Talk:Age of Mythology/Archive 1

message: Is there a reason this article is titled "Age of Mythology/Temp" rather than "Age of Mythology" or "Age of Mythology (computer game)"? If not, it should be moved.
LordAmeth 14:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnamed Heading

message: I added a cheat section, just to notify all you people.  It could use a little work, could you help me there?  I don't use wikipedia a lot.71.131.41.130 20:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I wonder if we really need a cheat section. This is not a gaming website, and Encycllopedia, in my humble opinion, typically don't have stuff like game cheats. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Greenleaf 10:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry I didn't see them. IMHO, they should be deleted too. I'll see to that. I hope you'd get my point - we have a link to cheat site, so if someone wants to see cheats (and not ready to Google for "AoM cheats") then he can visit that link and see. Typically, people don't go to an encyclopedia to find game cheats. Greenleaf 02:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. See, article on Half-Life 2 is much better, because it discusses the background - overview of the game, how it sets itself apart from others, technical details etc - not just a whole bunch of cheats and other stuff available in any fan site. We don't need to replicate fan sites here, because there are enough of them out there - and anyone who's smart enough to use wikipedia would be smart enough to use a search engine as well. An encyclopedia's strength is not providing ALL information at one place - as "your one-stop AoM guide" - but in providing enough information to understand a subject fully, and to provide a reader with info on where to go for more detail. One doesn't need to learn cheat codes to understand what AoM is - only a gamer would need cheat codes, and it's highly unlikely that a gamer would consult wikipedia as a guide to his game. Greenleaf 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, it specifically states that one of the things that does not belong on computer game pages are: "Lists of cheats or codes. Some codes may be notable and suitable for articles, such as the famed Konami Code, but the method of performing a code that's confined to only a few games and has no special claim to fame is unsuitable for Wikipedia." Since the Age of Mythology cheat codes are NOT important on the level of the Konami Code, there's no reason to include them. Thunderforge 23:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added cheat section 

message: The article states that "Age of Mythology was always seen as Age of Empires II predecessor".  As AoM was released 3 years after AOEII (AoM in 2002, AOE in 1999), shouldn't it read "Age of Empires II's successor"?
:fixed this y'day. Greenleaf 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor? 

message: Where should the stats for units like Osiris and the Guardian go? User:Thorton
I forward that. I think units only in the campaign (such as the Guardian, the Living Poseidon Statue, and Kastor) should have a section all their own.Energie 03:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Section? 

message: In the god power section, somebody wrote that "bolt" doesn't kill a Titan. However, Titans are not in Age of Mythology. They are only found in the expansion pack. So if you wanted to say what you did say, add it under Age of Mythology: The Titans.Energie 03:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titan 

message: Now, I know Age of Mythology is 41 kilobytes long, and it is supposed to be longer than preferred. However, is it really? I mean, there's just a lot of useful information.ЄИЄЯפЇЄ 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, It's really good (Better than AOE3 IMO) but this isn't really the place to discuss it, the Multiplayer is fun but crashes a bit too much.--User:Rock2e  Talk - Contribs  14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: I sure as hell Do. There are two mistakes in this article. Mistake 1: Ballistas are not Land siege units, they are only present on certain Naval units like the Siege Juggernauts. Mistake 2: In AOE2 which I have, there are Merchant ships which are pretty much just naval trade caravans but there aren't any in Age of Mythology as this article states.
There are Ballistas in AOM, It's created from the Norse Hill Fort in the Mythic Age. Solidsnake204 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes

message: Personally, I don't like how the article looks like with :Template:TOCleft. I'd like to get other people's opinions. ЄИЄЯפЇЄ 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:TOCleft]] 

message: well, I'm a big fan of AOM, and I thought I'd point out that bolt does not kill the enemy unit. instead it inflicts massive amounts of damage. this can be seen best with the scenario editor by adding an enemy guardian to a map, then playing under zues. it dealls approx. 1000 damage to the affected unit, I believe. I will explore this further, and post my results --198.53.138.109 19:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. Kronos has armor. It should be 5000 damage. For clarity's sake we should just say it kills the unit because there aren't going to be plenty of units over 5000 health unless you play scenarios, which aren't quite common in AOM as in AOE. Aranherunar 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolt god power... 

