Talk:Ultima Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ultima Online article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
MMOG logo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the the assessment scale.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:
Archive
Archives
  1. July 2006
  2. August 2006
  3. September 2006

Contents

[edit] Ultima Online: Kingdom Reborn marked for Deletion

I don't fully understand why the Kingdom Reborn page has been marked for deletion. Shouldn't public memos and statements posted on companies websites be valid for inclusion? At the very least this should be discussed by the community (the reason for this comment). I believe that publically released company statements are fair use, and should be included here. For substantiation see the Wikipedia FAQ on Copyrights, specifically the Fair Use section point 4; It specifically covers press releases. Furthermore they both were quotations with citations, which are also allowed according to the Wikipedia FAQ. Comments?


Anon 3 December 2006

[edit] References

I don't mean to complain, and I was guilty of this last year, but can we add some references and links to information. I've already added references for PunkBuster and the deletion of the 15 trillion in gold that took less than five minutes to find. While we may have heard they deleted 15 trillion in gold or are the first MMORPG to use PunkBuster, not everybody else has. I expect that interest in UO will grow as we move into 2007, and more information will be needed along the way. Uohistorian 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Sydius 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

(old comment referencing information that is no longer in the article) They belong in the external links section. Also, message boards should not be sources, period. --Sydius 15:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I consider message boards to be sources when the EA Employees/UO developers are posting on them. I don't think all forums should be added back, obviously, since official EA employees/UO developers only post on a couple (the ones now listed). As weird as it may seem, Electronic Arts considers those third-party forums their official means of discussing certain issues with the players, and have done so since they closed the official Boards.UO.com Uofan 13:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also added the official Japanese, Chinese, and Korean-language sites, as well as the two French and Spanish-language sites listed on UO.com, seeing as how around half of UO players (according to official EA/UO sources) do not have English as their first language (actually half are Japanese). I've also added UOCodex.com back, as it contains unique information regarding UO's development and history, and apparently has had contributions from past and present EA Employees/UO developers. I foresee run-of-the-mill fansites adding themselves back though, and we can go round and round on this with them, so I propose a completly seperate page for external links that are not officially involved with EA/UO.com, and that are not of the spammy sites trying to sell gold or codes. Uofan 13:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Message boards should never be sources. Sources, and external links, however, are different things. Even then, though, they should be avoided. Also, foreign language sites should be avoided (they go on the foreign language version of the page). I am removing the sites listed which are advised against in Wikipedia:External Links "Links Normally to be Avoided":
  • Foreign-language sites, unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites.
  • Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.
The foreign sites should be added on the foreign UO pages if they are not already there. --Sydius 14:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, looking at Wikipedia: External Links they suggest listing only one fan site when they are more than one, so I left Stratics. The rest can be found on the EA's link site which is also listed. --Sydius 14:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Obviously we do not need narrow-focus third party sites, such as ones that focused on just one shard or guild - it was wise to remove those. We also do not need foreign-language sites (those can be handled by people editing the foreign language sites). I would agree to an External Links page for UO, in order to list narrow-focus third party sites, however I think it will be overrun with the ebay crowd, and would require too much continous cleanup.

I disagree in regards to Stratics being the only third-party site listed. Stratics contains a lot of information that is out of date, and this has been acknowledged publicly by the moderators within the past two weeks. The reasoning used is that the information is user-contributed, but there is no reason why they should have so many out-of-date links or be missing current links. In that light, presenting Stratics as THE third party UO Site is not healthy nor accurate, because it would be seen as an endorsement of Stratics when other third party sites have more up-to-date information. It's been a long time since I contributed information to the UO entries (under a different name) and while in the past I would have agreed that Stratics should be the only third party site listed, I no longer think that is the case. I have no problem with 3-4 other relevant third party sites. My only criteria for third party or fansites if you prefer, would be that the sites be general focus, updated regularly and present accurate information. Obviously Stratics should remain because their forums are the official forums, but until they fix their out-of-date information issues, we should be willing to list a few other sites as well. If anybody disagrees, then maybe we need to revisit who should be THE third party site listed, however I think we can all agree on 3-4 third party sites, using the criteria I laid out above. Uohistorian 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of where to draw the line. If we have 3, people will want 4. If we have 4, people will want 5. Cut it off cleanly at 1, I say, especially considering we also link to EA's list of links. Stratics may not be the best choice, but it should be a major web site. --Sydius 02:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your right about an external links page, it would be bad. Looking through the history of UO pages here, many spam sites keep trying to add themselves. I am new to this (and English is not my first language so my apologies if you do not understand me) Uofan 14:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, the idea contradicts WP:NOT anyway (no articles primarily listing external links). --Sydius 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan sites

See WP:NOT and Wikipedia:External Links. We have always had an issue with keeping the number of external links to fan sites down on this article. Wikipedia:External Links reccomends only having one fan site listed on an article that has many fan sites pertaining to the topic. I agree with this, as there are far too many to list, and the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I think the line should be drawn at one, per that page, and because we already link to EA's list of fan sites as well. If not one, though, what should be the cut off, and which fan site(s) should be listed (and why)? --Sydius 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

First, apologies if I step on anybody's feet, as I'm still learning about how to discuss this and add information. I fully understand why there should be a limit. I am not sure how this works, but I propose the following three external sites:
UO.com - The official site
General UO Stratis Forums - Official Forums
http://uocodex.com/ultima-online-links/ - Their fansite links page.
Town.UO.com should not be on there. In multiple threads at Stratics, people have complained that they receive no response from the Community officials about correcting or adding sites. I checked the The Internet Archive and UO.com's fansite listing, since 2003, has dropped one site, and added two. This reinforces what people have reported, about difficulties in getting entries changed or added, and in light of some sites that may no longer qualify under certain categories on there.
I don't think Stratics should be the fansite listing, but their forums should be listed. I looked through their fansite listings, and the majority of their links fall into the following categories: broken, spam sites (including a porn site - the domain registration may have expired and somebody snapped them up and put ads/adult stuff on them), internal links back to Stratics, or sites that have not been updated in several years. On the Stratics links page, they list five editors, and at times over the pats few months, I have seen over seven Stratics moderators online at the same time, including last week, using their "who's online" feature. I saw only one site added this year, while broken and spam links going back several years were not removed. This is not good for new players, especially the spam sites.
If anybody can find a better fansite links page than http://uocodex.com/ultima-online-links/ please post it here. They state that they check them every two weeks, with the last check two days ago. I will verify every one of their links to make sure there are no spam or broken sites, but my check of many of them last week proved to be accurate and current. They have a policy of not linking to spam sites, and I found none linked to. They include all active links that Town.UO.com and Stratics do, as well as newer sites. They also responded to a question I had, and added two sites that I submitted that I didn't see listed, indicating that they are easy to contact, unlike UO.com or Stratics fansite listings. Uofan 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not meant to be a criticism of UO.com or Stratics, but I have seen members from both groups online reading and posting on the Stratics forums almost every day, and I find it hard to believe they do not have the resources or time to respond to complaints about broken or spammy sites, or adding new sites to their fansite listings. One is the official Electronic Arts site, the other is a part of a large gaming network with dozens of moderators and editors. If this comment is inappropriate, indicate it, and I will remove it, but I am justifying why they should not be the fansite listings, while still being included because of their official duties, and why we should use another site, in order to be accurate. Uofan 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with listing UOCodex instead of Stratics, but why list Stratics forums at all? They do not provide any information about Ultima Online that is not in the article (a requirement for external links), even if they are official. Linking to forums just seems odd, to me, as the links should be for credible informational purposes, not community-based structures.
Also, if we are going to link to UOCodex, I think we should link to the top level, not their links page. I do not think a links page should be listed at all, for the same reasons I do not think a forum should be listed. I am more neutral to the idea of EA's list of links only because they are the official entity in charge of the game, and having that instead of 100 fan sites listed here would be better, but I agree, it should not be listed, either. --Sydius 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand the point about fansite listing problems with the two sites mentioned (Town.UO.com and Stratics), and can see using UOCodex. I agree that we should not link to a specific page as pages change occasionally or the link itself changes, and unless it's a specific story, you need to keep it as top level as possible. Somebody should write a small page about the history of the UO online community and could mention Stratics and some of the other sites that have been around for a long time, even those sites that no longer exist, maybe with some screen captures. That's one aspect of UO that has little to no mention in Wikipedia or anywhere else. At one time, UO set a standard for MMORPGs and fan communities. I'll have to think this over and post a better description of what I'm thinking about. I see no mention of Lum the Mad anywhere, and that's just an example. Uohistorian 23:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the UO.com's listing of fansites is no longer going to suffice since EA Mythic is devising a new policy to where they are going to end up doing away with the Fansite listings page. So what I would suggest is creating a section towards the bottom of the article in which people can post links to their Ultima Online related fansites. Please refer to : http://town.uo.com/links.html MMOGRadioDotCom 12:44, 24 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Linking to forums

It is against Wikipedia:External Links advice to link to forums, and I agree with that. I do not think any forums, EA-sponsored or otherwise, should be listed in the external links section. This is an encyclopedia, not a gateway. Does anybody have a good reason to go against Wikipedia:External Links and list a forum? --Sydius 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.
  2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
  4. Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.
  5. Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
  6. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
  7. Foreign-language sites, unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites.
  8. Bookstore sites; instead, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  9. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.
  10. Links to search engine results.
The above is from Wikipedia:External Links. See number 9. --Sydius 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a special case because Stratics hosts the official UO Forum and this is information is not readily available on the UO.com website. It says you should avoid doing so whenever possible, not that it is forbidden. BondGamer 23:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of things not mentioned on UO.com, but what relevence do the forums have to the article, besides their common subject?--Sydius 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Articles

[edit] Issues Faced

Hasn't anyone noticed that the Issues Faced section was edited out during a vandalism? It happened a couple weeks ago and I was waiting for someone to catch it, but apparently no one has. -- BondGamer 18:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Cleanup

Since someone has proposed cleanup of the Trivia section, here are my suggestions for removal:

1) "Although Ultima Online was a great on-line success, it was not the first graphical MMORPG released. The Realm Online, Neverwinter Nights, and Meridian 59 all predated Ultima Online, but they did not do as well."

This is more of a fact then an interesting tidbit. It would be more appropriate in introduction paragraph.

2) "Every once in awhile, casting the recall spell (made to quickly transport one from one location to another one far away) would take one to an island in the middle of an ocean, or a starry area (known as "The Star Room"), instead of the intended destination."

I have never heard of this occuring and think it isn't true at all. Aside from that, it is really obscure and was more likely a bug. A more important piece of trivia is the purple llama one.

3) "Caverns, similar to those found under Bucaneer's Den, are also found under the town of Yew, but these are now totally inaccessible save through magic and knowing someone who has marked this location on a rune."

There is already another piece of trivia about this.

4) "There was once a gray goo phenomenon that occurred when an area-of-effect spell such as fire field was cast on a slime, which was programmed to randomly split upon taking damage into two new slimes. The exponential growth would often crash the servers."

Another really obscure and depriciated game mechanic.

-- BondGamer 22:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The page's been vandalized. I don't know enough about the topic to fix it, but I am assuming that section titles such as "this is a really gay game" are inappropriate. Cheers.

20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/l/t/Talk%7EUltima_Online_cb9b.html"