Talk:Baldur's Gate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Dark Alliance

Err somebody needs to add the stuff for Dark Allience, or however the hell you spell it

Nope, the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series has it's own article, and has nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate PC/mac games.Poulsen 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Dark Alliance should have at least a mentioning in this article. While Dark Alliance is a series on its own, it's still spun off of the original Baldur's Gate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.91.75 (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revitalizing the RPG genre?

Citation needed... Diablo is credited moreso for saving the RPG genre and even spawning a sub-genre. Hence this paragraph with specifics on the Diabloe wiki page. Diablo has been credited with creating a sub-genre of point-and-click Action RPGs. Since 1999 many games have used the concepts introduced in Diablo and some have imitated the game. These games include Dungeon Siege, Mu Online, Sacred, RF Online, Ragnarok Online and Titan Quest. Other influenced games are Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, Spellforce, Freedom Force, Champions of Norrath, Drakengard, Dungeon Lords, Fate and Divine Divinity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.2.40.244 (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't completely agree with that. Just because Diablo was able to gain such popularity, a lot of people think it's the only PC RPG worth noting. Baldur's Gate cannot be accurately compared to Diablo just because they look alike. The gameplays, story lines, interfaces, etc are all very different. Baldur's Gate relies a lot on dialog, its combat system is turn based on the inside, but real time on the outside. It's derived from AD&D rules while Diablo is an original concept. Baldur's Gate relies heavily on character interactions, both within your party and outside. The list goes on. I think that that paragraph on the Diablo article is written with a bias towards Diablo.--Russoc4 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Baldur's Gate eclipses all the games mentioned above by leaps and bounds. And yes, while Diablo II was both very good and very popular, it's not an RPG in the truest sense: it's a one-man hack-and-slash action game, with levelling, skill, and equipment upgrades. Vranak 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've consistently heard Baldur's Gate mentioned as having revitalized the CRPG genre. Diablo didn't have the immediate impact that BG did. Diablo clones are starting to appear with great frequency now, many years after Diablo's release. SharkD 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Oh, christ. You guys sound as bad as the people who insist Final Fantasy isn't an RPG, because you can't choose your character class, or can't put skill points where you want or wah wah wah. Diablo's so an RPG, it's just a dungeon hack version. In my experience, folks, more people have played (and still play!) Diablo and Diablo II over Baldur's Gate I and II. Just because Diablo doesn't feature a cameo by ZOMG Drizzt!!!!1 *fapfapfap* doesn't invalidate it as being something that "revitalized a genre". It's simply a different flavor of RPG. Now, I'm going to go finish off my bottle of Advil. I have this sudden pain behind one eye... Howa0082 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but by your argument you pretty much claim that any game is an rpg because you all play a character. The problem today is that most people do not know what an RPG is, aside from their console games. There is a whole world of roleplaying games out there beyond these "mainstream games" and it began with tabletop roleplaying. That is true roleplaying, and baldur's gate is the only thing that comes close. Diablo is not an RPG, it is an action game in the most general sense. Nothing is chosen at all, except for a few skills. By your criteria, any game where you take play a character is an rpg including shooters. Half-life is a very story-driven game, but it is not an rpg. Yes, Diablo is also story driven but you do not take even a fraction of the role of that character. Same with final fantasy, they are very rigidly linear. Is Mary Kate and Ashley's mall adventure an rpg too??? You get to play little girls running around buying shit. Does that make warcraft 3 an rpg? Does it mean Splinter cell is an RPG because you play sam fisher and it has a story? Look at diablo and final fantasy. They just have mechanical features that were implemented in older,tabletop rpg's like experience and arbitrary levels and classes but in the end these are all the things true roleplaying games do not stress; the inherent roleplaying element is lost in games like final fantasy and diablo. In the end, it is just move this character here and equip this character with this. It is just a tactical real time strategy with a background story; no different than command and conquer. I just find it so ironic that in real roleplaying games the mechanics are just the best attempt for people to translate real world events into a system of numbers and that in the books they always stress how the rules are changeable and not the most important thing. Yet, for diablo its these ramble of numbers and skills that are the sole excuse that it is a roleplaying game. They are "poser" games, tbh. Here is something to read to put things in perspective, however I do not make a claim to its notabiliy nor do I claim it to be a valid source for anything; just something for people to read:

http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=618 (even this one is critical of BG)

http://www.scorpia.com/?p=357

I wish to add that this article is reads a bit like a review; an example is when they refer to "countless areas" and such. Any number of areas in any game can be objectively counted, and exaggeration does not fit well into an encyclopedia. I think this whole article needs work to read more informative and less like making you want to run out and tear open the box.

