Talk:Escape Velocity Nova

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, this article is pretty useless now. CryptoQuick (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed -- for one, the Factions section still seems to exist.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by Ninjagecko 

message: [Added this section to the talk page. Ninjagecko 06:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion of 'Factions' Section Possible Copyright Violation (obsolete as of 1/21/2006) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question from Gaeamil

message: 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)
replies: text: Good job. —Centrx→talk • 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit by Artifex

message: 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)
thread_title:  Addition to be made by someone with Wiki experience 

message: 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)
thread_title: Validity of Criticisms Section

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yup, it's good. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can an owner of the content allow use? --pipeline (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Battle2.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date of Release 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Soooo...the link to "Endless Sky."