Talk:Massively multiplayer online role-playing game/Archive 5

message: These were two comments in the body of the article that I've moved here. --Beefnut 10:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And regardless, any use of a formula to derive financial metrics would be original research unless we can point to a specific source that runs the numbers for us. Tarinth 13:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In-Article Comments

message: Hey I am wondering if this article should contain info on Massive Multi Player First Person Shooters. It seems it would fit in ths catagorie.  Billybreaths21 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid not. This article is about MMORPGs, the sub-genre of MMOGs. MMOFPS is another seperate sub-genre of MMOGs. The article about MMOGs already has a mention of MMOFPSs I think. Greeves (talk • contribs)  00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MMOFPS

message: Maybe there should be a criticisms section in the page.
(Game addictive in negative way / players perhaps lonely / socially inept / have difficulty in real world / problems with reality / sad etc.)
Often wikipedia pages have this kind of section, but oddly many of the gaming pages do not. Perhaps many gamers are wikipedia contributors? Perhaps a link or mention of Computer addiction or something along the lines of the "We can't forget" section above?
I think I'm gonna stop vandalising and actually join this place. How long would it take to read every article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.43.156 (talk • contribs) 
:New editors are always welcome. I think that a brief mention of the potential addiction in the Pswychology of MMORPGs section would be useful. To not even mention the potential problem is POV. For now, I have added it to the See also section. Feel free to edit the article constructively, perhaps adding a paragraph to that section (Psychology) and having a link there to the Computer addiction article. By the way, there is no need to add the HTML code for line breaks or most other formatting. 
:Oh, and with 1.6 million articles, it should only take a few decades to read them all. --Habap 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: You have Runescape and Maple Story here.  But Silkroad and Rappelz have more success.  They should be mentioned.  AWP_Lizard
:Please see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a catalog of things, it is an encyclopedia. We should not be trying to list every example we can come up with, but only those that are notable, or that add important information to the article. If you want to create a list, there are guidelines for that, and you can reference the list from this article. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Silkroad Online is a notable game, this article should not list every example of a type of game, nor should it debate which game has more subscribers. We provide an example for each facet and leave it that way. Wikipedia is not the place to "get some publicity" (aka advertise) for a game. Unless there is some significant aspect of MMORPGs that is only present in SRO, there is no need to list it as an example. --Habap 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free MMORPG

message: Foreign (mainly asian) MMORPGs have been very compedative in the genre.  I believe that they should be mentioned.  I.E. MapleStory (korean), Rappelz (korean), Cabal Online (korean), Kal Online (chinese), Hero Online (chinese) and Phantasy Star Online (japanese).  There are millions more, but these are the most notable.
Movie adaptation MMORPGs as well:  Pirates of the Caribeans Online, Lord of the Rings Online, and Firefly (Serenity) Online.
AWP_Lizard
: These both sound to me like useful bits to be added to the "Current Trends" section, though if you can find stats on the rise of foreign MMORPGs (say comparative #s of domestic/foreign games produced in a year), and it's far enough back, that would merit a new paragraph in the History section. --Beefnut 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign/Movie MMORPGs

message: * There is white space from the lead and th table of contents, remove.
* Common features - can easily be converted from a list into two paragraphs
* One sentence paragraphs, there's quite a few and they should be removed, merged or expanded.
* All Images require fair use rationales - check the licensing tag or the pictures at Halo 2
* Consistinacy - Silkroad online and Runescape are italicized   but Maplestory isn't.
* References - this article needs lots more. Every paragraph needs one or more references - every claim needs to be backed up a few examples
**Many MUDs are still active and a number of influential MMORPG designers,
**The first graphical MMORPG was Neverwinter Nights by designer Don Daglow and programmer Cathryn Mataga (not to be confused with Neverwinter Nights by BioWare).
**Meridian 59, launched by 3DO in late 1996, was one of the first Internet MMORPGs.
**It was the most commercially successful MMORPG in the United States for five years,
**Although it also offered unlimited service for $119.99 per month, until AT&T acquired TSN and rendered it strictly an hourly service. etc etc
*Psychology of MMORPGs - contains several external links
* References are inconsistent format - they're missing a title, publisher, access date and author if applicable -  can help here.
Main issues is references, which will take some time, o and don't promote the article as a GA when it isn't. M3tal H3ad 07:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Hmmm thanks for the input! Looks like we've got a lot of work on our hands but a lot of good constructive criticism here :) --Rambutaan 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the nominator, I'll help finish things up here... we've almost made it to GA! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the tone that guy used, but that is mostly constructive advice.  I'll get to reference-hunting asap.  --Beefnut 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Fail