(and seriously, since when does a games popularity mean anything. All it does is explain why the concept of rpg is so screwed up in the video gaming world.)

[edit] Party confrontations

Surely one of you has had opposing characters such as Montaron and Jaheira go into violent dialogue during the game when you had the two in the same party. Or perhaps Xzar and Jaheira. After a few insulting lines, their circles would go purple, disabling your control of them, and they would begin to fight. Until one of the other side died, the fight would go on. After the fight was settled, the winner's circle would return to green, allowing control of him/her again. Could someone add this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Foxman (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sorcerer's Place link

Muchness is forcing me to open a discussion to add back links to Sorcerer's Place which have been added to Wikipedia years ago by regular users, but later overwritten or removed in favour of sites with far lesser scope or content than SP has to offer. I haven't checked in over a year, but a week back I've noticed that someone (or more people) have removed all the links to SP, but planted there several others.

The link I added back was a direct link to the BG1 section (and similarly for most of the other games we cover):

Muchness, considering your zeal for removing all the relevant links to Sorcerer's Place, but leaving links to other fansites, Moby, mod sites, and the PPG mod list (note; you haven't removed that link anywhere, despite the fact that SP has had mod lists up years before the PPG group), I can't help but suspect some unfair bias.

Either the same rules apply for everyone, in which case you will remove links to all the mod/fansites, or you will leave them alone (like I have), and just allow me to add back the links which have been maliciously removed. Obviously the actual content doesn't play a role in your removal of all the links, considering SP is the definitive download and content resource for all the Infinity Engine games and the NWN series (and much besides). SP is also the only site where everyone from all over the world can submit any kind of game content for all the games we cover and have it hosted.

I don't really know what there is to discuss since I'm not adding new links but merely putting back links which have been there for years, but obviously you're intent on removing them until we talk it over.

Toonstruck (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have two objections to your additions of this site to articles. One is procedural: as the site's owner or maintainer, you have a potential conflict of interest. To quote the relevant guideline: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." My other reservation about this site is that by my judgment it's a borderline case of "objectionable amounts of advertising": some of my page visits trigger my browser's pop-up blocker (including an ad for the XP AntiVirus malware) and the linked pages prominently feature Amazon affiliate links.
If the general consensus of editors uninvolved with the site is that, despite the above concerns, this site offers unique resources that make it a valuable addition per WP:EL#What to link, I won't object to its addition, though I'd prefer if we review the links on a case-by-case basis rather than adding them en masse. However, if the consensus is that a general resource (rather than the content specifically offered by Sorcerer's Place) is a worthwhile addition, then I would prefer if we'd link to a different site that offers equivalent content with less obtrusive advertising. Run of the mill banner advertisements and AdSense ads are not problematic or controversial, but in my opinion we should be cautious about linking to sites that run the risk of launching pop-up ads for malware. --Muchness (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest for adding back links which have been removed or replaced by other site owners? I think not. As for getting wound up on advertising, that's obviously a very cheap shot, and an unfair one too. Since we host over 1000 downloads, our bandwidth requirements are huge, and as such even the advertising that is up does not cover the bills and we have to rely on donations. There is no malware in ANY advertising on purpose, but as with any advertising, false positives are common, and sometimes unwanted advertising creeps in, but is removed as soon as we're notified about it or I notice it. The process is the same on any website that has advertising up. Since pretty much everyone (like you) blocks popups today, they're obviously not a source of much income any more. The site's been around since 1999, and every month I pay the remainder of the bills out of my own pocket.
Just looking at a few of the external links in the articles in question, you obviously have no problems linking to IMDB, which spawns 2 popups, features affiliate links on every page and just as much advertising. The same for the site Gamebanshee, which even serves popups which force themselves through regular popup blockers.
Sorcerer's Place does offer unique resources for the games we cover - ask anyone familiar with these games. There were other sites worth mentioning in the past (though they mostly just copied our content), but they've all folded. Currently, the amount and the kind of content we have available is not available anywhere else. There is no site with "equivalent content with less obtrusive advertising". We have hundreds of user submissions hosted and a huge amount of our own content, like guides and walkthroughs. And again, we DO NOT RUN ANY MALWARE ADS! For Pete's sake, I'm on the site every day, and I run it because I enjoy doing it, not to infect myself or anyone else. --Toonstruck (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My first impression is that the site exists predominately to assault me with advertising and Amazon referrer links. My second impression is that the site is terribly unintuitive to navigate. It wasn't until the third attempt that I saw the actual content in the site, and so I'm not particularly fond of it in any capacity. Nifboy (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Then you first impression is obviously as false as it can be. In 8 years that we've had the same navigation, maybe 5 people have complained about it, which is probably significantly less than with most other navigations. Trying to negate the value of the site because you personally couldn't find your way around in the first 3 seconds, while everyone else has no problems, is obviously ridiculous. The site follows the left and right nav panels navigation (plus breadcrumbs in the middle) like thousands of others on the net, it's not like we're reinventing hot water. --Toonstruck (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I already mentioned this at Talk:Baldur's Gate (series) and Talk:Planescape: Torment, but Muchness has brought my attention to this discussion. I believe that Sorcerer's Place is an invaluable resource for several computer role-playing games. The reasons I cited include the availability very many "mods, patches, tweaks, fixes, etc., both official and fan-created"; but I failed to acknowledge the various walkthroughs, guides, portrait packs, sound packs, editors, maps, and lore. The articles that I think should have links to Sorcerer's Place are:
I omit certain titles due to lack of coverage at Sorcerer's Place. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition, I was beginning to think I was shouting in the desert. :( --Toonstruck (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not link fansites as general links in the external links section per WP:EL. I have seen two exceptions to this that sounded reasonable, and Sorcerer's Place does not fit either. One is to provide transcripts of levels when citing a video game - this happens for example in Characters of StarCraft. The second is when the fansite is ran by a game developer. For example, Supreme Commander has a unit database that is ran by one of the developers. It is not included because readers of the Wikipedia article generally do not need a unit database, i.e. it is not useful. User:Krator (t c) 10:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, statements like these make me wonder whether you've ever checked any articles but for the most popular games today, because nearly all the other game articles have fansites listed or referenced throughout the articles and as external links. Try Monkey Island. Try Duke Nukem 3D. Try any less mainstream game today and you're likely to find external links to worthwhile fansites. Which is a great thing, because those sites very often feature unique, very hard to find or simply invaluable content that you couldn't find anywhere else (any more), as is the case with Sorcerer's Place in many instances. Any fan of the games and anyone who is familiar with SP will attest to that. We haven't been around since 1999 because we didn't have anything to offer to players.
