Talk:Earth Eternal

message: - I am hoping others can add to this page as I don't know much about a game that hasn't been released yet.  It's not my intent to advertise for this game, but it looks interesting so I thought I'd make a page about it and what's currently known.  If anyone knows anything else about the game, feel free to add it in under an existing heading or a new one.  If any criticism are added, I only ask they be fair, based on what's known about the game.    Xmacro 18:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earth Eternal

message: - Added info about Groves and updated to reflect current history releasesXmacro (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates/changes

message: - to anyone thinking of it, please don't put your fan sites on here - they aren't authoritative sources, and they don't have any info that isn't already provided on the Earth Eternal forums.  The least you can do is wait 'til the game is released and you have something to put on your site that isn't on the earth eternal website(tips, tricks, hints, etc)Xmacro (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan websites

message: - added in part mentioning that a new website is up with new info - otherwise nothing else has changed.  I know that a lot of the info on this Wikipedia page is out-dated and may be wrong, but the game developers have not confirmed or denied anything yet; so whatever is up there is the best guess based on whatever info has been released Xmacro (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New website

message: - I rewrote the entire section on the Furry Fandom to portray it in a more of a positive light. If it were up to me, I would have removed the entire section about them but no one really seemed to go for that. If anyone wants to revert it back to its original state, post why you think it should go back but previously, the section seemed very negative towards the Fandom. Any game can have cybersex in it and a game with anthros in it isn't going to change that. Niazac (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have removed it a long time ago, but I clearly have a bias point of view here. I rewrote it the first time (it has been rewritten multiple times) trying to only change the wording and not the meaning. I have basically avoided editing that section since. It is much clearer as to what is being asserted but still no definitive source... :( RP9 (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed it a bit.  I think your revisions were very good, but I'm worried about giving the article any kind of spin.  While I agree the previous version was slanted (and no one could figure out how to balance it), I don't want this section to be positive either - bias is bias is bias, whether it's positive bias or negative bias.  Furries get unfair criticism, but it's criticism nontheless.  All I did was delete a few weasel words.  All in all, I think your revision is the best version we've had yet. Xmacro (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, you're revisions to the section are a lot better than what I had put originally. I just wish we had some more definite sources to stick in there. Niazac (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I referenced most of the article a while back, but unfortunately could not find a source for it. At least not one that supports it directly. Matt Mihaly has expressed his disapproval of this criticism in this interview and elsewhere. Of course this does not support the criticism it self, just his disapproval of it. However, it could be used to expand on the details of the criticism. p.s. It is a good thing that Xmacro is here, considering that after reading the section, I did not realize that calling the media bias is kinda bias. :) RP9 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul to Furry Criticism

message: - I erased the 'weasel words' warning because there was no jsutification given for it.  If someone thinks the criticism section is misleading, then change it to a neutral POV, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with it.  It's a criticism section - it's supposed to give an unfavorable view/criticism of the game, as well as a response to that criticism. If you don't like it, then propose some alternative, rather than putting up a 'weasal word' banner and leaving 68.200.23.58 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, I did not add the template I just fixed it. However it was more then likely added because "...it has been stated Earth Eternal is a second, larger version of Furcadia" are weasel words. Who said that? When? How many people think that? (see WP:AWW) Also the wording is misleading. How do you promote Furry Fandom? What does that mean in this case? Using the slang word yiff to describe "mature elements" is also a rather strange prose. RP9 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh and the same applies to "Earth Eternal has been criticized for..." Again by whom?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RP9 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I used those words because most of this sort of discussion has been talked about on forums, so there really isn't any place to cite; if there were a credible source I'd cite it.  I realize the current state of the criticism section is very undesireable, but I don't see any alternative - the largest criticism against the game are that it'll draw furries, lead to yiffing, and eventually drown out the RPer's and casual players; these criticisms are made by anonymous posters on constantly-shifting forums.  I know the criticisms are largely invalid, because the game developers have stated they intend to target the younger audience, and make a family-friendly game; but I'm still in the predicament of making a balanced article of a game who's only source is the developers website.  If you have any suggestions for correcting or improving the section, please don't hesitate to fix the section and make it balanced.  I couldn't think of anything better to write than what you see; I know the criticisms are unsourced and invalid, but the only way I could find to make a completely sourced article would be to omit the criticisms entirely.68.200.23.58 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reworded the paragraph to be more clear. But I am effectively trying to improve criticism directed at my self, so I hope I am not bias. These are still weasel words however, even if it is just forum posts something needs to be cited. RP9 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section looks much better thanks to the changes you made; thanks for all the work. Xmacro (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that is should probably be removed. But then again, why wouldn't I? Any other editors agree? RP9 (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section and 'weasal words'

message: Added a few hopefully reliable sources. This is my first attempt at sourcing an article so point out anything I did wrong. RP9 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources look great - you really pulled the article together very well Xmacro (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: - I'll be adding things in as open beta begins; I made this section to accomodate the new edits.  To everyone else, please don't post information breaking the NDA until Open Beta starts 67.79.170.194 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Beta

message: Noting that this has either been removed or changed more than a few times (seems like 7 or 8 times), I think it is appropriate to say that this is contentious and as such, it needs a reliable source per WP:V that is about this criticism. Certain sources make mention of Furry fandom, for instance the gamebunny interview asks "Are you sick of the snickering jokes and comments yet regarding ‘Furries’ and their possible attraction to the game?". Commentary about Matt Mihaly's response to this question could be added to the article reflecting its relevance (taking due consideration of undue weight) but generalisations like "many people" and "some claim" breach WP:NPOV and often WP:OR. The criticisms should generally mention specific people making these claims, making neutral assessments of the claims, and so forth. RP9 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed  criticisms 

message: They hype that they have 22 races in the game, but there is only ONE RACE up to now. They are all identical in the game and have nothing different other than their looks. No racial skills, items, stats adjustment, skill adjustment, just a big nothing.
Also, the game offers nothing new to the genre, it is even primitive dating back before World of Warcraft like in the late 1990s and year 2000. But the story and background story is original, no annoying elves, dwarfs, humans and all that "clique" that unimaginative game designers use.
Fortunately the game is still in beta mode, so maybe they will add racial features to the game and make it a modern game too because now, it is on the path to being shut down before it is launched as a full game due to its primitive design and false races among a few other things.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.209.46 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Races of Earth Eternal 

message: I took the existing summary from the game website's "Lore" section and summarized that, leaving what I think is a sufficient amount of information for this Wikipedia article.  I changed the section's title from "Plot" to "Setting," because a plot section would normally reflect the plot of the game's actual action, while the existing section instead detailed the history of the world in which the game takes place.  I have only completed the Corsica missions, but I plan to write a new plot section containing information about them; it seems to me that the game's plot consists of the storyline the player character goes through in the actual game, i.e., investigating the plant monsters, deactivating the shard of Djall's Hammer, and thwarting the Anubian invasion.  --DavidK93 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section rewrite 

message: - I searched for eartheternal.com in WHOIS records, and found that the website was owned by Turner Broadcasting System Inc. does this qualify as a valid source? WERETIGER (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth Eternal takeover 

message: So, with Earth Eternal dead and gone, the main programmer of the game sent my friend a copy of the source code and they configured it on my friend's server, http://www.eartheternalreboot.com/ . However, that link was removed as a potential violation of WP:VG/EL, and I'm not overly interested in violating Wikipedia rules.  I just feel that this makes it a semi-official continuation at the very least.  The server's been up for over two years without a single issue or copyright complaint from whoever owns the copyright (if they even still exist).  I'd like to hear a sort of consensus from the Wikipedia community before I take any action on re-adding the link to the External Links section.  If you think this is more appropriate for the article's twin on WikiFur, then that's fine. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth Eternal Reboot