message: ===Uncompleted===
* One sentence paragraphs, there's quite a few and they should be removed, merged or expanded.
* All Images require fair use rationales - check the licensing tag or the pictures at Halo 2
** Hmmm the original posters of the images will need to be contacted to see if they can write-up fair use rationales I guess... --Rambutaan 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Checklist for improvement of article

message: * One sentence paragraphs, there's quite a few and they should be removed, merged or expanded.
* All Images require fair use rationales - check the licensing tag or the pictures at Halo 2
** Hmmm the original posters of the images will need to be contacted to see if they can write-up fair use rationales I guess... --Rambutaan 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncompleted

message: *Psychology of MMORPGs - contains several external links
** I just need further explanation on this - does that mean too many of [] are not allowed in Good Articles? --Rambutaan 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completed

message: I just thought that I would let everyone know that I have now nominated this article for inclusion in the Wikipedia 0.7 release. For those who don't already know, version 0.7 is the last step before Wikipedia 1.0, the stable version of Wikipedia's best articles based on quality and importance. Per the criteria, B-class articles with a high importance can be accepted - this article is top importance and pretty much GA now. I hope that this article is accepted into the program and I hope that we achieve GA soon (maybe even before this article is reviewed)! If you are on the review team, feel free to review the article. That's all for now! And on a side note, get referencing as that is one of the last steps towards GA (alongside getting our images FURs)! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 0.7 Release Nomination 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support - As nom. Greeves (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad example: FIFA is the common English language abbreviation for the French words. We have precedent and WP:MOS convention with cases like FBI, USA, etc. I'm sure that a greater majority of people know what USA stands for then what MMORPG means. But the convention applies equally to both. 205.157.110.11 02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MMORPG is the common aprreviation. FBI is one thing, but I don't know anyone who really says USA (unles they are chanting it, like USA! USA!), most people say United States or US. MMORPG is the most common name, so I think that WP:COMMONNAME would apply here. TJ Spyke 03:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMMONNAME applies to the broader spectrum of Wikipedia readership, not just to adherehents of a specific clique. To the average Wikipedia reader, MMORPG is not common at all. Only those with intimate and specific knowledge of those games could consider the phrase common. On the contrary, the average Wikipedia reader will understand Masssively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. To use a retail example, the most common phrase by far in speaking of profit margin is IMU. However, only those with intimate knowledge of retail will find that phrase "common". For the average Wikipedia reader, the more common phrase is Markup (business) and that is the appropriate title for that article. 205.157.110.11 12:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't play MMORPGs (never have, and probably never will since I refuse to pay a monthly fee just to be able to play a game I already own) but MMORPG is still far better IMO. A quick Google search brings up over 27 million hits for "MMORPG" but only 340,000 for the full name. TJ Spyke 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had roughly the same Googlesearch results. Also, I led the opposition for the recent attempt to move UEFA. However, in that case the name is pronounced as a word, i.e. people say "you-ay-fa", not "you-ee-eff-ay". People spell out the "emm-emm-oh-arr-pee-gee" acronym, correct? If that's the case it'd follow the precedent of something like FBI, which despite being forty times more popular in Google, is only a redirect to Federal Bureau of Investigation. --DeLarge 11:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not to non-gamers though. Greeves (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FBI is how the Federal Bureau of Investigation is always referred to and is by FAR the most common name. However, we have distinct WP:MOS guidelines for acronymns and a naming convention WP:PRECISION that deals with such issues.205.157.110.11 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: I boldly split the history section of the article to a seperate article article as the section was huge. I tried to summarize the section, but whenever I summarize anything it always turns out still too big. Would anyone be able to summariize it a bit more (I never know what to cut out)? On the bright side, I brought it down from about five screens long to less than two.
On a side note, I am going to submit this article for GA again as we completed most of the checklist from last time. Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this very thing a while ago, and as shown in Archive 3 there was a very brief discussion and it was moved back.  I still support this move entirely - as you said, the article is simply way too big with History included, and also I believe that moving the history away will cut down on vandalism and ad-inserting considerably.  However!  If we do keep history moved, then before submitting the article for GA status we really need to make sure that remaining content does not suck.  Out of courtesy for the GA reviewers we really should avoid submitting a premature article for the third time. -Beefnut 05:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way... I get the feeling that it might be way easier to get History of MMORPGs to GA status first. --Beefnut 05:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BOLD|Bold]]  split of history section 

message: On the whole, this is a solid start to this article, and I'm sure it will become featured as work continues. Few minor issues for GA status:
* Some of the references, such as 9, need to be at least somewhat formatted (Template:Cite web is good to use).
* There are several stubby, 1 sentence paragraphs and other prose glitches that should be easily identifyable if someone spends 10 minutes copy-editing. Transitions ("finally," "first," are overused a bit.
* A few statements could use refs, such as "This is so for two reasons: first, players will demand new content to keep the game exciting, and second, players will always be developing new ways to cheat which need to be dealt with." Try to make sure the wording does not suggest original research or POV; otherwise, citing is good practice.
* The second para of the lead can probably be expanded by 1-2 sentences to cover trends, etc.
* Images need Wikipedia:Fair use rationale
— Deckiller 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try and get this all done. I have created a checklist and have already crossed off the first one as per WP:GA?, there is no need for the citations to be in their proper format. By the way, when you put a GAC on hold, please change the banner at the top of the page. Thanks for the review! Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think I got rid of most of the transitions I think. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Is this really needed? Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wouldn't hurt.  Beefnut 07:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not needed per WP:GA?. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Could be tricky, the original image creators were contacted a while ago. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indeed and only one of them actually replied to my request (whether or not he/she has added the fair rationale notice is another matter entirely). Anyway, the only thing I can think of if we really can't get any responses back (since they may be inactive wikipedians for all we know) is we try our best to find active wikipedians who are also players of the games which the screenshots were taken from and ask them to re-take similar shots + add fair use rationales. --Rambutaan 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have gone over what images are probably don't make the cut: I think that :Image:WoW Flying Gnomes.jpg and :Image:EverQuest - The Temple of Solusek Ro.jpg are the only ones still needing fair use rationals. The EverQuest one might have to go which I'd rather not have to do as it's one of two pictures in the summary of the history article. The WoW one is the main picture of the article, so I would truly hope that it wouldn't have to go as well. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hello--I am the contributor of the flying gnomes pic that's in the lead of the article.  What exactly do you need for that? Tarinth 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Don't worry, as I knew that a Wikipedian took the picture and it was from a copyrighted game, I knew what the fair use rationale was. Greeves (talk • contribs) 12:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I had an idea! I copied the text from the Halo: Combat Evolved (FA) images as they were both for copyrighted games though the EverQuest 2 image did not specify that it was self-taken so I replaced it with another image instead. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Cool. It's starting to come together really nicely. — Deckiller 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GAOnHold

