Talk:Transport Tycoon

message: I have proposed that the OpenTTD article be merged into the Transport Tycoon article. A large part of the OpenTTD article, namely the History and Gameplay sections, are common to both articles and hold little specific relevance to OpenTTD alone. Also, it seems odd that OpenTTD needs to have its own page while TTDPatch is combined in the main article. Adding to this point is the fact that Transport Tycoon Deluxe and Locomotion also have sections within the main article, not stand-alone pages (except Locomotion, but that is a completely seperate game). The OpenTTD article has been previously tagged as having failed the notability requirements and so, based on the above points, I believe that the commonsense course of action is to merge the two articles and give OpenTTD a section within Transport Tycoon.
If there are no posts objecting to the Merge, I shall undertake the Merger in 5 Days on 14 December 2009. If there are significant objections with well supported reasons for keeping the pages seperate, I shall not Merge the pages for approximately 2 weeks from now, or 23 December 2009, assuming a Consensus is reached.
PookeyMaster (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I too think the rule about primary sources is not ideal, however the only way for the encyclopedia to work is for there to be strict standards about how things are laid out. If I merge the page, I was going to create a OpenTTD Section within the Transport Tycoon page and re-write the section so that it removes duplication and updates the facts that are used. Also, the Ludvig Strigeus reference is incorrect. The discussion found that he was Non-Notable and the article was subsequently Deleted. As well, notability has nothing to do with the number of search engine hits (see WP:GOOGLE) and has everything to do with the quality of the sources used. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hmm, but if OpenTTD is not notable, why should it be mentioned in the Transport Tycoon section? After all there are no Wikipedia-approved sources to corroborate what OpenTTD is, otherwise it could have its own section. Either you strictly apply the rules or you do not; anyhow, looking at the Transport Tycoon sections there are absolutely no secondary sources (Chris Sawyer (Transport Tycoon's developer) is a primary source that is as credible about Transport Tycoon as the OpenTTD developers are about OpenTTD), so is Transport Tycoon actually notable? So I think for being a Encyclopedia it is better to remove any traces of OpenTTD because there are no Wikipedia-approved sources to prove what it is and what the differences are, probably also remove the references to TTDPatch. Now for Ludvig; I think I linked the wrong one: this says keep and seems to be the newer of the two. As well, notability for OpenTTD has been proven and thus is still notable (see WP:NTEMP). 85.149.88.77 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you read WP:GNG the OpenTTD article fails the tests as there are only primary sources used and any that are secondary sources are not independent of the subject. Also, a section in the Transport Tycoon article would be much shorter and as such WP:GNG says that The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources so it can be assumed that fewer and less reliable sources are needed for the section compared to the article as a whole. Taking what you have said onboard, I think it would be appropriate to simply say something along the lines of Two spin-offs of Transport Tycoon Deluxe have been created, TTDPatch which patches the original executable and OpenTTD which is an Open-Source clone of the original game written in C++ somewhere in the article. PookeyMaster (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *By the same token, the fact that a previous discussion found it to be notable then doesn't prove that it is notable now. Also, OpenTTD is not a completly different game. When you play OTTD you are playing Transport Tycoon Deluxe written in C++ instead of x86 Assembly with extra features and bug fixes added. The fact that it is in a different language does not make it a different game (check out Windows Server; it has x64 and Itanium versions of the same product). PookeyMaster (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Lets use Windows to compare Transport Tycoon and OpenTTD and I'm totally ignoring sources/notability here just to show that the reasoning seems flawed. Windows Server 2008 is nothing more than Windows Server 2003 with extra features and bug fixes added. Your OpenTTD vs Transport Tycoon comparison is similar to this yet articles for the different Windows Server versions is 'good' but for OpenTTD/Transport Tycoon it is not? I have to confess that this comparison does not hold when looking at the supported architecture; both Windows Server versions support 3, Transport Tycoon supports 1 whereas OpenTTD supports about a dozen. Windows 9x and Windows NT are vastly different because the internals from Windows NT as mostly rewritten (from scratch), the same holds for Transport Tycoon and OpenTTD; most code is rewritten (from scratch) to behave mostly the same for the end user, but on the other hand support a huge number of new features/improvements that were not possible with the old code. Anyhow, the question is where the line is between a simple extension of the original or something that warrants a separate article; Ubuntu is nothing more than Debian in a different skin with different objectives, OpenTTD vs Transport Tycoon Deluxe is not that much different. But I digress. The reasoning for mentioning OpenTTD in Wikipedia should be purely based upon credible secondary sources (and thus notability). If those are not found mentioning OpenTTD at all is against Wikipedia policy, otherwise OpenTTD would basically be notable and merging because of it being unnotable is wrong. 85.149.88.77 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *The x64 and Itanium versions of Server 2008 R2 have to be written in entirely different languages as they are different architectures not different platforms. Also, Server 2008 was almost a complete rewrite of Server 2003. If you have a look through Microsoft's security Avisories, there are no linked bugs which indicates that they're coding structure is completly different. The fact that OTTD runs on 12 platforms has nothing to do with notability. Another example is Firefox, where there are major code overhauls between versions so each version deserves its own page. However, as the OTTD article contains no secondary references, and basing the decision purely on this fact would result in Merge or Delete. PookeyMaster (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *Can you explain why you are still reasoning that OpenTTD is not notable while in the latest discussion (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpenTTD) it was agreed upon that OpenTTD was (and as such is) notable? 88.159.88.38 (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Where in my previous post do I say that OpenTTD is not notable? I said that the fact that it (OTTD) runs on 12 platforms has nothing to do with notability but I never said it is not notable, only that the reason given is invalid. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *Duplification of Text is a reason for merging articles. Read WP:MERGE and the first point says Duplicate. Wikipedia does not need two articles which say exactly the same thing. OpenTTD is also not ists own game. Its code and even the OpenGFX and OpenSFX, from what I have read, are all derived from the original graphics, sound and code base. If I was to start up a business in Australia (where I reside) and try to sell OpenTTD I would be shut down regardless of whether it ever had a license agreement. Australian law sees reverse engineering of copyrighted contents that results in the creation of a similar game or program as copyright infringement. PookeyMaster (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *How is the legal status of OpenTTD relevant? Also OpenGFX and OpenSFX are truly free, after all, that was the whole point of these sets. Quote from the OpenGFX readme: "The main goal of OpenGFX therefore is to provide a set of free base graphics which make it possible to play OpenTTD without requiring the (copyrighted) files from the TTD cd. This potentially increases the OpenTTD fanbase and makes it a true free game (with "free" as in both "free beer" and "open source")." 88.159.88.38 (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *I have been an artist on the OpenGFX project and I can say I did not use any TTD graphics, and they were drawn only in a similar style. OpenSFX uses open sound databases. To say they are derived from TTD's original graphics and sounds is an insult to the many people who have worked hard on the respective projects. Born Acorn (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *Excellent work. I shall leave the tags on the pages for another week in case anyone else comes along and wishes to comment, but the reworked page is a lot better, especially references 1-3,6,9 and 11 which are truly independent of the subject. It needs a slight re-wording to comply with grammer policies, but otherwise it is a vast improvement over the previous version. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *Brilliant, the changes you have made are fantastic. --TheJosh (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Are interchange stations between two train lines allowed?
:Yes, just have two lines meet in the same station... smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interchange Stations