message: I am happy to announce that I have nominated Age of Mythology for good article status. It does follow good article guidelines. ЄИЄЯפЇЄ 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not agree. There's plenty of things the article needs to clean up. For example the Gods section - it's totally messed up. The Archaic gods should be listed as Major Gods instead. Nor does it provide any data on the ability and bonuses of the gods. Aranherunar 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nominee 

message: Basically, no sources, far too many lists (not "well-written"), no real-world info (Reception, sales, reviews, etc). Reads like an FAQ, with its overly detailed lists of units, relics, and whatnot. As someone who has never and will never play the game, why do I care that the Ankh "Provides a steady trickle of favor"? (Edit: Also: No gameplay section. What the heck?) Nifboy 06:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: I agree wholeheartedly that AOM is one of the greatest games ever, but this article is needlessly long and most of it is simply a summary of fan websites like AOMheaven or AOEplanet.  In fact, the entire units, relics, heroes, etc. section can be summed up with an external link to one of these websites providing better, more detailed, and more in depth information.   In summary, the primary purpose of this page should be to inform someone about Age of Mythology as a video game, giving a good objective review and summary of what to expect if you were to buy the game.  Hence, it should be reworked.   --Abur 09:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking the Article 

message: AOM is not a continuation of Age of Empires, people. Just because it has the name "age" in it, and a very similar scenario editor to that of AOE 3, doesn't change the fact that its a unique series. Lettuceclock 04:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation? 

message: It doesn't make sense that the AoM story should be in the article introduction.  It should really be in its own section, so I'm doing that.  If I screw it up, please fix it :DG1ggy 05:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storyline 

message: This article is a ridiculous size at the moment, completely in violation of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, eg a game guide, instruction manual). It does not need a list of every single unit, building, race, etc. Seriously, you'd find less information on Gamefaqs. Even the storyline section is completely overdone. I'll give it a couple days to see how people feel, but I'll probably just go mad on the article after that. +Fin - 08:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I decided to go ahead and start the cleanup effort. I used the StarCraft article as a model as it has reached Featured Article status and the Age of Empires article since I helped with the cleanup of that article as well. I removed items that were not on either article and condensed many of the descriptions into more helpful sections (particularly for those who have never played the game and don't care about all the statistics of the units). I'll go ahead and say that I know that there are errors in what I've written. I admit that it's been a very long time since I've played the game. Also, there's some things that I just forgot about when I was writing. So PLEASE fix up what's there, even if it's minor. Right now, I haven't compacted the story because I can't remember enough of what's important in it. Also, I know that there are sections that are completely missing (a scenario section and one for how sales and reactions were and all). So that still needs to be done. Thunderforge 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I "expanded" the storyline section, but it was more of adding one paragraph, condensing some others, and making it more readable (it was just one huge block of text before)... it's still long, but I don't see how it's any different of a movie's story summary or the like. I agree though that without a gameplay section, the lists are there for no good reason. Also, we could use screenshots from the fan kit on the official site (and by the way, just added that link all hurried up, 'cos really, no external links?) since they'd be under the "promotional kit" copyright rationale, right? --User:Revoish 05:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work guys! I still think the storyline section is a bit too long, but it's much improved! Thanks! +Fin - 08:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to applaud Falcon9x5 for taking the initiative of shortening the campaign story. However, I feel like the story is a bit too short right now, as it only focuses on the opening movie. As I mentioned previously, I'm using StarCraft as a model for what this article should look like, since it became a Featured Article. You'll note that StarCraft has general information about the campaigns on the main page. More detailed info is on another page (should we try that too?). I think we need to work on that area a bit more. Thunderforge 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't actually shorten the story myself, unfortunately, but thanks to whoever did! I've never played AoM, so I didn't think I should edit something when I didn't really know the significance. I just pushed other people to do it =) +Fin- 15:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did it - I think what's needed is literally two lines about each of the campaigns - since I've never played it - that's upto one of you guys! :) --Charlesknight 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the article. It's to the point, and doesn't ramble, and is not an indescriminate collection of information. It could still use a bit of other stuff, such as sales of the game.ЄИЄЯפЇЄ 01:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was revamping the article, I removed the section with myth units and consolidated them briefly into a paragraph. Now I've taken a look at the article again and it's been returned! I don't want to start an edit war, but I truly don't believe that a list of units really belongs in an encyclopedic article. Compare to StarCraft, a Featured Article about an RTS game. It has no lists of specialty units. Therefore I firmly believe that no such list should belong in this article. If someone feels otherwise, please say so. Thunderforge 02:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: In the article it says that you can gather stone in AOM, stone does NOT EXIST in the game so it should not be mentoned in the article 211.27.43.225 05:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was an oversight on my part. I copied some of the information from the Age of Empires article (since it is similar) and modified it to pertain to Age of Mythology. So it's mea culpa. Sorry about that. Thunderforge 23:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stone?

