From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Civil / Street Fighters 2 MWC Winners / Most Successful teams 3 Game Version 4 NFDF? 5 BIA 5.1 Cleanup 5.2 Fair use rationale for Image:Mwc01 logo.gif 5.3 Fair use rationale for Image:Mwc06 logo.gif

[edit] Civil / Street Fighters

• Regarding Civil's entry.Civil/Street Fighters did *not* win every tourney they entered. They had their ass handed to them in NML2 (national myth league 2) and were eliminated thanks to the 9th Circle of Hell team in a semi final elimination match. I was captain of the 9c team in this tourney so i should know....hmm actually nevermind they entered NML2 as a "Survivor" themed team not as Civil/SF. So i guess the entry is correct :)

• Wight Slayer made a recent huge clean up and there's a few points I'm gonna tinker with, I'll check that. I know Civil played because Phod admitted it was their only loss - they were without some key player or something, hence their Myth retirement. - (The Elfoid 10:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

• They played without guttermouth, which is about the same as BME playing without Chohan. - Wickning1 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

LoA managed some damn good play in previous MWCs and if you added the rest of the OA crew minus Cho they woulda still got a top 5 performance in MWC04 :)

Mention Guttermouth by name or something perhaps in the article.

(The Elfoid 16:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

• I thought about mentioning guttermouth but I'm only 90% sure it was him that was missing, I need to double check. And yeah BME would still be a good team, but so was tribal. They were still a damn good team, but without gm they weren't champs. - Wickning1 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MWC Winners / Most Successful teams

• I don't think it makes sense to say "Most Successful Teams" and then proceed to list MWCs. We already have a list of MWCs and who won them, this should be a list of teams. I'm changing it back to being team-oriented instead of MWC-oriented and I hope you'll agree that it just makes more sense this way. - Wickning1 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Also the fact that MWC05 never played out makes this very difficult to read. The way you had it, you would read the table of contents and think that TCox won MWC05. - Wickning1 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since its most successful MWC teams, not just Myth II tournament teams. The details on other tournaments I've put in just to give background information. I preferred it that way, and someone might just be looking up a list of winners or something. I'll tinker around with it in sandbox and see if I can come up with anything you agree with.

The MWC05 thing I agree is confusing. Alternative would be to put MWC05: BIA2/TCox then profile Cox whie saying 'see also: MWC03: BIA' (The Elfoid 16:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

• Really I don't think either team deserves credit for mwc05. If there were prizes, none would have gone out, so saying they were "joint winners" is stretching things. The truth is that there was no winner. - Wickning1 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• As for Most Successful MWC teams, they're ordered roughly by MWC performance, and most of the descriptions highlight MWC placements, so I think it's ok as is. - Wickning1 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• I agree it would be nice to note MWC winners, but we shouldn't sort the list that way. With the aliases in the section headers, there doesn't seem to be enough room to note it out to the right hand side and still look good. Perhaps we should list aliases in bold at the beginning of the description instead of in the section header. - Wickning1 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Take a look at Civil's entry now for an example of what I mean. - Wickning1 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks ok but rather than 'MWC99/00' could it perhaps say 'MWC99/00 winners'? Just wondering as it could just be stating they were a success then.

Side note: For MWC05 because NFDF and Sm's last games were unscored, which one rated higher when they were knocked out was not listed. At present it is like this:

• 10. Nowhere Final Destination (NFD)
• 10. Swedish Meatballs (Sm) [NFD and Sm games went unscored - which team rated higher on the list is currently not officially known]

Any better way of doing it? And should they both be 9th or 10th? Normally both would be 10th, but with TCox/BIA sharing 2nd its hard to tell what should be done.

(The Elfoid 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Game Version

Perhaps it would be good to include what the official version of the game for the tournament was supposed to be in each one?

Not hugely important I would have thought. I'm sure it can be found out though. Hmm.

• MWC98: v1.3b2 when rules were written, and was set up for 'the latest version of TFL'?
• MWC99: Round 3+ Myth II v1.3 (v1.2 prior to then????).
• MWC00: Myth II v1.3
• MWC01: Myth II was onto v1.3.1 I believe? I think it worked with v1.3 so it woudl be listed as v1.3/v1.3.1
• MWC04: Myth II v1.5
• MWC05: Myth II v1.5.1
• MWC06: Myth II v1.5.1 (the v1.5.2 beta, now called v1.6 is compatible so perhaps should be listed as v1.5.1/v1.6?)

(The Elfoid 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

• I don't think it's important enough to waste space on. - Wickning1 11:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Me neither, just felt I should put it in here for someone who was around then to decide on.

(The Elfoid 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] NFDF?

Should the team class as successful based on a 4th place and 5th place? Its a tough call. MWC00 F.Comm barely got past QR, 28th out of 67 in MWC01 wasn't too special either. MWC03 I know NFD failed to make top 10. MWC05 NFDF split up, NFD got 9th and F.Comm got 11th. I need a second opinion on this one.

(The Elfoid 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

• I don't know, good question. They didn't disappoint us in 06 so no real reason to remove them now that they're there. It's ok to mention MWC05 but I don't give it any weight, it just wasn't competitive. - Wickning1 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• The real question is are there teams that are more worthy to be in that spot on the list.. I'm not sure, there aren't too many more teams that actually participated in more than 2 and did well in any. - Wickning1 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mwc04.com/article.php?id=29

That, combined with the MWC04/05/06 top-player lists on here are about as useful as things get for this.

PoOp perhaps? 20/67, 9/32, 9/36, 8/30, 13/32 for MW01 - 06 is quite a good performance. MWC00 they were nothing speical, but after that they weren't a bad team.

(The Elfoid 16:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] BIA

I cleaned up BIA's entry, was getting way too long and had too much crufty information. - Wickning1 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I approve most of that

(The Elfoid 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Cleanup

I removed much of the detail about credits because it seemed like an indiscriminate collection of information. I left a few "major" credits but even those are questionable. The detailed list of prizes for MWC 99 could easily be cut. Compare the articles for more significant tournaments (eg, New York Marathon) - most that I've checked do not list much, if anything, in the way of credits. I've also changed many of the subsections to simple headers so the TOC is manageable. I've also removed the "successful MWC teams" section as it is fairly obvious from the lists of MWC top teams which have done well consistently. I doubt the rest of the commentary on the "teams" section could be sourced externally from non-Myth sites. The "summary table" at the end is repetitive and could probably be removed as well.

I would suggest, in the wake of the recent AfD, that external references (from MacWorld, MacObserver, IMG, etc.) be added for each of the events. Ultimately, I think the verifiable content from Myth II: Soulblighter Tournaments page could probably be merged here. Gimmetrow 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mwc01 logo.gif

Image:Mwc01 logo.gif 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 insure 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) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mwc06 logo.gif

Image:Mwc06 logo.gif 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 insure 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) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)