Talk:Dream of Mirror Online

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.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

An email has been sent to permission-en at wikimedia dot org from Aeria Games & Entertainment, Inc. requesting that this page not be deleted. We ask that you confirm the email was received and reply if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KOlmstead85 (talk • contribs)

If I disregard the copyright violations, there is still the issue of how this article is written. There is no indication of Notability and it is written like a Game Guide. I would still send this to normal deletion, rather than speedy deletion. - Zero1328 Talk? 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I go about making it "Notable" and make it less game guide like? What things should I remove?—Preceding unsigned comment added by KOlmstead85 (talk • contribs)

We are simply trying to help get our game recognized. Our entire team will be working on this page to get it up to standard in the near future. Please bear with us as most of us are unfamiliar with Wikipedia formatting. Thank you for your understanding --Triysle (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First, stop thinking of self-promotion. It's one of the things that Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be where you hope to get something recognised, it's where things that are already recognised go. It's a common and problematic image for Wikipedia. - Zero1328 Talk? 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Want to make an amazining game? Start with a wikipedia aricle and modify it? Or if you want a good article then start from a website? No. Start by looking at a good article! Do some research. Find out about wikipedia. You get one chance at Did you Know. This article can be the one that makes it .. or ... actually I'd put it for normal deletion until I got better proof that you are who you say are. Victuallers (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as validating my identity, please visit the NADOMO main site and search for my username; It is the same as the one I use here (Triysle). I am a volunteer Game Sage for DoMO and I was hoping to work on this page with the staff that I work for. However, it seems that they have been IP blocked from Wiki, and as such, this project cannot continue. I'm sorry if the article did not meet your standards; none of us have submitted an article here before. Our intent was to make this page a resource for players to gather general information about the game. Our in-depth guides are hosted on our own forums and other DOMO fansites - we do not need Wikipedia to host this information. I cannot speak for the company since I am just a volunteer, but you have my personal apologies if I contributed to this misunderstanding. --Triysle (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a new user interested in DOMO, and was dissapointed to see this article seems mostly copied-and-pasted from the site. What I was looking for, and I believe this is what the problem with the article is, was a description of the game and its features, and what makes it different from other MMORPGs (like Flyff, for example). A simple summary is needed, where instead there is a sales pitch. For example, you don't need a whole paragraph about plus a list of "features" for each race, when the differences are mostly cosmetic and don't really affect stats or gameplay (as I understand it, some of these are obsolete as Sylphs no longer have greater wisdom or knowledge over, for example, Shura when actually talking about in-game stats). Once I have played the game and have a greater understanding of it, I'll probably come here and rewrite this to be more encyclopedic (although some things would have to be cited to forum posts, or another wiki, both of which are a bit iffy, but sometimes the only notation available for this sort of thing). In the meantime, though I thought I'd give an example of what's wrong here since you seem genuinely confused about what's being asked of the article. I do, however, think this game is noteworthy enough - certainly as much as many other MMORPGs less popular than WoW or EQ (again, Flyff for example or Yogurting, which both at least have some Wikipedia article). --Author X (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


This is a little harsh, don't you guys think? Deletion for a newly released MMORPG article? Someone just re-write it, if you delete this one, you might as well delete the ones for Maple Story, Flyff, Ragnarok Online, WoW, and every other MMO. Sheesh, The RO article is written like a game guide too. Keep. 68.99.174.17 (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ALLORNOTHING - Zero1328 Talk? 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

i have ADGREE THIS THIS A LITTLE HARSHE WHAT POINT PUTTING STUFF ON HERE YOU DELETE PEOPLE ALWAYS PUT NEW INFORMATION AND PEOPLE LOVE TO GET ON HERE AND GET INFORMATION ABOUT NEW STUFF SO LET IT BE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.117.254 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia goes around with notability flagging lately is counterproductive, uninspiring and generally hurting itself. There are many articles and topic waiting to be expanded that get speedy deleted, and there are many well-written articles that get killed simply because of this. Wikipedia does not have the same limitations as a standart encyclopedia. there is no reason for such unreasonably strict notability rules. If bandwith is the issue, i suggest that unfrequently visited pages take up less bandwidth anyways. Also: who in the world goes on notability flagging hunts in their spare time?? How bored do you need to be? --24.118.198.61 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with how Wikipedia works, don't clog up this page. Go to the pages that dictate how Wikipedia works and speak there. This page is purely about discussing the article. - Zero1328 Talk? 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zero1328 - if you have a problem with Wikipedia as a whole, take your problem someplace to discuss wikipedia as a whole. I'm a big fan of many webcomics, so trust me when I say I've seen this kind of notability bickering before. If you really want to help, find third-party articles (on sites, or even better something published, that are not directly associated with Aeria or DOMO) that talk about DOMO. I don't run in a lot of MMO/RPG circles, so I'm not familiar with a lot of those kinds of cites, but if you're really so passionate, looking for those would be a much better way to help 1) prove notability 2) provide better citations and 3) find more/objective information and opinions on the game than is available by simply browsing the aeria website. All of which are the reasons this article is even under scrutiny (and please, it is NOT up for deletion atm, so don't respond like this is a vfd page, it's not - it's for discussing the article and how to improve it). I'm not a big fan of the notability precedent here either, but DOMO's community railing against how unfair Wikipedia's systems are is, if you'll excuse me, "counterproductive, uninspiring and generally hurting itself."

So, again, if you really want this article to stay, improve it by finding third-party, published sources as references and proof of notability. If there are no news sites, review sites, or anything other large site that even talks about DOMO except for player-created fansites... well, then maybe you should work on making it more notable by getting those computer game news/review sites to talk about it. Maybe, compared to other games, it really isn't notable. It's not the end of the world if there isn't a DOMO page on Wikipedia. --Author X (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Well, I'm no page editor, but now I see a lot of resources, both first-party and third party. Is this acceptable now? The game was released only recently, and I like using this page for the information it provides. 68.99.174.17 (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, they were added after all the comments before yours, and I added them into the first part of the article as citations. It still needs to be cleaned up, and many parts still need to be rewritten so they are not directly copied from the cite and are more objective, but I believe notability has been proven, so I removed the notability tag.--Author X (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Woo! That's awesome, thanks.RyuKisargi (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)