To me, intentionally leaving out resource sites which are a huge help to players (and since Interplay's death, SP is the only site that has picked up much of what was available on the official sites back then, and that freely offers all the game patches and support that Interplay hasn't been offering for years now) seems completely unreasonable. Every few days I get mails from people thanking me for keeping up the support for these games after Interplay's demise, most of which are considered old by today's standards. And it's been the same for years. So when I hear this from the site users on a regular basis, but when I try to put back links to SP which have been removed so that more people would have a handy reference to a valuable game resource in Wikipedia, I get responses like the above from people who have never heard of the site and couldn't care less whether it lives or dies and from people who have never played any of the relevant games and think they're doing the world a favour by removing unique resources. This really makes me sad and I can guarantee you that you're not doing the people who actually read the game articles in question any favours.
But returning to specifics, for the articles in question, there are several mod/fansites listed for each of them already. And those links have been there for years without anyone having a problem with them apparently. I've read the WP:EL, and I nowhere saw any mention that "fansites shouldn't be linked". I did see several mentions where sites with unique and valuable content SHOULD be linked, however. It is my opinion that for the games that Twas Now has listed, Sorcerer's Place offers resources which go beyond satisfying the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion as a link.
Considering that there are currently several mod/fansites with much smaller scope and far less content listed as external links in those articles, it's a question of fairness as well. To me, adding a link to the relevant game section on SP for the games in question (we're not even talking links to the site root, but to a specific game section) would be vastly preferable to deleting all the other external links in those articles, because all of them have something offer. Most don't offer much that wasn't on Sorcerer's Place already, but still. --Toonstruck (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no prohibition against fansites. The reason they are not commonly linked isbecause they don't meet the criteria for linking. When they do meet the criteria, they can be linked. 2005 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that we have established by now that Sorcerer's Place does meet the criteria for linking. At least those people who have any familiarity with the articles in question will tell you that - and I'd say that they're better qualified to make that judgement than random people who are not able to give any valid (objective) assessments of the site content's worth beyond first external impressions not based on anything else but personal opinion on how things look from afar. --Toonstruck (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Two problems here for starters. First: Either the same rules apply for everyone, in which case you will remove links to all the mod/fansites, or you will leave them alone (like I have). The guidelines do apply to everyone, and there is no rule that any fansite should be added o not added, or if one fansite is added then others should be. That is both nonsensical, and not the guideline. The guideline says external links should be meritable and be added when they add level of detail or expert analysis or statistics or whatever. None of these criteria have anything to do with "if you link to thissite.com then we should link to thatsite.com." Second, is the conflict of interest issue. The main point though is you need to alter your attitude about external links. They should be added if they have meritable content that will be valuable to users, and don't violate the external links guideline for reasons of copvio or whatever. 2005 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree in parts. To me what is nonsensical is to actively work on removing links to sources more complete than the ones already listed, while working to protect those already there. That shows either complete lack of judgement and common sense, or obvious bias. But to reiterate for the n-th time, the links to Sorcerer's Place have been in those articles for years. At some point someone has removed them from SOME of the articles (I'm guessing Muchness), whereas they remain in others. *I* did not add them there first - users who have found the site useful must have, because I didn't ask anyone. All that I'm looking to do is to reinstate them in the articles where they've been removed. And going by what you're telling me, that should not be a problem.
Regarding the "conflict of interest" - certainly, that would apply if the site in question was substandard or did not offer the quality or unique content that I'm saying it does. However, neither you, nor anyone else, is refuting that. I am not acting dishonestly in any part of wanting to link to Sorcerer's Place again for the game sections where we have extensive enough coverage to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. This is by far not all of our sections, so I'm objective enough to only want to do it where it is justified. And "Twas Now" above has made a fair list (he's apparently the only one here familiar with the content we're discussing).
