Talk:Eve Online/Archive 11

message: As stated here, CCP wont integrate Factional warfare into the new Expansion. Can someone edit the paragraph regarding Revelations III? I dont consider my english good enough..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.122.201 (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me that sounds like an excuse. I suggest you edit the article by yourself. When there's something to improve in your style somebody will gladly do that. I'll give it a try. But just asking for someone to do it (in clean and flawless English by the way) isn't the right way to go. That sounds like you don't want to write it - not like your English isn't good enough. Aexus 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind. I didn't realize that Richard Slater had already edited the article accordingly. Aexus 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that, I just got edit conflicted trying to reply to you, I will duly steps away from keyboard -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's okay, there's nothing to be sorry about. Personally I wouldn't have edited the article. It's your decision to do so and I don't complain about it. By the way the ip address 85.178.6.140 was me. I just edited the main article. Aexus 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Factional Warfare 

message: It is really becoming tiresome reverting the Criticism section back to a non biased encyclopedic format.  Biased Criticism or Goonswarm booster clubs will not be tolerated and will be reverted back. This isn't the place to tell urban legends on how the upstart Guild stuck it to the corperate entity.
Martinj63 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information you have removed is accurate, well-cited and encyclopaedic, even being confirmed by CCP (who form many of the citations). What you have done is nothing short of biased vandalism resulting in a completely inaccurate picture (you simply refer to allegations, while making no mention of the fact that some were proven and admitted to be true. See this), which I have reverted. This is nothing to do with Goonswarm, it is do with an encyclopaedic, accurate, informative and unbiased log of events. This has everything do with what Eve is, and has been the major cause of press-coverage of Eve over the last year.
No it's not it is news and news reporting and encyclopedic content are two separate things. Remember  Wikipedia is not a news service or news report archive. Yet more and and more attention is paid to appending  articles for stories which have only received news coverage, without considering the difference between news and encyclopedia content.
Martinj63 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Reading your edits, I cannot help but feel you are attempting to whitewash the whole affair by removing facts and implying that they are untrue, despite accurate and reliable confessions being cited (or were cited, right up until you deleted them). Please do not vandalise this page again.80.189.248.109 16:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are making way too much of old news,(Notice the word news, which carries a differnt meaning than that of encyclopedic conetnt) that really doesn't have anything to do with what EvE is. The streamedlined version is best, it touches on the incident without soapboxing or tales of ribaldry. Just because you found another instance doesn't make it encyclopedic. Many  users agree with this, you seem to just want to push the story or urban legend as it were.
Martinj63 21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this comment in the right page?  What does Urban legends and tales of Ribaldry have to do with the discussion?  Alatari 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Martinj63 is probably refering to to the Goonswarm discussion, so yes it is in the wrong place. Moved the conversation up the page! -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again Goonswarm seeks publicity 

message: "   ...    A couple of years from now, we hope that all of our games have wiki support integrated into the game as a built-in help system. We think it would be fantastic if a player could select 'help' and then click on any quest, mission, skill, etc., and get complete documentation about that item in-game from the Guild Wars wiki site. This is a long term vision but something we should start working towards. ..." Alatari 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion from Guild Wars Wiki 

message: Here is a precedent by the fact it is a featured article: Halo 2 Alatari 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Site with External Wiki Link

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallente Federation (EVE Online)
All but this page and the Ships of EVE ONline are now deleted and in the discussion it was suggested: 
'Delete all. per my nom and User:Corpx. better suited on http://www.eve-wiki.net than on Wikipedia--User:Hu12 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EVE Online page deletions from Wikipedia

message: Hi, fellow contributors. I'd like to use this section to discuss sources that people have added to the article. Especially those sources that had been explicitly requested with a "Citation needed" template. Feel free to use this section to inform other authors of what you have added and why you think it's appropriate. Or ask for their opinion on whether you can safely add certain information.
I start with the source to the statement that a Rifter frigate is about the size of a Boeing 747. I've read an interview with EVE Online Associate Producer Arend Stührmann on tentonhammer.com, here. Cody Bye, Managing Editor of tentonhammer.com, interviewed him during this year's Games Convention in Leipzig, Germany. In that interview Arend Stührmann describes the detail that the so-called Trinity II engine allows. And he states that the "sense of scale in the game has been increased. A Rifter is supposed to be the size of a 747; you can imagine how big a cruiser is."
I've added the interview as a reference. I'm confident that you too think it's appropriate. If not, please let me know and feel free to discuss the issue with me.
Aexus 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for the "Citation needed" parts of this article 

message: The faction names don't match the names imprinted on the Insignia of each faction.  Hence the confusion. So the Caldari State insignia just has the word 'Caldari' in bold silver print underneath.  *shakes a fist at CCP* Meh...  Alatari 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same goes for the Jove Empire. Although the badge in the EVE Online Backstory reads Jovian directorate the faction is actually called Jove Empire. The directorate is just "believed to be the highest governmental authority in the Jove Empire." (See here). Aexus 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faction Names and Insignias 

message: In the game info box it has mac os x and linux as (planned) when in fact they are in closed beta currently. Should I go ahead and change it to closed beta and should the citations be changed as well if that is done as those pages do not mention the closed beta. Ergzay 05:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable citeable source for the Mac and Linux versions being in Beta then the references and the info box should be updated. A citeation should also be included for the section you added to the article reagarding the clients being in beta. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the "Citation needed" to the text. Aexus 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac and Linux 

message: Somebody added the section about the universe (IP address 202.213.150.190). It's a paragraph about the general look and feel of EVE Online which I personally think is a good idea. However, the section was a mess in its initial state. I enhanced it - tried to fix it - but I'm lost at what to improve next. For example the section introduces the principles of corporations, jump gates and security status before they are fully explained. For starters I've included a link to the anchor of the "Security index system" section.
Other than that statements that a player can be alone in a system as well as together with more than 600 other players are difficult to prove. If the reader has experienced this himself - okay. But he probably hasn't. If he questions the reliability, he doesn't get a source to check the info. Any idea what to do about this? How to prove that a player can really be together with 600+ players in a single system?
I wrote that planets are currently not explorable which implies that they might be someday. I'm referring to the video that CCP showed at a Fanfest where a ship entered a planet's atmosphere. Does it make sense to add this possible future to the article? Aexus 09:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now I've linked the term "corporation" to the article "Clan (computer gaming)". That's the same that "Guild (computer gaming)" redirects to. Aexus 09:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Universe" section 

message: On a sidenote, I feel some parts this article could need heavy rewriting/structurizing. for example about the economy. a death in EVE is basically just loss of isk/resources, in eve you can't wage war without an industrial backbone or/and other business models (like make small corp pay rent to live in the systems big corp controls), market speculation in minerals and items, IPOs, Bank services.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.213.150.190 (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sections needs rewrite 

message: The listed time range of 11:00 - 12:00 gmt is incorrect, although it agrees with one of two representations of the downtime given in the source document (the other, indirect, reference in that document states that before accepting "agent missions", one should "...ensure you leave room for an hour-long break at noon GMT.").  By direct observation and on the basis of in-game system warnings, the correct downtime window is 12:00 - 13:00 gmt.  I'm updating the page to indicate that.  I am not certain how to address the contradictory information given in the source document, however.  I'll leave that to an editor, I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.199.248 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that GMT and BST are in disagreement.  Jouster  (whisper) 00:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I was aware downtime was still 1100 - 1200 GMT as it has been for as long as I have been playing, from my point of view it switches between 1100-1200 and 1200-1300 local time as I live in the UK which switches between BST and GMT in March and back again in October (Last weekend in fact). Iceland however is always on GMT regardless of the time of the year and EVT (in-game time) is matched to GMT. I would suggest that the reference is misleading as I seem to remember it phrasing it differently. I shall investigate further tonight. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 13:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that Iceland is on GMT year round. 194.80.51.47 23:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance Downtime