message: In my opinion, the article is poorly structured and does nothing but ineffectively advise the reader on more or less basic gameplay mechanics. The campaign should be listed under a single player section or something similar. Relics, buildings, units, etc. should be placed in their own section and probably watered down in order to keep the article to the point. The scenario editor, cheats, etc. should be toned down. We do not need to list the cheats; a link to a reliable list of cheats elsewhere would be enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Car (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Structure 

message: The amount of "trivia" that relates to this game comes in such large amounts that a single fact seems inadequate and pointless. Either the removal of the trivia section altogether or a large increase of facts would be my recommendation. —The preceding The Car 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: It seems to me that this article is regressing into the state it was before it required cleanup. Before, it had many unnecessary information that turned the article into a game guide, which Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and Video Games has clearly stated should not be the case. This article was tagged for cleanup and much of the unnecessary information was removed. Now all that information is creeping back in again. I'm compelled to remove it all... again, but I wanted to just say all this first in case anybody had other ideas. Thunderforge 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah, I hate this article...the amount of anon editing is really annoying.  Yes, cleanup, and I'd like to see a WikiProject have this as their focus. ~  Giggy!  Talk Contribs 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requiring Cleanup... Again... 

message: Where is the info on the Atlanteans? They are a group in AoM also. Shouldn't we give knowledge about them? 
Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC
They are covered in Age of Mythology: The Titans ~  Giggy!  Talk Contribs 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlanteans Anyone?

message: For your information the atlanteans are in the EXPANSION. this is the original. go to the age of mythology: The Titans wiki to get the information on them.
82.12.86.64 12:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RE:Atlanteans anyone?

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_Mythology&action=history
Current file size is 18,072 bytes.  Now, I know this isn't a major problem, but it's enough to put a notification on the history page.  Should it be addressed? ~  Giggy!  Talk (reply here) 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  File Size 

message: The to-do section says the article requires some stuff from interviews with developers and things.
Here is one interview. I'm not sure if it has anything useful in it, as I have no time to check it right now, so if someone else could, please do. I'll find some other ones if I can. --RazorICE 02:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On to it.  I think we can do the development section based on those articles. ~  G1ggy!  Talk (reply here) 02:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's done...some stubs have now been removed too. ~  G1ggy!  Talk (reply here) 08:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help, G1ggy. I went through most of the article (from intro to end of buildings) cleaning up as much as I could. I left some comments to be expanded on, if that's alright. --RazorICE 08:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course it's alright!  Do you think we can finally get that GA now? ~  G1ggy!  Reply 04:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article still needs a tiny bit of work to fix everything up, but GA, or at least B-class should be fine. Someone else needs to vote for it for Gaming Collab of Week... --RazorICE 04:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be useful.  Any methods to get people to do that?  IIRC we still have at least 3 days. ~  G1ggy!  Reply 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this article is too developed to be GCotW. Second, I would suggest moving AoM on the GAC page to Games and releated articles (that's VG articles go).--Clyde (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this has been done. ~  G1ggy!  SPEAK! 23:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed a lot of the references and added fair use ratioanles, as well as doing a little cleanup and polishing. If I had one more suggestion, I'd say add to the reception section a couple more mainstrem reviews. Maybe IGN, Gamespot, PC Gamer, EGM, or Game Informer.--Clyde (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is Gamespot's review. They gave the game a 9.2. IGN gave the game a 9.3. If anyone wants to include these in the article go ahead. --RazorICE 08:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interviews 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 8, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass
:2. Factually accurate?: Fail Many statements are unreferenced, their is also a  template place which is not helping.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass All have fair use rationales.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— The Sunshine Man 16:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  problem has been fixed, so I think it's ready to go.  Also, it was renominated due to concerns about the reviewer. ~  G1ggy!  Reply | Powderfinger! 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: Shouldn't this section have a spoiler tag? --Solidsnake204 Talk ~ Contribs 11:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been much debate about this of late (see the updated version of Wikipedia:Spoiler for current info) and consensus was reached that in such a case, there shouldn't be a spoiler tag.  You may also wish to read Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates.  By the way, the tag was removed here, so you could contact the remover, , for more info.  Hope this helps. G1ggy! Review me! 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campain... 

message: This article has been "under review" for a couple days, so I'm going to jump in and assess it.  I'm going to fail it again, and for the same reason as a week ago- not enough references in the gameplay section.  I'd recommend looking at Age of Empires III, they reference the manual, the developer's site, the publisher's site, and a few reviews to back up what they say about the gameplay.  It's a shame to not pass this, but it shouldn't take too much work, I'd think.  Hit me up on my talk page whenever you think it's ready again, and I'll give it an immediate review.  --PresN 15:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also try Starcraft, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, and Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War (which, by the way, is without a doubt the best, but I might be biased... :)). Age of Empires III actually doesn't have enough sources for an article of it's size... · AndonicO Talk 12:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Fail 2 

message: I think it would be a good idea to go to the CVG Peer Review or just the peer review before another shot at GA. A fresh pair of eyes might be a good thing.--Clyde (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! G1ggy! Review me! 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR? 

message: AMiB is gone (if you need to ask, don't bother) so I'm gonna throw this out. I was bold and redirected List of Major Gods in Age of Mythology and The Titans and List of Minor Gods in Age of Mythology and The Titans back to Age of Mythology. They have no references and no encyclopedic value in my eyes. My four reasons of justification are:
*"Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia." These articles are only detailed descriptions.
*A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. (both from here) I see no value as a nonplayer.
*Wikipedia is not a game guide kind of obvious.
*WP:NOR again, kind of obvious.
I redirected both articles back to AoM, so the information can still be accessed later but not in its own article. I think it would be helpful for someone familiar with the article to add a little bit more encyclopedic information about gods if the current section does not suffice. Thoughts?--Clyde (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  I edited the redirects so they go to Age of Mythology#Gods (for obvious reasons) G1ggy! Review me! 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: In the peer review it was suggested that section Favor were to be merged with the paragraph on resources, as well as that section Relics be merged into section Hero. Well, any thoughts? What do say? Should we merge? ♠Tom@sBat 23:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Any comments?  I think it's good to go to GA now. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 24, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass. The article is well written and conforms to Wikipedia's Manual of stylr.
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass. The article is factually accurate and well sourced in all areas. Areas not cited such as gods and units sub-section contain appropriate links to articles that describe the said subjects of text.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. Describes the game in great detail throughout the article.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. Written in an neutral tone.
:5. Article stability? Pass. No edit warring. Just the occasional vandalism revert.
:6. Images?: Pass. All images properly licensed and sourced.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. 
Issues since the last GA have been addressed. Sections now contain adequate references and is well written so I have decided to pass the article. Thank you to all those who worked hard on this article and keep it up! --Hdt83  Chat 09:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks for the review! G1ggy Talk/Contribs 04:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: Anybody feel like archiving? I think it's time.--Clyde (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - I moved 25 old threads to /Archive 1.  We can probably add more there some time in the near future, but I left the old GA reviews etc. just for now. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 04:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I was wondering, which is going to be used here? It's not specifically American or British, and an ArbCom precedent says we cannot change it from one way to the other unless there is cause. I noticed that both spellings were used. I want to go through and fix it one way or the other, but I'd like to know if there was discussion on this; as well as what people think should be the rule. I  (said) (did) 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We decided to use American, since the game was developed there.  Most of the British English is because I wrote a lot of it in MS word (in Australia, it auto corrects to British English).  So yes, feel free to change it to American. Giggy UCP 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Will do. I  (said) (did) 22:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English or American?