Talk:Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted article.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-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.
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:

For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Horizons: Empire of Istaria

Contents

[edit] Message Board

This entry doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It is obviously biased and created by "fan bois" or is corporate insertion. Horizons has in no way radically changed the gaming industry or introduced anything uniquely radical to the genre. The only entry that belongs in the encyclopedia is the term "MMORPG" and perhaps games that had a drastic impact listed with a BRIEF description of what they offered to the industry. A game in itself in no way warrants a unique entry into the encyclopedia. This article is a sales pitch plain and simple. If the creators of Wikpedia have any desire to maintain this project's integrity as an educational tool it will simply remove this article. unsigned comment by User:4.37.96.130

The article doesn't say Horizons "radically changed the gaming industry". The article doesn't say Horizons "introduced anything uniquely radical to the genre". I'm genuinely curious to hear what is "obviously biased" about this article, but the only thing that you or ANY of the anon editors have contributed is vandalism and whining without explanation.
Now, if you honestly believe that only games that had a drastic impact deserve Wikipedia articles, then fair enough, that is a reasonable opinion, and one that is probably shared by a number of editors here, although I think a minority. We'll see what the consensus is on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. —Stormie 23:27, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Good job on reverting back to Stormey's version, it sounds like a bloody company press release. Palad 20:03, 20 Aug 2004 (EST)

My apologies for stepping into this discussion but I think it will be difficult to achieve a "neutral" article about Horizons, especially when members of a fansite are providing the information about this rather controversial game. My suggestion would be to only keep the first sentence of the current article (i.e. remove all but the first sentence) and instead provide links to the game's website and to the two major fansites at Tazoon and IGN. Make an editorial comment about the fact that both these fansites have commercial ties with the game company (being the "official" fansites for resp. the North-American and the European player community) and thus are moderated to provide a somewhat positive outlook onto the game. After that the Wikipedia article should stay locked for the next few months.

Pardon me for being cynical but any suggestion from an anon IP after being bullied into protecting the page is questionable. Especially when it recommends protecting the page for months. Wikipedia does not normally protect a page against other opinions. Only against revert wars and vandalism. Then only for a cooling period. - Tεxτurε 15:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Easy, i do not know how to insert my IP. --62.131.88.12 15:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Might it be that these things do not always work correctly when using Netscape?) I usually would not recommend locking an article for so long too but I know both the fans and the people critical to Horizons, and believe me, both are quite used to rabid flamewars.
No, you need to log in, then we can talk properly. btw, wtf is with Fiend? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Has the vandalism stopped now? --Marco 07:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Old messages that were lost in revert. --Marco 14:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))

that's disgusting, but seriously, I need to make some gramatical changes... Why can't I edit the article??
Please list it in the section for changes once the article gets unlocked. --Marco 14:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone revert this discussion to a previous version before the idiot who deleted the text and put the top link in arrived? No.
Done --Marco 14:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the funniest thing to me is that every time I've seen the article it's either neutral (or close), or been sabaotaged to be a blatant bash of Horizons. I like the current version. Well laid out, and neutral. IMO the issue here is not with the fans editing it, it's with the anti-fans defacing it at every opportunity. Fans can understand neutrality. Vandals can't. [Additional comments] The link 'The history of Horizons' leads to a highly suspect source of information. How can you people claim a NPOV, then link to a place that is so obviously one-sided? -Theurgist 10:56, 6 Aug 2004 (GMT)

The lock does not endorse a version, it just gets locked to the current version of the page which happened to include that link. This will be added to the change list and if biased it will be removed once the lock clears. --Marco 10:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The version recently created by 63.169.96.226 seems very simular to the one that was removed because of !NPOV. Rollback? --Marco 16:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disregard that, this new page rocks --Marco 17:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would adding thier to-do quee be NPOV violation and why? --Marco 12:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adding it like this would probably be fine: "The developers have stated that they are aiming to implement these new features in the future: <then list the to-do queue>". --Kukuman 12:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think your version is better --Marco 12:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like the last edit you did Kukaman. You mentioned lots of financial info, yet you appear to have forgotten to put just about any information about the game? Have you played it yourself? If not I don't feel you are qualified to write anything about Horizons. If you've gone by other reviewers information I've read some writeups that gave me the distinct impression the reviewer spent all of 10 minutes in-game, if that. User: Theurgist 11:56, 5 August 2004 (GMT)

  • I have added what I know about the game. I did play it for a short period of time in January. That is why I did not include more information about the game - I either forgot it, or what I already knew is out of date. I am just as "qualified" as you are to edit this article. --Kukuman 11:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Never mind that I've been playing since December.. lol.. Anyway, The only edits I have done are to fix the link people keep vandalising, and, like the edit I'm doing now is to fix some totally unrelated text some moron has added in User: Theurgist 12:38P, 5 August 2004 (GMT)... Hmm, someone beat me to it
  • Playing a short while at Janurari can give a lot of missleading info as the game have improved a lot since then. (Vanaondo, Ice Shard)
I know, that's why I didn't add more about the game :) Feel free to add updated info about the game, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a place to advertise or promote your favorite game. When adding information remember to abide by the neutral point of view. --Kukuman 11:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Easier said than done, but we'll try. --Marco 12:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To the new users editing this page - Welcome to Wikipedia. I've noticed this article has some serious problems with style and point-of-view. Please familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style before making any more significant edits to this page. --Kukuman 10:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any chance of banning the clown @ 24.96.124.234? --Marco 09:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know seems more like a misguided newbie to wikipedia his last edit and i quote:

"Horizons is a MMORPG which OH WHO CARES

You people are freaking desperate if you're trying to advertise your game on Wikipedia.

Have a fabulous day!

Love,

Biffa Bacon" so it seems as if he/she sees it as an advert and is removing it and leaving this message behind, i left a message on his/her talk page explaining that comments belong here and if he/she thinks its an advert to register then post it on vfd or leave a message on my talk page and i'll list it of vfd for him/her if him/her does not wish to register an account. lets wait and see if more vandalism occurs first.--Ryan B. (Talk, contributions) 19:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Previus work is: Inserting irrelevant text, like the text about platypus, and changing links to point to other pages. Now that this has been processed, can you please move the vandalism entry to the appropriate place as I don't know where that is yet. --Marco 19:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Negative. this information is being updated by fans at http://www.tazoon.com/releaseforums/tm.asp?m=374598. User: theurgist 10:51, 5 Aug 2004 (GMT)

Is this a corporate insertion? Wetman 09:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The text for December 16, 2004 should probably be changed, it says yesterday in the text, so it would make more sense if it was for Dec 15th. I don't think I should edit it myself. FatHed 04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I like it that there are 3 entries of vandalism today, all of which points to this article (see sarcasm). Grow up please! When we started the article was a stub and we intended to make a good description of it and highlight some of it's features. On our first try we went a bit overboard but that does not make it fine for others to go overboard in the opposite direction. Articles should have a nuetral point of view, which we try to have. If there is anything that does not conform to that please feel free to correct it without biasing it in the opposite direction. Do not add FUD as that will be edited out right away. If we disagree on something please bring it up here prior to turning it into an editwar.

That is, you change it once, and if it is not biased we leave it. If it is biased we change it back, if you still disagree move the discussion here so that we can resolve it in a matter that is not the side that reverts the most wins. --Marco 19:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To the members of Tazoon.com editing this article: I realize you guys like this game but I have to remind you again to keep a neutral point of view. I have to say I'm not impressed with the newest version of this article. It reads more like a commercial than an actual encyclopedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your favorite game. --Kukuman 22:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We (at least the faction I belong to) try give it an accurate description, but it's hard to do any progress if we need to spend all our time removing jibberish. While we may need some help on this, inserting random crap is not making it better, correcting, rewording and removing faulty lines does. --Marco 07:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, lots of gratitude for trying to improve the article rather than destroying it. --Marco 07:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the protect Angela. I say we protect this for about 24 hours until the wave of idiots calms down and the intelligent dedicated new editors get settled in. --Kukuman 00:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

^------ --Marco 07:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

We are having some difficulties about keeping a neutral point of view it would seem. So please help us. If you spot something biased, correct it, remove it or mark it with the starting tag [BIAS] and ending tag [/BIAS]. --Marco 07:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion and added [BIAS] and {/BIAS] tags to the article. --62.131.88.12 21:59, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed it, please use {{npov}} for this, which expands to:

Thanks. 24.123.221.2 21:59, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the tag so the article won't show up in the NPOV disputes category. -- Kjkolb 07:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but after getting a private message from what looks to be a moderator (User: Frazzydee) accusing me of vandalism and threatening to block my IP address I will no longer contribute to this discussion. Please continue advertising the game as much as you can for whatever reason you guys might have. ;) And my apologies, I didn't know that having an opinion is considered vandalism around here. Over and out. --62.131.88.12 04:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Marco suggested that if you spotted something biased, that you "correct it, remove it or mark it with the starting tag [BIAS] and ending tag [/BIAS]". It's hard to see how wrapping the entire article in a pair of "[BIAS]"/"[/BIAS]" tags is to be interpreted as anything other than mischief. Or do you maintain that it is biased for us to claim that "Horizons: Empire of Istaria is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game" and that "http://www.istaria.com/" is the website? —Stormie 05:17, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

After reading this page, I agree with some of the comments on the talk page. This article reads like an advertisement for the game, listing all the positive features, but failing to give any mention to the negative aspects of the current state of the game. Listing the good things about Horizons is ok, but I don't think everything bad about the game should be ignored. Every game has its bad points, and they should be listed to keep the article fair and balanced. And I don't mean dredging up information about past ownership and other things. I mean current things, like bugs and issues with each feature that is listed in a positive light in the article. It shouldn't be too hard to give a brief mention of the bad things about the game along with the good. Gopher65 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizons Wiki

Horizons Wiki

[edit] Spelling of game name

According to the game's website, the title of the game is Horizons: Empire of Istaria, not Horizons: Empires of Istaria. Should the page be renamed? -- Andrew Maiman 17:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please do if possible, I have no clue on how to do it. --Marco 17:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
When the page is unprotected drop me a message and I'll create a new page, migrate the content/discussions and then delete the old page. I'll watch the page and come back and unprotect it in a day or so, unless you want it done sooner. Manning 19:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've moved it. Information on how to properly move a page is at m:Help:Renaming (moving) a page. Guanaco 23:02, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew how to move it, but couldn't since it was locked. The name of the game needs to be changed in the first paragraph, as well, but the article is still locked. Andrew Maiman 23:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gamersinfo blurb

The part "where the game is at" that was at the end of the Gamersinfo URL sounds like a plug or it's advertising. As such, it was removed. Peter1968 11:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blight restored, new owner, rosy future etc...

To you IP addresses: 66.190.194.217, 116.14.43.164 that keep adding stuff, please bone up on sourcing stuff first. If you claim these things, prove it with references. It's not hard to do. Don't just make unreferenced statements, as they will be deleted. Peter1968 00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the last one and put in the link where the information comes from. I tried doing it with the citation code but it doesn't work (probably because there is no Sources heading and I don't know how to make one) so I just put in the link for now. Darkwriter 12:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

No one seems to either read or edit this page any more, so I'm probably just talking to myself here, but I don't think the "timeline" section is appropriate. Or at least it is used incorrectly. It is mostly filled with minor, no-longer-valid information, and it doesn't site any references. I wouldn't even know where to begin referencing most of that stuff. I've followed this game for a long time, so I know much of it is true, but how do I show that? We can't just say "this is true because I saw it happen!" There has to be proof of the statements made. I think most of this section should be deleted or, where references (and validity) can be produced, bundled into a "History" section. If no one disagrees or bothers commenting within a few weeks I'll go ahead and do it:). Gopher65 03:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist, but I mainly look out for vandalism and the like. Go ahead and do what you think is necessary to enhance it. Be bold! Peter1968 09:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd have to say that some sort of timeline is necessary to present such complicated information about a game like this. How about looking for references for it instead. --TatharNuar 02:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Alrighty, I rewrote most of this page. In fact, everything except the Timeline. I actually rewrote the timeline too (as a "Development History" section), but I could hardly find a single freaking reference for anything that happened during the development of this game, so I left it out for now. If anyone can help with that post a few links here.

Also, as you can see in the article, there were a few things that I couldn't find easy references for, except on forums, which I don't consider reliable sources because they can be changed or deleted without warning. Any help would be nice. And grammar checking too of course. I think I caught most of the big grammatical errors already, but it is darned hard to self edit.

