Talk:Ancient Domains of Mystery

message: Is it really necessary to have three different ADOM MobyGames links? Lochok 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Right now, the article doesn't seem very neutral to me, especially the "some significant features" section. It might also need some cleanup... Torte 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've toned down the "Significant features" section to include what seem to be somewhat significant features. Ideally, someone(s) should pitch in to remove this whole section, as it's still nothing but a collection of bullet-points with no substantiation of significance. For those items that truly are significant to the game (and I'm not saying that includes the list as it stands now), it might be best to work it into the gameplay section (which, itself, requires work). D. Brodale 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality... (re: Significant Features) 

message: I removed the useless history section which was an exact copy from the ADOM's homepage. IMHO a link to the history page would suffice instead of copypasting the page here. Arsestar 14:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: The official webpage discusses working on the Jade release as recently as 12/24/06.  Is there any standard length of time for what is labeled "Vaporware?"  
That term is rather pejorative, and seems to be more opinion or interpetation than objective fact.
ThomasLB 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be pejorative, but JADE has been considered such for years now (certainly far before 2007), with little to no real-world pay off (as can be gleaned from its brief intro as "based on hot Java-Technology" and the state of its subsite). The entire JADE write-up within the main article seems tacked on and irrelevant to ADOM as a whole. It was Thomas's "new" project almost a decade ago and by now doesn't look to become anything at all. Can someone explain the rationale for its inclusion here, being nothing more than a stillborn project with limited connection to the article's topic? D.brodale 04:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the JADE section from this article, on the grounds of tangential relation to the main topic (ADOM, remember?) and limited notability. I hope no one minds. Judging from the lack of discussion here, it doesn't seem like it will be an issue moving forward. D. Brodale 06:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaporware 

message: I think that the information on the ADoM "licensing" page (http://www.adom.de/adom/licensing.php3) more than qualifies as a citation for Thomas' possible commercial intent for the game.  From the author's mouth: "ADOM has been very successful in the past two years and I strongly believe that ADOM - pepped up with some additional stuff - could be a very successful commercial game."  and "If you can provide the artists and designers to create a great look, we probably have the hot-seller of the next summer lying before us."  It would make sense that if he thinks of ADoM as a possible commercial hit that he would not release the source code, even if it is only one of several reasons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandemicennui (talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commercial intent may be there, but it doesn't follow automatically that it was a requirement or motivation for closing the source of the game. This is the issue in need of citation. Open source software may allow for commerical licensing. This is what I meant in the edit comment that you are/were reading too much into a license. Earlier citation of the FAQ offers the same authorial willingness to license the property commercially, but it also discusses alongside that an existing desire to open source the title if not for lack of control over variants and a desire to retain some mystery about gameplay. Within that FAQ, commercialization isn't discussed as a reason to close the source, and until someone can find a statement that it factored into a decision to close the game off through source retention, the statement that it was one of three reasons for source closure remains dubious. I don't want to read between the lines, either, but the offer of possible commercial licensing alone isn't enough to satisfy a claim that it's a reason for a closed source nature. Especially given that Biskup spends three paragraphs in the FAQ explaining why the game is closed source and doesn't mention this at all. D. Brodale 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  Maybe this idea of commercial intent should be moved or discussed in a different context.  I've not been able to find any resource that relates commercial intent to the protection of the source, but the idea of commercial intent still seems relevant to the project.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandemicennui (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm inclined to drop this third reason from the article (as written now) as unsourced, yet add to the "Development" section some remark that Biskup is open to commercialization as a route for future development by a third party. D. Brodale 18:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reworked the "Development" section in light of the above discusion, including mention of possible commerical ventures, which we both agree are a significant point to mention. D. Brodale 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Intent 

message: It puzzles me how anyone possibly can provide more information on a non-commercial low-profile solo-written game then its author... I suggest the removal of this unreasonable claim, because it cannot be fulfilled. What's your opinion? <BR>   Llewelyn MT (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Primary Sources Bad?

message: I checked the history, and there are secondary sources cited in the article, many of which were added since the template was added in December 2007.  If anyone believes that there are insufficient sources, feel free to add the template back in.  I would just ask that you either add it to the section(s) that do not have sufficient secondary sources, or drop a note here to make it clear where the unsourced material is. Joshua Scott (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed <nowiki>{{Primary sources}}</nowiki>

message: I think it is pretty clear at this point that ADoM (at least, non-iADoM) is not being developed anymore. The Development section should probably be amended to make note of this. 173.67.243.204 (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Still under development

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ancient Domains of Mystery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412213136/http://rpgvaultarchive.ign.com:80/features/interviews/adom.shtml to http://rpgvaultarchive.ign.com/features/interviews/adom.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified