Talk:Rome: Total War

message: I added the  tag. There's way too much stuff about in-game and gameplay minutiae. It really has to be trimmed down. The Factions, Family, Agents and Mercenaries sections need to be reduced to a single section. SharkD (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gameguide 

message: As a casual reader of the article I would expect the "Historical Inaccuracies" section to contain a description of various specific inaccuracies in the game, but instead find it's a quick paragraph stating the fact that it's not historically accurate (with a lot of non-neutral negative qualities applied and surrounded by quotation marks) with a sourced statement only acknowledging that "it could have been better."
An actual list of inaccuracies is on this page but for some mundane WP/rules reason it isn't in the article??  The way it is now, the section should just be deleted outright or merged into a reception section. --64.149.45.154 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the section is really needed, while yes the game does contain many historical inaccuracies, the game never stated that it was made to be fully historically accurate. If there are reviewers that have mentioned historical inaccuracies then their comments should be added to the Reception section. QueenCake (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Mallerd is talking about Talk:Rome:_Total_War/Archive2#Remove_Historical_Inaccuracies_section (which Mallerd pasted back here in case QueenCake hadn't read it, but we can just link to it). --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I read it, I did not see any reason the discussion should be brought up again. The section is not needed. QueenCake (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Historical Inaccuracies section 

message: Ok, the guidelines for video game articles clearly state in WP:VGSCOPE that Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts, which includes faction lists, are unnecessary in a wikipedia article and should be concisely presented in prose form. They also state that a video game article should not be either a Strategy guides and walkthroughs, as Wikipedia is not a guide. Other Total War articles that include factions lists are poorly written and breaking policies, if in doubt look at the discussion on the Empire: Total war talk page. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say there, the information on the factions was far too detailed, even including information on what the factions would likely do in a campaign. Though if you decided that information was largely unnecessary then feel free to work on a better revision of the article. QueenCake (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Im going to post the edited version. If you want to edit the new version you can but i think i removed most of the unnecessary information.  LegendLiver (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The revision you posted still contains info not required in an article for a video game, a brief description of factions and how they operate is all that's needed, video game articles should include more information on different game play features, the campaign mode and the battle map in this case. Faction lists are just too in detail and violate the guidelines, clearly shown on the Article guidelines. QueenCake (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: As a kind of comparison, if you look at the Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings featured article, the game to has many different civilisations to choose from but the article focuses on a brief overview of their abilities and purpose, concentrating on the overall gameplay. Being a featured article, that article is an example of what all video games should ultimately be. Also I think its best if any further reversions are discussed here, rather than starting a possible edit war. QueenCake (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Tell users to go wherever you want, as long as they know where to get the info no one will complain they can not read about it here. QueenCake (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the section entitled Factions, at the time of this edit, offers only a limited information (a listing of the factions, whether they are playable or unlock-able and a little hack) I have added a link to the twcenter which offers more detailed information regarding the factions (including starting position, victory conditions and available units). Although another user mentioned this possibility I didn't saw any existing twcenter links. Amon Koth (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factions 

message: Seems to me the historical battles and the modifications sections aren't really needed? Maybe I'm wrong. Muskeato 22:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unneeded information

message: got a nice noob-box on this screenshot: File:Hellenicphalanx.JPG lol  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.240.73 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: picture

message: Personally I feel we could remove the game guide tag on this article. Opinions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskeato (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, i agree.-Evaristé93 (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, it's been like 3 weeks, no one's had any input, so i've removed it. -Evaristé93 (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "game guide" 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hellenicphalanx.JPG
I don't think it's a very good picture for demonstrating gameplay, nor the large unit scale. Anyone think it should be replaced with a better picture? By "better", i reckon something with a large amount of units on the field with some variety, not all crammed into one space (who even plays like that?)-Evaristé93 (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hellenicphalanx.JPG 

message: It lists factions that are unplayable but all of these with the exception of the S.P.Q.R are available if they are moved under the 'playable' section in the faction file.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's covered in the article's "modifications" section. Huon (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unplayable factions 

message: I propose that this article should change date formats to DMY from MDY. The MDY format (magenta) is only used by the US and this game has no strong national connection or tie to the US. The vast majority of the world (including the developers country, Britain) uses the DMY format and Wikipedia is an international platform (as should represent as such). Also the game's setting is in Europe, the vast majority of which uses the DMY setting. Essentially I see no reason why the article should use the date format of the US, when there is much more justification for another system. See also: Date format by country. Helper201 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed on your user talk page, the developer's nationality does not constitute a strong national tie to justify changing an article's variety of date/English, and there's nothing about the game's setting that constitutes a strong national tie to a variety of English/date either... The standard is to retain the existing formatting unless there is a reason for it to be changed. You've expressed now in multiple places that you don't think MDY belongs on WP. Individual articles are the wrong place to have that debate. czar 22:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What constitutes a strong national tie is clearly up for debate within the context of what is being edited (depending on the page and / or subject), hence why I have taken this to talk. Also I never said MDY does not belong on Wikipedia, I said it does not belong to articles that have no strong national ties to the US and that it is far over used on pages that have little to no relevance to that country, especially considering the vast majority of the world does not use this format and that Wikipedia is an international platform. Please give me the link to wherever you believe this is best discussed. Also please try not to deny someone just because its the rules and maintain the status quo, just because its the status quo. That is one reason why talk is here, to discuss the rules, whether or not changes meets those rules, applicability, exemptions etc. You have been the only one opposing these changes. Wikipedia should be about discussion and I've seen my points mostly ignored and just met with "because its the rules". This does not help Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Wikipedia:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time. Helper201 (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the US dating system

message: I work for Feral Interactive, the company responsible for porting ROME to macOS, Linux, and mobile. My conflict of interest is disclosed in my bio and my edits are intended to ensure factual correctness. I understand that editors of this page may not wish me to make edits due to my conflict of interest.
Feral Interactive today announced that an Android port of ROME: Total War will be released in winter 2019. The current line about Feral's work in the introductory paragraph reads:
"The Mac OS X version was released on 5 February 2010 by Feral Interactive, who released the iPad version on November 10, 2016, and the iPhone version on August 23, 2018."
''
We suggest the addition of: 
"Feral have also announced that an Android port of the game will be released in winter 2018."
''
Feral steph (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Android port 

message: There has been some editing back and forth regarding mods for Rome Total war. I think the article would be improved by a short reference to the most notable mods, but at the same time, they have not been focused on in Wikipedia's reliable sources (TM). I think Arma 2 and Counter-Strike: Source did it nicely, but no RTW mods have received as much attention as the ones mentioned there. How to we handle mods for RTW? I saw some sources, e.g. PC Gamer, included one or two RTW mods in a best mods for total war compilation. I also notice that some mods have their own Wikipedia article, but I think they are illegitmate --Orubblig (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a couple of sentences with the few reliable sources I could find.--Orubblig (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle mods in article? 

message: When choosing references for this article, please look on Google Books, or use WP functions. There are ~40 citations on this page, most of which do not follow WP:RS because they are either:
* From someone clearly affiliated with the game, and trying to make it look good.
* A random tiny website where anyone can write what they want.
Thank you for your co-operation. JacobTheRox (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choosing references