Any comments? Is this change good or bad so far? Gopher65 (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all good. Peter1968 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Bah, sorry about all the updates there. Everytime I was about to go do something else I noticed another little error I'd made.Gopher65 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
"..in departure from virtually all other games on the market in any genre, Sslik (an asexual non-anthropomorphic reptilian humanoid)"
That sounds like a bit of an exaggeration to me, reptilians, lizard-men, Draconians, etc. aren't exactly a super-rare archetype. How about Morrowind's Argonians? --Stormie (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm true. I guess I should change that to "other fantasy MMOGs" which have an annoying tendency to have nothing but anamorphic non-human characters. I don't mind the occasional cat with humanish boobs, but common, lizards? Since when do lizards suckle their young?Gopher65 (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Catmen and lizardmen are a trope in fantasy games, MMOG or otherwise. You'd be hard-pressed trying to sell the Sslik's uniqueness. If you want to compare the depth of the Sslik, to say, the Argonians, or the Saris to the Khajiit, the Horizons archetypes will come off a very poor second best for backstory, culture, etc. I'm sure a comparison to the Vah'Shir/Kerrans and Iksar respectively doesn't need to be made. Apart from this, the article is fine, as far as I can see. Peter1968 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
kk, I'll remove that bit Gopher65 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Good rewrite Gopher. Its very straight-forward and non-biased now. Very nice. Btw, one difference may be in the skeleton that is used. Most non-human races in games use the standard human skeleton. Notice how they stand upright, the tail just hanging like it would if attached to a human spine. Sslik, Satyr and Saris in Horizons have their own base skeleton that is separate from the human skeleton. It is designed to suggest a more animalistic look and support/balance a true tail in all its movement and stuff. Wjmurdick (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between Horizons and other games section

Comes across as a plug, and stresses the fact that Horizons is "different" because it offers a playable dragon race. Most of these features listed aren't unique at all (and admitted as much in the article) and it serves no real purpose I can see except to advertise the game's appeal. Peter1968 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, but I was just going off the style used by other MMOG articles on Wikipedia. If Horizons shouldn't have sections detailing aspects of gameplay, then neither should WoW. Personally I'm loathe to go and delete anything in that game's page though, even if some of it is unencyclopediatic. That's a good way to get yourself cyberstalked from here to eternity.
If you're just talking about the name of the section, then *shrug*, change it to something else.
Nope, what was written there was the issue. Descriptions of the gameplay are all well and good, but when you are presented with a non-objective thing like "comparisons between us and them", is when the neutrality is called into question. In the perfect Wikipedia world, such comparisons shouldn't be made. As for WoW, no I wouldn't touch it either, but there are plenty that do monitor it. Peter1968 (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a question: why is that person going and deleting the "citation needed" factcheck tags from the criticism section, then saying "I did it cause there weren't any citations"? That doesn't seem logical to me:P. Gopher65 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
76.188.120.24 you mean? Probably a fan who doesn't want to see the article on their favourite game portrayed in anything less than glowing terms. I've corrected these changes where I've seen them. Peter1968 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As noted on the WoW talkpage, Morrowind was a Featured Article, and it would probably serve as a good example for what is and isn't allowed in articles of this type. Any suggestions as to how the deleted section could be revised so as not to appear "plugish"?Gopher65 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The Morrowind (and the Oblivion article) would be good templates. Both went through some very intense changes to bring them into line with Wikipeida's policies, re: the ones on this place not being a gameguide, a walkthrough, a fansite, fictional notability, etc. So yeah, they'd be good models. Peter1968 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Settlements...

Is this expansion in the works or did it die in the projection stage? Peter1968 (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It died with Tulga. Is it still listed somewhere other than the Timeline? I'm going to have to go through that timeline at some point I suppose. Not looking forward to that. Gopher65 (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Horizons- Empire of Istaria logo.jpg

Image:Horizons- Empire of Istaria logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just added one. Peter1968 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of Game By VIRTRIUM

as VIRTRIUM LLC has recently renamed Horizons: Empire of Istaria to Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted

i have created an article for the new name with a redirect to here, but am not sure if i should leave like that or move this article to the new name, does anyone have an opinion on this (Firebladed (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

I think ill default to the position of this being a uncontroversial move if no one actively objects (Firebladed (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Renaming of Game By VIRTRIUM

as VIRTRIUM LLC has recently renamed Horizons: Empire of Istaria to Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted

i have created an article for the new name with a redirect to here, but am not sure if i should leave like that or move this article to the new name, does anyone have an opinion on this (Firebladed (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Redirect done. Peter1968 (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i don`t think you moved the page but rather just copied and pasted content which leave incorrect history (Firebladed (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Requested move

The game has been renamed by VIRTRIUM LLC the owner (see press release in article references)

was going to move myself, if no objections, but appears to me someone tried copy and paste of content move, as logs showed no mention of a move so now I cannot as the redirect page has a history

(Firebladed (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC))