Talk:The Precursors

message: how come you just come and ransack my page???
i will NOT stand for this!!!!
Dude, your preview article doesn't reflect Wikipedia's policies, and is rather unpolished. I just made it better. - XX55XX, 10 October 2005
What is this "Game Convention"? Do you mean E³? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comment

message: Is this game in any way, shape, or form, connected to the Star Control trilogy? In Star Control, the Precursors were an ancient, advanced race that looked like wolly mammoths.
:They're at Precursor (Star Control). I'll add disambiguation. Bryan 06:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not connected to the franchise you speak off. - XX55XX 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Control

message: So...it's not projected to be released for eleven years, it's existed for nearly five, the only reference is to a blog posting, the only external links are to sites related to the game itself?  How does this pass the notability guidelines?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: The existence of an unofficial English translation is not notable unless it has been covered by a WP:RS, something which this entire article only has ONE of so far(see discussion above). Eik Corell (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to see anything that qualifies as a reliable source here. You having your work an unofficial patch for another game mentioned in a gaming magazine doesn't make you an established expert, though, it merely means some of your work caught the attention of some higher-ups. Next, a forum is not a reliable source, even if a post is stickied. I tell you what, bring out what you think qualifies as a reliable source and I'll have a look at it, but as it stands now, I'm not seeing anything but unofficial fansites and forum posts. Other than that, I'm pretty sure there's a conflict of interest here when you're adding mention of your own work here. To me, it seems like you're trying to promote the patch. Eik Corell (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Reliability has nothing to do with nationality.  It has to do with whether there is an editorial process.  In basic terms, do people run the website as a living, or is it a fan-run website?  Now as to the reference -- I don't think it's appropriate as a citation in the article, however I could see it working as an external link under WP:ELMAYBE, since an English patch would prove useful to many. --Teancum (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Think about it like this - The patch makes the game comprehensible for an English-speaking audience, but that doesn't make it notable, because the game wasn't made for them -- It's not actually a necessity; it's a luxury. The argument that it's a necessity because it's in Russian would only work if it was released in Western countries, in Russian. If that was the case, it would indeed be a necessity, and a patch would receive at least some coverage by reliable sources. Eik Corell (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

text: If the subtitles were not included, and the game not sold elsewhere than Russia, Russian-language websites and Ebay auctions, then it's not targeted at an English-speaking audience, even if it has an English-language forum. As I see it, my argument stands. Eik Corell (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Define "activated". By "activated", I'm assuming you're talking about modding the game files in one way or another. As far as deleting the whole article, check the debate above this one. I see you're starting to become nasty, so I'm gonna read your next reply before touching the article, and if it's grasping at straws like your other arguments, I'm done here. Eik Corell (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, then we are talking about modding. Let's go through the guideline you cite: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article" the subject of this article is the game, not the patches. So that one is out of the way. "from knowledgeable sources." -- Even if you somehow argue that the sources are knowledgeable, the info at the site is not about the subject of the article, and the placeholder info it has, like the publisher and developer of the game, is already present in this article. Basically, you're interpreting this guideline backwards; You want to include mention of the unofficial patch in this article, and you justify including it because of the minimal amount of info on the page hosting the patches. It doesn't work like this - The purpose of including it under WP:ELMAYBE would be for the information, not the files, which is what you're arguing for here. So, it's about files related to the game, unofficial ones as well, which, by the way, one would typically find on fansites. Eik Corell (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: You should check the list of things that [WP:NOT|Wikipedia is Not]]. A lot of people come to this site, thinking for example that it's all-inclusionary, when in fact, it isn't. Eik Corell (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: There are actually bureaucrats on Wikipedia, and I'm not one of them. Eik Corell (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Nope, you can click the link and see if I'm listed as such. Not a bureaucrat. Eik Corell (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Don't worry, Jesus loves me and that's all that counts. Unless Yahwe is the fake one, and Allah is the real one, but I digress -- Nice to see you, too. Eik Corell (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I like turtles. Eik Corell (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patches section 

message: I have to say that the new source isn't sufficient. My rationale is that it was added "08.21.2010". By itself this wouldn't make a difference, but the article says that you contacted them about it. As I see it, the coverage is actually you getting your your own work listed, as opposed to it being noticed naturally. Eik Corell (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I have to remind you that the games "being noticed naturally" is difficult when the big US sites didn't even acknowledge that they were released. As for the GameBanshee link, of course I contacted them because this is the way these kind of news get around. How do you think the True Patch for Bloodlines got on GameBanshee or on Kotaku? Still GameBanshee researched the issue themselves which you can see by the download locations they mention which are not the ones that I use. Also if you accept GameBanshee or Kotaku in the Bloodlines article, you need to accept this one here too. Wesp5 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest source