Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GargoyleMT (talk | contribs) at 03:47, 29 May 2007 (→External Links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

TradeWars 2002 vs. Tradewars 2002, Trade Wars 2002, etc.

If anyone has any insight as to the correct naming/capitalization convention, that would be great. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ship types

As mentioned earlier, I would like to add a sidebar box for each ship type page, similar to the taxobox at European badger, the battlebox at Battle of Brandy Station, or perhaps the sidebar at F-16. There is a lot more info that can be added to these ship type pages.. Definitely the basic stats should be there.. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 12:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have added an infobox for Havoc GunStar. If anyone gets the time, they can add the info for the other ships. It should be pretty easy; just use Template:Infobox TradeWars Ship. Note that the safety rating and trading efficiency factor come from . 69.243.41.28 04:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

still need to make one for Escape pod (TradeWars 2002)) because Escape pod goes to a mostly unrelated article.--WhiteDragon 21:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Safety rating and trading efficiency factor

Safety rating and trading efficiency factor come from :

The listing under "Safety Rating" is the total fighters plus shields, multiplied by the ship's odds. This is the number of fighters it will take to kill a fully loaded ship of this type, assuming an attacking ship with 1:1 odds.

More info about trading efficiency is available at that same website.69.243.41.28 04:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is not fancruft

By the way, these ship details are not fancruft! TradeWars 2002 ship types are an integral part of the 1990s door-game-playing subculture, and the continuing Telnet BBS subculture, just as details about ships like the Super Star Destroyer are an important part of the Star Wars subculture. In addition, I view the idea of fancruft as rather arbitrary and subjective, but then again, I'm an inclusionist. 69.243.41.28 04:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Improving the page

So, how can this article be improved? Unless the ship pages are redesigned to make them lengthier (i.e. at least as long as the Imperial StarShip article), it might be better to move them into the main article. In that case, a revision to the ship template would be in order, to make it more compact. Also, a grid-style table should be added for easy comparison of vital ship stats.

Whether topics such as Ferrengi, FedSpace, Captain Zyrain, etc. should be folded into the main article is an open question. What should be done with articles like atomic fusion also puzzles me. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Crossover with Tradewars

What should be done about the crossover between this article and Tradewars? — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Screenshots

By the way, does anyone have any good screenshots we can use here? I am looking for one of the FedPolice HQ building, as well as a screenshot of a Helper that will be legible if shrunk down. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Captain Zyrain & FedSpace & Major Space Lane ---> Federation (TradeWars 2002)_Federation_(TradeWars_2002)">

Okay, I am going to consolidate these three articles into a Federation article. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 14:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More attractive lead picture?

Does anyone have a better screenshot that could be used? 205.217.105.2 19:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Broken link

Under "The Telnet TW2002 scene", the Cyberia BBS link is broken... any ideas on where it went? Or is there another example that could be cited? David aukerman 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

http://thestardock.com:8808/twgssearch/ link in the "The Telnet TW2002 scene" is not working.Dxco 21:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

History

In the late 1980s/early 90's there were a tremendous amount of add ons to the game (especially designed for v1.03/1.03d.) Some examples were the Borg, Crystaline Entity, etc. As might be noticed a very Star Trek TNG theme to them. Greg Foley of Data Warehouse BBS in Hamilton, Ontario wrote a great utility to unify many of these add ons and called it Gextern.

It's also worth mentioning that a considerable number of features that ended up in the Gold version--such as the ability to edit shiptypes--were pioneered by third-party addon developers like Jason Boyd and Brandon Bannerman. These addons were a rich part of the game's progression and the TW2002 culture during the early 90's, and in fact what addons were deployed in what fashion was often what set one BBS's game apart from another. Perhaps someone well-versed in what all these addons were could write up a section on them?

Missile Frigate merge

The AfD on Missile Frigate was just closed with a "merge" result. I think this article is big enough that we should just make a single new tradewars 2002 ship types article containing missile frigate and the others, rather than the current collection of small articles for each found in Category:TradeWars_2002_ship_types. I'll wait a day or two for feedback here, then if there's no objection i'll put up merge templates and start off the WP:MERGE process (Which I've never done before). BCoates 11:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Merchant Cruiser

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Merchant Cruiser has been closed with a large number of related articles now redirecting to TradeWars 2002. Feel free to get the content from the old revisions and merge them to here or to one separate article. —Quarl 2006-12-27 07:46Z

TradeWars 2002 Economics

A section needs to be added to Game Play titled Economics of TradeWars. An understanding of the game economics, basically cashing methods. PPT (Paired Port Trading) used by Blue and Red Players both. SST (Steal, Sell, Transport), SDT (Steal, Dump, Transport), RTR (Rob, Transport, Rob), SSM (Sell, Steal, Move), MeggaRob (MBBS version only) are all Red strategies for earning credits.

• Economics of Tradewars, Part 1
• Economics of Tradewars, Part 2
• Economics of Tradewars, Part 3

My main concern is that while Tradewars is a strategy game, there are no references to the strategies involved.

Cernnunos 09:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but articles on Misplaced Pages are to describe the subject, not a place to discuss strategy or to host strategy guides and indepth discussions. See what Misplaced Pages is not. /Blaxthos 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And describing the game is what I am talking about. There is no description of the economics of Tradewars and even the part about Trade Efficiency is limited and out dated. There is no description of the differences between the classic Tradewars or the MBBS version of Tradewars. So Blaxthos why not let the other editors post before YOU decide was is okay and what is not. Cernnunos 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications RE macros and scripts and red play

I have attempted several times to clarify the difference between macros and scripts. I have also tried to explain what a bust is, where currently there is no explaination of this prior to it being used in context.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

First paragraph: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks."

Every change I have made is completely verifiable. I have attempted to post such references in the external links but they continue to be removed. It is definately hard to claim that such links are not neutral when they have little in the way of active opinions to bias them.

Appearantly we have a disruptive user here that refuses to allow changes he dislikes. Hopefully enough discussion on this can make the point more clear.Dnyarri 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Dnyarri

External Links

Blaxthos has removed links that I've added two or three times, without providing reasons. This area has been added so that he/she can provide proper reasoning.

UrbanTerrorist 11:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm admittedly not Blaxthos, but it seems to me those links are not in line with WP:EL -- keep in mind there's already 3 external links on the article. Additionally, the megacorp example link you added is a 404. Given this, I oppose the addition of these links. RTucker 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The links don't comply with our external links guideline, simple as that. They add nothing to the article, and are not appropriate... We don't need every (or any) of your favorite tradewars helper sites, fan sites, or places to play. Only official sites, or sites that add significantly to this article, should be added to external links, and nothing you've added does. /Blaxthos 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RTucker - I may have misstyped that link - I checked and the site is up. UrbanTerrorist 02:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos - Please explain your reasoning. I have read that page - indeed I've quoted it to people in the past. Why are they not appropriate to the article? Why do you feel that they don't add to the article? Also - none of those sites are favorites of mine, not am I associated with any of them. They are sites that are considered important in the Trade Wars community (I've been playing TW for over 20 years, and keep up with happenings), and as such merit inclusion. Now if you wanted my favorite Tradewars website you'd have to go to Sourceforge. Yes, I'm the person developing that software - in my copious (NOT) spare time.

Let's let things sit for a week - my wife's father is dying, and my next week looks like it will be a disaster. Post me an answer, and I'll get back to you after the funeral. UrbanTerrorist 02:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries on the delay -- Misplaced Pages will be around for awhile.  :-) Which is, indeed, part of the reasoning behind the external links debate. The best, encyclopedic way to deal with external links is to use them as references -- rephrase their knowledge into the text of the article, and then use the original site as a reference. That way, the information is useful to those who are reading Misplaced Pages without a live Internet connection (whether on paper or CD or whatever). If I get a chance, I'll see what I can do with these with some more time and thought. First and foremost, though, best wishes for you and your family. RTucker 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is using those resources as references appropriate? Under the guideline about reliable sources, those don't seem to qualify. The existing EL policy makes sense to me. On a few articles I've seen a link to the DMOZ directory as a way of linking to sites, but not letting the article become overwhelmed with them. (Admittedly, that dmoz link was included in a couple of incarnations of the EL section.) --GargoyleMT 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, they don't really contain information that isn't already in the article... they simply to serve to promote a particular product (helper), place to play, or as a directory of other sites -- all clearly prohibited in WP:EL. /Blaxthos 16:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside: DMOZ seems to be specifically allowed (as a "link to consider"), though it is unclear if its use is acceptable only when there is no consensus about which ELs to include, or if it is always appropriate. (The latter seems to make more sense....) --GargoyleMT 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the links section as it stands now (the three links) would work for me. RTucker 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to rephrase all of the information on external links as text of the article. You could not possibly hope to post all scripts, all strategies, all definitions as an article and to do so would bloat the page beyond reason. It's also generally not appropriate for wikipedia.

While wikipedia may not be a discussion board, it is not inappropriate to post related facts or methodologies of any given subject. Nor is it inappropriate to link to such information if it's relevant. An entire walkthru on the subject might be inappropriate, but if the walkthru was on a site with a high reputation for accuracy then a link to that site would be appropriate.

There isn't an overwhelming number of links that would be appropriate here. Many require registration or are too transient in nature. Those that are not self-promotional, are generally considered authoritative, do not require registration and are not generally transient may make a good addition to the page.

Navhaz, a site I currently administer, is such an example. The material there is compiled and written by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people. It is a compilation of material from many other authors, not just my own self-promotional material. It has been added by neutral parties prior to now, and has been removed at the whim of a few.

We host Traitor's TW-Cabal site now, which is widely known to be the most comprehensive site on TW ever compiled. It is constantly referenced and linked to by people in the community, and regardless of whoever adds it... it is highly relevant and not merely self-promotion. It is far more than a list of links and is considered the most reliable source of information on the topic. Those who actively play the game can easily attest to this. After I finish work on the EIS forum database project it will also contain the collective wisdom of the last 5 years of active Tradewarriors. Far more than just a self-promotional blog or a list of links.

Thestardock.com is another good example. Eleq has ran this server for years. He maintains a current list of new games for players to play on, has strategy guides and a forum for people to post on. Eleq is often referred to as the "Godfather of Tradewars." A list of active servers would be inappropriate, but a link to a constant and reliable site that maintains such an active list would certainly be appropriate. It is so appropriate in-fact that it's even in the article text, so what precisely would be wrong with putting a link to the main URL?

If you can find any better authority on this game than the people that actively play the game and win large tournaments (such as myself) I would love to hear it. Misplaced Pages is not just a history lesson, it's a living collection of knowledge. Dnyarri 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Dnyarri

Maybe I wasn't clear as to why we remove your links. I apologize that new users may not understand "link creep":

• Every TW player who comes along wants to add his or her favorite site, server, script, or strategy guide to the article. Over time, this leads to a list of external links as long as the article itself. Clearly this isn't acceptable.
• If we try to pick and choose which servers/sites/scripts to include, invariably there are dissenting opinions. Since we're dealing with a topic that isn't really covered by reliable sources, it becomes a pissing match as to who gets to decide what sites are "better" to link.
• Most of those sites have redundant information, causing readers to have to dig through numerous sites with numerous overlapping areas of content.

• You've made several claims ("Godfather of Tradewars" "a site with a high reputation for accuracy") without any attribution. Who gets to decide what sites have a "high reputation for accuracy"? Who decided that so-and-so site is "widely known to be the most comprehensive site on TW ever compiled". (Check out WP:WEASEL).

There are perhaps 3 people in the game that can outmatch my knowledge, K3, Traitor and JP himself. Are you any of those 3? If not, then you are not an expert on the subject. What was the last tournament game you won? --Dnyarri

• Misplaced Pages is set up so that no one user (such as you) can claim to be the de facto authority on a subject. Likewise, the number of TradeWars tournaments a particular editor has won has absolutely no relevance. Additionally, the grandeous claim that you are one of the three most knowledgable people regarding TW ever is being a dick.
• Conflict of interests -- You've admitted to being a super duper tradewars expert... don't you think that this maybe clouds your judgement? I haven't played TW or run a TW server in several years, and I don't have much interest in it. I simply have an interest in ensuring that Misplaced Pages articles are compliant with our content policies/guidelines. (which brings us to...)

I'm not a wikinerd, I don't really care about the customs of the people around here ... We will continue to re-add these links as neccessary, and given the number of people involved you will be hard pressed to stop us. --Dnyarri

• Wow... calling us nerds when we know the policies... Blatantly stating that you don't care about our mores and norms/values/rules... and making an outright threat that we'll be "hard pressed to stop" violators is beyond incivility, and earns you zero respect. Once again, see m:DICK.
• Now, on the positive note... if one of those sites is actually mentioned in the text of the article, and contains verifiable relevant information, then I have no problem with it (singuarly) being EL'd.
• Most importantly:

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Misplaced Pages articles are not simply: ... Instruction manuals (This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.) ... Internet guides (Misplaced Pages articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance...)

— What Misplaced Pages is NOT

I would argue that both of these apply... the goal here is to contextualize the game (ie show its significance), not offer resources for aspiring players or to attract more gamers to your favorite fansite.

Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith is a good policy to keep in mind. I can tell your site dear and believe it to be a very good resource for players of all sorts. Misplaced Pages's WP:EL guidelines were, largely, meant to stop anyone from promoting a particular site, regardless of its merit. Some of the EL guidelines have been waived with a consensus of editors and through calm discussion (see Talk:Ultima VII. Blaxthos seems to be quoting from some other conversation, and those remarks do seem incendiary. Please don't do that. --GargoyleMT 03:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)