So "They should be added if they have meritable content that will be valuable to users" - I do believe that what I've been saying all along is that Sorcerer's Place qualifies under this guideline, but that was not the only issue raised on this talk page, so obviously I've had to reply to several of them at once. --Toonstruck (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, conflict of interest always applies. You should not add links to your website, and certainly not many links, even if they were there before, unless the removal was strictly vandalism. We have a procedure for a site owner, which is to suggest the link on a talk page and then if ANY other editor wants to add it fine. If no OTHER editor chooses to add your link, then nobody is fainting over the loss of a valuable resource and it should not be added. This is not complicated, and to really cut to the chase, if you know of no other human beingon Earth willing to take the time to edit the Wikipedia and add the link instead of you, well then that speaks for itself. Just figure it out, and if the site really merits a link somewhere, get somone else, not you, to add it. 2005 (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, um... thanks for the tip. I thought that it'd be more honest and substantiated if I reverted the link removals myself, but I guess I'm not really familiar with the practice of how it should be done to avoid issues like these. --Toonstruck (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
2005 is right, and that means that most of the links to fansites around are inappropriate. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for introducing more things that are wrong. If you find a link to a fansite, it is most likely inappropriate and should be removed. Or you could notify the editors at WT:VG instead. The key issue with fansites is that they lack editorial oversight, the largest criterion for being linked on Wikipedia. User:Krator (t c) 08:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorcerer's Place is not your random fansite made by a 15 year old with bad spelling and grammar skills who will maintain the site for 3 months until the next big hit comes along. We're a website with a professional adult team with a number of editorial articles such as interviews with the game developers, reviews, previews and more in addition to our regular game coverage. We've provided a consistent level of quality since 1999, when the site's been founded. And what we're certainly not lacking is editorial oversight, considering that I'm the Editor in Chief responsible for editorial oversight of all of our content and articles. I think that the fact that we cover a number of quite different games also indicates quite clearly that we don't favour one game over all the others, like the majority of uncritical fansites. --Toonstruck (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You know what, I just radically switched my position. I think SP does fit the criteria, and you're right in that. Go and add it to the list above. User:Krator (t c) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! I'll check in every now and then to make sure someone hasn't removed them again (and revert if necessary). --Toonstruck (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that a consensus has emerged that these links are appropriate from the above discussion, and I note that Toonstruck has again violated WP:COI by adding the links to his website back to articles. In lieu of participating in a revert-war, I'll tag this section for RFC to open the on-going discussion to further input. --Muchness (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Two out of three editors still involved in this discussion at the time have agreed that linking to Sorcerer's Place is warranted and that I should add the links back. You cannot offer any arguments as to how they are wrong, or how the content of Sorcerer's Place does not merit inclusion. So how is there not a consensus? So, after reverting all my additions yet again, what now? What constitutes a consensus? I'm sure that you can find someone to restart this discussion every time it appears that consensus has been reached, keeping it open indefinitely. --Toonstruck (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:COI is a consensus document. If you keep spamming your links you're website will be blocked and no one will be able to add the links. Your recent addition of these links is the most worst spamming possible since it should be clear to you now that you should not be adding these links, especially with a deliberately inaccurate note saying this discussion said you could instead of the exact opposite! 2005 (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't be serious. Did you not see "Go and add it to the list above." from Krator before I added the links? I assumed that that that concluded this matter and it was OK to add the links back. Obviously that wasn't the case, but there was no way for me to know that. Unlike some people, I don't live on Wikipedia and I'm not even remotely familiar with the thousands of its rules. No one has bothered to explain to me what is considered a consensus here and how many more people will enter into this discussion. So your comments of how I added a "deliberately inaccurate note" are as offensive as they are incorrect. It's unfortunate that everyone here always assumes the worst intentions. It makes civilized discussion practically impossible. --Toonstruck (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You were pointed to the conflict of interest guideline. You then didn't accidentally ignore it. You deliberately did, and then added a note that was totally inapproriate since you knew you should not be adding the links yourself. 2005 (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, yea, pointed to a page with a few dozen subguidelines. The main points of which I have made clear I do not believe that I violate, and neither has anyone here managed to prove beyond blanket cries of COI, COI, COI! There is no such thing as "you knew you should not be adding the links yourself". You need to re-read the COI page. To quote:
- "COI edits are strongly discouraged." - but not forbidden. There is nothing in my edits that would dispute my neutrality, as I keep repeating here to judge the content of the site, whereas instead of that the discussion on this page is focused on me.
- "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." - do you argue lack of notability?
- "However, using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon." - I believe that this is exactly what you are doing.
- "[...] Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias." - emphasis mine.
- "During debates in articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions." - they got that right!
- "Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms — this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." - seen this here too, haven't we.
- "Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration." - again, this is obviously important.
- "Remember: an editor with a self-evident conflict of interest turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, and refer to policy, sources and above all be fair." - which is exactly what I said. So my idea of replying here IS the right one after all. --Toonstruck (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That's the definition of COI generally. The COI as it relates to external links is: Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. "You should avoid linking to a website that you own..." I would hope that you would also understand that this means that your only contributions should not be adding multiple links to a website you own. (As for other comments above, adding a link is not an 'article' or 'content'. I understand you don't understand the point of the encyclopedia, but you should relize by now that you should not do what you did, and move on.) 2005 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not adding links like you are trying to misrepresent my actions. I am trying to add BACK links which have been removed without any sensible justification and find out why you are shielding far less relevant external links as if they were sacred. I understand the point of this discussion much better than you do apparently, because after repeat (several, in succession) calls to justify the opposition of adding back links to Sorcerer's Place where it is warranted, you have provided no reason whatsoever that would justify your opposition to this except for inane mantras of how they shouldn't be added back just because I happened to be the one who thought of adding them back. It makes no difference whatsoever who does this (because the site's content will be the same one way or another), and as a discussion is advised to be opened in such a case anyway, which is exactly what has been done in this case. In this discussion the worth of the content for inclusion is supposed to be determined. Everything but that is transpiring in this discussion.
So no, I will not "move on" just so that you can pat yourself on the back and consider yourself of a champion of external link removal without a cause. Either provide some solid arguments why the content on Sorcerer's Place does not merit being added back to the list of a number of less relevant links, or you move on. Because what are you doing here is in my opinion fundamentally unjustified and an abuse of the Wikipedia guidelines. --Toonstruck (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the fact that Toonstruck is using this discussion (which has not reached a consensus either way) to justify adding the link back to articles -- especially since he does not properly refer back to the discussion going on here. It is not linked to in either his edit summaries or the talk pages (e.g. of Dungeons & Dragons: Dragonshard. I had placed a spam warning template on his talk page because that's essentially what his edits look like, but just now Muchness answered my response by letting me know that the discussion was here. This is certainly not the right way to go about trying to get ELs to stick in articles. Every link has to pass muster for the article it's being placed on. At any rate, the fact that some editors do object to these links should be reason enough not to add them back without establishing consensus to do so, especially when the only person adding them back is the site's owner. You also seem to take offense that someone has "forced" you to justify the inclusion of these links -- in fact, you should have brought it up for discussion yourself prior to making the first edit. When deciding whether or not these links are appropriate, I am asking myself who it benefits more: the readers of the article, or the site's staff who want to get famous from Wikipedia. And so far all indications have been that Toonstruck is acting out of COI rather than in the interest of improving the articles -- just look at his edit history. He hasn't done much of anything for these articles other than maintaining his links. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to "properly refer back to the discussion going on here". I assumed that everyone interested was familiar with it. I didn't take offense at anything, just expressed my annoyance that I have to justify adding back links which have been on Wikipedia for a long time and that everyone familiar with the site knows are warranted. And if you think that we want to "get famous from Wikipedia", you must be living in a different reality. Did you even bother to check the site? Are any of the staff in the spotlight, or is content the king? Do you actually believe that the site has been around since before Wikipedia and for 9 years now just so that it could be linked in Wikipedia and "we could get famous", or because we have something unique to offer our visitors and would like more people to be aware that there is a resource providing unparalleled coverage for these games that supplements Wikipedia's articles? I think that the answer is obvious.
