://pc.ign.com/news/25828.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014162046/http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493221p1.html to http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493221p1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014191210/http://www.gamespy.com/articles/495/495795p1.html to http://www.gamespy.com/articles/495/495795p1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001124022/http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/gamezone/html/reviews/grndprix.htm to http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/gamezone/html/reviews/grndprix.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930173321/http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/gamespotting/042003quaddamage/2.html to http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/gamespotting/042003quaddamage/2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820140817/http://www.ugo.com/channels/games/features/moo3/interview.asp to http://www.ugo.com/channels/games/features/moo3/interview.asp
*Added  tag to http://tgnforums.stardock.com/?aid=165429
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Master of Magic. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221061906/https://soundcloud.com/ktam-radio/worlds-of-magic-aaron-ethridge-august-8-2014 to https://soundcloud.com/ktam-radio/worlds-of-magic-aaron-ethridge-august-8-2014
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I could find no mention in the article about the goal of the game. How do you win? Do you have to destroy all opponents? Are there any other winning conditions (like in e.g. Master of Orion). This is something I would expect to find in the gameplay section. 2001:14BA:A07D:D100:1D16:1D94:13B0:EEF5 (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winning? 

message: See Talk:Master_of_Magic_(2022_video_game)#Relationship_with_Magic:_The_Gathering. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Magic: The Gathering