message: ====Un-Completed====
* There are several stubby, 1 sentence paragraphs and other prose glitches that should be easily identifyable if someone spends 10 minutes copy-editing. Transitions ("finally," "first," are overused a bit.
:*I think I got rid of most of the transitions I think. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Is this really needed? Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wouldn't hurt.  Beefnut 07:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not needed per WP:GA?. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Could be tricky, the original image creators were contacted a while ago. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indeed and only one of them actually replied to my request (whether or not he/she has added the fair rationale notice is another matter entirely). Anyway, the only thing I can think of if we really can't get any responses back (since they may be inactive wikipedians for all we know) is we try our best to find active wikipedians who are also players of the games which the screenshots were taken from and ask them to re-take similar shots + add fair use rationales. --Rambutaan 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have gone over what images are probably don't make the cut: I think that :Image:WoW Flying Gnomes.jpg and :Image:EverQuest - The Temple of Solusek Ro.jpg are the only ones still needing fair use rationals. The EverQuest one might have to go which I'd rather not have to do as it's one of two pictures in the summary of the history article. The WoW one is the main picture of the article, so I would truly hope that it wouldn't have to go as well. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hello--I am the contributor of the flying gnomes pic that's in the lead of the article.  What exactly do you need for that? Tarinth 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Don't worry, as I knew that a Wikipedian took the picture and it was from a copyrighted game, I knew what the fair use rationale was. Greeves (talk • contribs) 12:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I had an idea! I copied the text from the Halo: Combat Evolved (FA) images as they were both for copyrighted games though the EverQuest 2 image did not specify that it was self-taken so I replaced it with another image instead. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Cool. It's starting to come together really nicely. — Deckiller 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Checklist

message: * There are several stubby, 1 sentence paragraphs and other prose glitches that should be easily identifyable if someone spends 10 minutes copy-editing. Transitions ("finally," "first," are overused a bit.
:*I think I got rid of most of the transitions I think. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Is this really needed? Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wouldn't hurt.  Beefnut 07:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Un-Completed

message: * Some of the references, such as 9, need to be at least somewhat formatted (Template:Cite web is good to use).
:*Not needed per WP:GA?. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Could be tricky, the original image creators were contacted a while ago. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indeed and only one of them actually replied to my request (whether or not he/she has added the fair rationale notice is another matter entirely). Anyway, the only thing I can think of if we really can't get any responses back (since they may be inactive wikipedians for all we know) is we try our best to find active wikipedians who are also players of the games which the screenshots were taken from and ask them to re-take similar shots + add fair use rationales. --Rambutaan 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have gone over what images are probably don't make the cut: I think that :Image:WoW Flying Gnomes.jpg and :Image:EverQuest - The Temple of Solusek Ro.jpg are the only ones still needing fair use rationals. The EverQuest one might have to go which I'd rather not have to do as it's one of two pictures in the summary of the history article. The WoW one is the main picture of the article, so I would truly hope that it wouldn't have to go as well. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hello--I am the contributor of the flying gnomes pic that's in the lead of the article.  What exactly do you need for that? Tarinth 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Don't worry, as I knew that a Wikipedian took the picture and it was from a copyrighted game, I knew what the fair use rationale was. Greeves (talk • contribs) 12:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I had an idea! I copied the text from the Halo: Combat Evolved (FA) images as they were both for copyrighted games though the EverQuest 2 image did not specify that it was self-taken so I replaced it with another image instead. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Cool. It's starting to come together really nicely. — Deckiller 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completed

message: Hey, I've noticed just a small error that I want an opinion on before I change.  Thier is a list of "independent" project MMORPGs that are labeled some of the "best-established".  This is an opinion, and the adjective should be removed (not many adjectives should be used on this domain, regardless; this is an encyclopedia, not an opinion poll). Thank you and please concider my opinion.Sec'qr-euin 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  Ideally, we should find some objective statistics ranking independent projects, reference them, and then pick the top few titles to list for the article.  However, until we do find something like that, I'd prefer to have the list up there rather than throw it out entirely.  --Beefnut 07:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Best-established independent MMORPGs

message: I'd like to see http://www.mmobay.net added to the external links.  Since Ebay has stopped allowing gamers to list items,characters and other game items, I think this is a great alternative.  Its new so not many users which is another reason it would be good to add.  What do you think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.154.234 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2007
:Please observe WP:TALK by signing your posts and adding new sections. On the topic of the external link, I would have to say no. There are no auctions going on at this point. Also, as useful as this is for MMORPG gamers, this I would have to say is not exactly fit for an encyclopedia, though as the site develops it could become very useful. By the way, do you run this site (just out of curiosity). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  No reason to link.  Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.  In the event that a particular company in the RMT industry begins drawing substantial media attention (i.e., they are on their way to becoming encyclopedic on their own) it would probably warrant mention within the article. Tarinth 12:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New external link