And now you're coming up with accusations that I don't contribute to the articles in question... I don't suppose it's occurred to you that that might be because for the last 9 years I've been contributing to Sorcerer's Place, whose coverage of the games in question is several dozen times that of Wikipedia? This is what we're discussing after all, the content on Sorcerer's Place and its worth to be linked. Or rather, that's where the sensible discussion on this topic lies, though Muchness and you seem intent on discussing everything but that. I mean seriously, what do you expect to prove via this line of negative arguing when you're not even addressing the site's content? --Toonstruck (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Your editing contributions are almost exclusively spamming your website's links. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your website. Besides your site being blacklisted, you risk being blocked yourself for using an account for the single purpose of link dropping. 2005 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to know what the word "spam" should be used for. Adding back relevant links which have been removed without any valid justification isn't it spam no matter how you try to stretch the definition. Constant negative snipe-replies with no substance or notable contribution to a discussion would be much closer to what I'd call "spamming". I obviously don't use the account "for the single purpose of link dropping", though to people unfamiliar with this ridiculous situation, that's certainly what it must appear like, even though it's inaccurate. Not that I'm aware of any Wikipedia rules that say that you need to contribute to articles in other ways before you can add back relevant links to worthwhile content. If there is such a rule, please point it out to me. Because as far as I know, even unregistered random users can edit literally anything, and such edits are only reverted if they don't merit inclusion.
But like Muchness and Ham Pastrami, you just seem happy to attack me personally and not discuss the actual topic (SP link inclusion merit), so we're not getting anywhere with it. Is there actually no one reading this that is interested in or capable of evaluating the worth of Sorcerer's Place content for inclusion as an external link on the pages specified above instead of just heaping one unwarranted attack or threat after another on me?
I can't believe that external links like MobyGames entries which provide next to no useful information to users at large are linked for nearly every single game title, as are random mod/fansites with the articles in question, all of which provide users with several times less content than SP. And yet Sorcerer's Place is the only one being put on trial here; a site whose inclusion in the external links would be much more justified than with most of the other external links in those articles. But as is obvious in this discussion, hardly anyone is interested in the worth of the content linked. --Toonstruck (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the definition of spam: WP:SPAM. You violated it in more ways than one, including adding links to the top of the list. Your actions were clearly spam, so let's not dwell on that. 2005 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that you've linked it, how about you read it too, like I already have? In your responses and actions in this discussion, you've violated several dozen Wikipedia guidelines and rules much more severely than I have, as noted above, with quotes (and mentioned in several of my past responses). The only places where I added links on top (one or two cases IIRC), were where it made sense or where I felt it was justified. NOWHERE ELSE. You do not even try to impartially view and weigh these cases - you simply assume that they are unjustified without any knowledge on the subject whatsoever. Even if positioning was an issue, it'd only warrant a discussion on the order, not complete removal. One link is always on top, and removing one in favour of another calls for a bias check just the same.
You are clearly attempting to abuse the system by throwing blanket accusations around because you have no reasonable arguments whatsoever to explain why the content of Sorcerer's Place does not merit re-linking. As such (and due to ignoring numerous attempts on my part to get you to actually discuss the content of the site in question), I can only conclude that you are acting out of spite and/or bias. I believe that talk discussions per Wikipedia guidelines should include neutral editors (or editors who are capable of substantiating their positions), and you fail miserably at both. As such, what is your purpose in this discussion, short of providing a spectacle for the onlookers and possibly for your own entertainment?
I've taken a look at your talk page, and now I'm not at all surprised at your actions any more. Apparently, the wide majority of your Wikipedia edits are either reversals or deletions. As such, it is impossible to expect any sort of neutrality from you in this discussion. You have a much more serious conflict of interests than I do, because while I can justify why the links in question should be added back, you simply assume that they are worthless, based on your numerous reversals and deletions to date. Constant unsubstantiated COI accusations from an editor fixated on reversals and deletions - that's really rich! No bloody wonder we're not getting anywhere. --Toonstruck (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You've been pointed to the guidelines and policies in question. The content of the site is entirely irrelevant to the COI issue here, but you already know that. Your statements about "adding back" links are too silly to waste time on. The guidelines apply to you. As I said days ago, if someone else on the planet wants to add the links (not at the top of the list) while editing in good faith, fine. 2005 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read this talk a while now and its silly to me. More then 4 years Ive used Sorcerers alot of times and its helpmed me out with alot of those games because they have lots of good guides and stuff that no other side has. I say its worth linking alot more then some other external sides for those games. If ppl agree, i can add the links to Sorcerers cause id want other ppl to know about it too. Never done it b4 tho, if i can figure it out. /Bongo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongorilla (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC) — Bongorilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's fine by me, naturally. I'm glad you find the site useful! --Toonstruck (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:SPA. You are of course welcome to add your opinions to this discussion, but please in the interests of propriety don't add these

links yourself. --Muchness (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh... um, ok. Dunno what more I can say tho. The games i play are old now so there isnt much interest in them anymore. Sides like Sorcerers are that more valuble cause they still support old games. /Bongo