message: Near the end of the article there is a line near the end about vehicle renaming and town renaming the inaccuracy is that you can rename towns regardless of ratings.
I added the OpenTTD website to External Links, because it seems odd to me that TTDpatch is mentioned and OpenTTD isn't. I accidentally submitted the change before I wrote my 'Edit Summary' completely, so I thought I'd mention my change here. Didero 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A little inaccuracy

message: When I was trying to get a replacement for a TTD cd I damaged, I found a game in a bargain bin labeled "Deluxe Transport Tycoon".   Turns out this was actually the original Transport Tycoon with some extra content (landscape/scenery as I recall).  It did not have any of the game enhancements of TTD, such as improved signaling & monorails. 
Is this version worth mentioning in this article?
--208.204.155.241 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the "World Editor" version, with Martian landscape (IIRC). It's mentioned in one sentence, (A "World Editor" expansion pack was also released for the original Transport Tycoon, but was overshadowed by the Deluxe version released shortly afterward). Perhaps it'd be worth expanding on what the pack provided. --user:Qviri 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deluxe Transport Tycoon vs Transport Tycoon Deluxe 

message: The Overview section copies vertabim this page. --CCFreak2K 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is straight opposite. This section in wikipedia is from 10 February 2004 , mentioned page is presumably from 2006. Page is using wikipedia content without attribution and thus breach of GNU Free Documentation License. --Jklamo 00:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copytheft? 

message: I feel strongly that something should be mentioned about the current owner of the name and the actual game. There have been many discussions about it on the internet. I shall try and find out more soon and write a section.
Robotboy2008 10:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coppyright holder 

message: I think that this game (and all its sequels and other similar games) should be mentioned in :Category:Isometric_video_games and Isometric_projection. --orionsyndrome 77.105.59.191 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isometric view 

message: The current owner of the game I think was Atari. Should have mentioned that too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.20.101 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Owner 

message: I stumbled upon some rare 3D version of the game in YouTube, it could be included in the article too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=668-USF1uZ8
91.156.5.14 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D version 

message: article did not mention it is rated as a "must see" game by any who've tried it, for the day simply fantastic and still more fun than city simulators - though it is a simulator.  the best of it's day.
it (II) came out (my area) later much than sc2000 and few heard of it (no advertising but box, and back then boxes lied outrageously in usa)
it was far better than sc2000 and exciting multiplayer - and excellent music.  should have won awards if it didn't
it's only overlook was it was not childs play so excluded those players, it was for advanced users (knew what it was) or users who could read a manual.  it has no relaxed mode (is competitive) so it is a fairly a realtime strategy city simulator, rather than just a state of the city simulator where no one is trying to take your icecream?
summary: the article should mention it as "everyone that likes realtime strategy that tried it rates it as a must see game"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  humble opinion 

message: As I recall, the game's calendar doesn't end on the year 2030 but 2050. When you get to 2030 a newspaper front page pops up to celebrate your centennial. After that you can keep playing for as long as you want (I think) but it's not until 2050 that the year stops changing. 75.161.56.124 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm sure of it. It doesn't end in 2030.75.161.56.124 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think the game ends in 2030