Talk:Eve Online/Archive 9

message: First paragraph under 'background section' are: "The fictional background story[3] for EVE Online explains that long ago, a man living in a chickens egg, having used up most of the Earth's resources, had started colonizing the rest of the Kinder Egg to sustain itself." I don't know anything about this game so I won't correct it, but thought I should point out that apparently someone's been messing with this article. --72.200.78.136 03:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed incorrect information. It got reverted some hours ago, so no worries. AndyBQ 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse? 

message: This game's storyline sounds just like Escape Velocity Nova.  The wormhole collapsing and cutting off the colonists from the central government sounds just like the sabotage of the gate system in Escape Velocity Nova... and from the descriptions I've had of EVE from a player it sounds like gameplay is very similar, with interstellar trade and combat intermixed.  Anyone care to comment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmorrisey (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd never heard of it. However, having read the Wikipedia article the plot does not sound similar (bearing in mind that, as with all fiction, common elements can be found in many places). Also, given that it is described as a first-person plot-driven game I don't think the gameplay could possibly be similar (bearing in mind that, as will all games, common elements can be found in many places). Wiki-Ed 12:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escape Velocity 

message: Deleted due to Trolling and abuse.
Martinj63 23:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glorified Browser Game 

message: With everything happening over at the official eve forums, including the goons posts earlier, and all the IP changes being made I think this is a smart move. TIinPA
Agreed, Especially with the whole goonswarm issue. --Daishi808 09:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm? There have been a grand total of two edits to the article in the last three days, both uncontroversial, both by established editors. I'm a member of GoonSwarm, and for what it's worth, I do not anticipate large-scale vandalism of the article. Should it occur, we can discuss semiprotecting it then. Until then, I think semiprotecting the article would be a solution in search of a problem. --Ashenai 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as people don't vandalize, there is no need to protect this article. The allegations on developers' misconduct are motivated and linked, it's not a rumor mill. Sir Dante 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to burst your bubble, this page was granted semi-protection a few hours after my initial suggestion. No one voiced an opinion so I took action. Thats why only established editors have made changes. TIinPA 14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case props for being proactive, from looking at the Digg and Slashdot articles, I have to say that most all comments in support of CCP (some of them of high quality) has been buried to oblivion, of course that could be the masses getting worked up at a chance to take a stab at "the establishment". I can't help but feel there is a master plan going on in the background however. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh. Didn't know that, thanks. For the record, I feel that "proactive" semiprotects are generally a bad idea, and offer few benefits. It's easy enough to revert+semi after vandalism has proven to be a serious issue. Could we "test the waters" by removing semiprotection for a bit, please? --Ashenai 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The semi-protection will expire on Saturday. If you want it opened back up to whoever before than you can request it here WP:RPP. I think things have settled enough that it can be reopened safely, but I'm not so concerned about IP edits that I can't wait til saturday either. TIinPA 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't have any specific editor in mind. I am frowning because this exact use of semi-protection is brought up in Wikipedia:Protection policy as a "what not to do". "Semi-protection should not be used (...) as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred." Was there a compelling reason for ignoring policy in this case? --Ashenai 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Nevermind, ignore me. I looked at the logs, it's clear that there was indeed a high level of vandalism at the time the article was semiprotected. That's fine then. :) --Ashenai 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries. And I meant "whoever" in the "to the masses" sense, not that you have an agenda. TIinPA 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for semi-protection 

message: I think much of the information in these two sections could be condensed down to a couple of well referenced paragraphs, as it stands there are no references in these sections and the Security Index System section does ramble on somewhat. However if anyone has any thoughts on this matter or has been working on this please let me know. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you have in mind?  Certainly, those subjects are a bit crufty, but their size is proportional to their importance in EVE, security status especially.  For example, as an economic model, EVE is very much reliant on omnipotent government-like oversight to keep trade flowing; the lack of CONCORD in low-sec and 0.0 is why those markets are especially vulnerable to price manipulation and cartels.  Jouster  (whisper) 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[EVE Online#Security Index System|Security Index System]] & [[EVE Online#Warfare|Warfare]] Sections 

message: I feel the section (especially the Goonswarm open letter bit) could use some cleanup now that it's possible to view the events in some perspective, instead of adding everything as it happens, like some sort of news blog. I'm going to recuse myself from editing this bit, for reasons that should be obvious, but I think we should come up with a better format than "Goonswarm did this, then CCP did that, then Goonswarm said this, to which CCP responded that..."
The New York Times article also seems to be excellent, and I think it should be included. We now have an independent source asserting that "many players have become convinced that CCP has rigged the game", and "a broader problem was revealed: Many Eve players, writing on various message boards, said they simply do not trust CCP anymore." This, and Heimar's excellent response to these issues, is something I very much feel belongs here. --Ashenai 08:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't know what should go in here, I am aware that the artice as a whole is turning into a potted history of EVE Online rather than an encyclopaedic article on the game itself. I have been looking for precident within other non MMO wikipedia articles and as yet I have only found a section in David Blunkett#First Resignation. Perhaps we can have a trawl for Good/Featured Articles that approach the topics of misconduct? Also is there guidance in the MoS/Guidelines on approaching these topics in an encyclopaedic manner? -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it does need a cleanup, but I think it might be a good idea to hold off for at least a couple of weeks, until everything's totally settled down. I can't imagine anything else coming up in the Goonswarm letter saga right now, but it wouldn't surprise me. I've always found things are a bit easier to summarise from a distance. Right now, I think collecting all the facts is the best move, even if it does mean it gets a bit overblown. BremenSaki 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development misconduct section cleanup 

message: Removed this from another article where it was too specific. You may have some use here (don't know, may be linked already). MadMaxDog 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it is however already in use in Spaceships of EVE Online. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size compare image

message: Should the article be included in it's own section, with the recent allegations, or not at all? Not really any new information except the first mention of the "nine player-overseers". TIinPA 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It, at best, deserves a level-three heading under "Criticism", IMHO.  Perhaps a reorganization is in order that would bring the IA department's formation under such a third-level header, as well?  Jouster  (whisper) 00:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Jouster in that it deserves soemthing under the Criticism heading, Have we heard anything more officially about it yet, other than the NY Times article I don't remember anything about it in Dev Blogs and the such. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kieron has made a post answering a player question and letting people know a dev blog would appear sometime this week. I think the letter should be included with the IA stuff, but player overseers is unique in the MMO world so we shouldn't bury the information too deep. TIinPA 13:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added the information about the oversight committee in a level-three heading, referenced both the NYT article and Kieron's poste, also moved and re-wrote the IA paragraph to fit in with the heading. Thoughts? -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times Article 

message: I am not sure if such an article would be notable, but I am sure that neither Tritanium nor Pyerite are. Maybe Economics of EVE Online with a section on minerals would be feasible, but those articles about fictional minerals are going to be deleted soon (lack of notability).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Minerals of EVE Online]]