Talk:Ultima VII

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:
To-do list for Ultima VII: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Screenshots: Serpent Isle, SNES/PSP version
  • Screenshots on concepts: ...?

Contents

[edit] Hoe of Destruction

Not significant enough to warrant its own page. Should be merged to Ultima VII. Some guy 22:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

merged ??? NO WAY! I'm agaist merge in this case, it is not the same thing! --R2cyberpunk 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it as well. There's too much in that article to merge it here. If you tried, it'd have way too much attention on this page. It should have a brief mention though, with a link to that page. Sarge Baldy 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of the "information" on the page is plot summary. The whole article could easily be shortened to two sentences. Some guy 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps an article about various weapons of Ultima series? I think Hoe would be worth merging, but some weapons (like the Black Sword) just need an article of their own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps thou shoudst write articles on some of the more important aspects of Ultima. The Ophidian Society's lost code of Order, Chaos, and Balance, is crying out for an article. (Darien Shields 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC))
Virtues of Ultima has pretty good discussion of that. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Weak Separate I dont think they should be merged (but i tend to say that on everything) but I'm not too fussed. If they are merged, make sure that the article mentions it in a section. i see to many redirects that aren't even mentioned, or are hard to find on the target page. e.g. You redirects to Me if You is the second person singular, whats me?. Anyway, weak separate, but if they are merged it should be easy to find. Kaldosh 08:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another strong reason to merge is only the Ultima VII article links to the HoD article. Some guy 19:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source Code Lost?

The article makes no mention of the loss of source code to VII (presumably after Part 2 or Silver Seed). I'm not sure what the details are, but I think it might be worthy of research and a note in the article. --GargoyleMT 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's a fascinating topic; I think I did mention it passingly in Exult article. I think there were some random comments long ago in Usenet that the source had been found, but that was kind of vague and nothing was proven. EA doesn't seem to care either these days. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austin?

Why is it signifcant that the game was produced in the city of Austin, Texas? Mike Schiraldi 16:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really significant, no... would be much more significant to mention that in Ultima IX article, since that actually has a bit that happens on Earth and (IIRC) has a sign that says something about Austin. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay overview - no citation is needed

"For example, after stealing a sword from the Trinsic smithy, the player might see the monsterous visage of The Guardian appear[citation needed]"

There's no need for a citation on this: just play the game and you'll eventually see that this does in fact occur.
removing the 'citation needed' now. Chris 20:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I was just wondering; I've never seen it myself in the real game, and I'm not sure if it happens in Exult too. See below. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-hyping and some issues that sprung in mind

The article needs some bits:

  • Had to remove the logo; it's fine for the Ultima article, but not really relevant in this article specifically (even if it's from the game in question!), so fair use rationale can't really explain its significance for this page.
  • The gameplay overview is a bit... shall we say, it talks about stuff that's probably significant, but I'm not really sure how it's relevant if you look at the big picture of CRPGs in general. The section has the tone of "see how cool this game is", rather than "these were the features that set it apart of everything else". It could use some solidity and hard facts.
I agree, this section seems to me a bit biased. It looks more like a game review than an encyclopedic article. Murdering NPC's may be a nice way to pass time, but it's not a significant part of the plot. Iblardi 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Did the Guardian really appear and say "you had best not do that" in the original game? I've never witnessed it myself, and I'm not sure if Exult does this... again, we need to consider if this fact is really worth trumpeting. It isn't exactly in same caliber as the "omg Samus is a girl!" thing, in my very humble opinion.

Awww, heck, I left the window open and didn't save this. Now I forgot what the rest of the stuff was. I'll add them later when I remember. It's getting late here. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a night's sleep, and here we go again:

  • Which quest exactly is the U7BG's quest that parodies ST:TNG referring to? If it's the spaceship on the field, that's not ST:TNG, it's a Wing Commander reference.
  • "Almost every quest can be solved in two or more ways": Uh... I'm not really an expert on the quest solutions, but my imagination runs out once I say the Honour Flag quest in Jhelom has two solutions, and, ummm... you can choose whether or not to open Batlin's box, but it leads to the exact same results. Probably many quests have multiple solutions, but I'd guess not all, and there certainly are cases when the plot doesn't branch all that much based on different choices. The game has two possible endings, but you arrive to them over largely the same plot turns, and they're not radically different.

I'll tell more once I figure them out. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serpent's Hold / Star Trek

The characters in Serpent's Hold do in fact parody the ones in Star Trek - The Next Generation. Quoting from http://www.flyingomelette.com/cameos/cameosu.html:

TV Shows (Star Trek: TNG): The town/castle of Serpent's Hold is populated by characters deliberately evocative of the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation. You've got the town's leader John-Paul, his right-hand man Richter, a captain of the guard named Horffe, Leigh the healer, and so on. Their personalities are all pretty much as you'd expect, too. (Credit: Devin de Gruyl)

Furthermore, just as in the series Lt. Worff is a Klingon, in Ultima VII Sir Horffe is a Gargoyle; Lady Tory from the game has psychic abilities like Commander Troi in Star Trek, and so on. I think the parody is obvious.

Iblardi 15:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you learn something new every day. Wouldn't have spotted on the first try; I always knew there was something eerie about Serpent's Hold =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first thing a person sees at the Ultima VII page...

no pictures! no life!

The essense of Ultima VII (as with any video game) is of course the video aspect itself. It would be good to see a picture or three at the top of the page. Theavatar3 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a few pictures more, but not much more. We can't include too many of them, because all of them happen to fall under fair use. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree. I dare someone to find three nice pics and put them horizontally across the top of ze page. Mathiemood 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "14-game compilation"

What's the controversy with the "14-game compilation" text for the PSP version? It does seem factual, based on the entry for EA Replay. It is getting a lot of attention for some reason I can't discern. --GargoyleMT 14:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged The Dark Key

I merged The Dark Key here; it was PRODded as nonnotable and if I had been at helm, it would have probably gone into a very fiery grave in AfD, so I decided to merge it in before it turned into a giant debate.

The problem is that TDK isn't released yet, and we've deleted many game mods that are unreleased and haven't had press coverage. Regrettably Wikipedia tends to demand a lot from mods in general...

Even some mods that are unreleased and have press coverage (Ultima IX: Redemption springs in mind, though it was just merged). So, let's just do what we did with U9R: Merge it here until we have an actual release and actual press coverage (which probably won't be a problem in that day - remember what kind of ruckus Lazarus generated when it was finally released...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I am not going to revert your edit (yet). Wikipedia is not the place to have links that say... "how can I get my hands on Ultima VII??". You need to ask yourself, do any of these links contribute to the information in this article? If not, they are simply inappropriate. I'll assume you already read WP:EL. If not, read it, if you did, read it again. Unless you can prove why those links don't violate it, they have to go. Wikidan829 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll make this easy for you..
  • The Conquest of Origin Background information on the Origin Systems / Electronic Arts conflict and takeover.
This is probably OK because it has an editorial staff, and it's not just 1 Joe Schmoe typing whatever he wants.
These are probably no good per reason 12 and 13. Why a separate link for StrategyWiki? Who made this template?
Same as the first StrategyWiki
This is no good per Foreign-language links.
This is just advertising, whether you have an association with them or not. It provides a link on where to get the game, and adds absolutely nothing to the informational purposes of Wikipedia.
There, I did your homework for you. I'm going to revert it in a day unless a good rebuttal comes along. Wikidan829 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with what you're doing, Wikidan829. --Mike Schiraldi 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you disagree with what he has done? He is citing valid guidelines for external links. --GargoyleMT 12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, too bad? If you are disagreeing with me holding up policy and guidelines, maybe this isn't the site for you. Wikidan829 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Whole 24 hours to react! A rousing talk page debate spanning over 2000 bytes of heated debate! Wikipedia is growing at such a rapid rate that we absolutely can't let such a controversial article and such incredibly controversial external links stand in an article for any longer period of time.

Frankly, the whole issue about external links is pointless. The links are at least related to the game and aren't outright spam.

A big point on both the fan translations and The Dark Key link: The external links were there because their content is actually discussed in the article and removing them would make the article less well sourced. That is my major beef here: people don't realise external links are often also references for the article. One link was already removed from the article, and that was my major source for the various game releases. Do the words "further research that is accurate and on-topic" mean anything to anyone here?

I think part of the problem here is that people don't bother with the {{cite xxx}} templates and just dump their sources to EL. The first question of anyone who removes external links should be "is this used as a source?" If there's any doubt, just leave it there.

I'm half agreeing that the fan translation links can go; However, saying that the links are inappropriate because they're in foreign language is just plain bizarre wikilawyering. Hint: Translation involves taking original text and adapting it so that it's legible in another language - it doesn't help the target audience if the web page describing it remains in other language. If you have to argue that the links are inappropriate in this article, at least question their necessity. We now have an Ultima wiki that lists fan translations.

The Dark Key: Apparently I missed the release annoucement of this project, because I can't see where in the website you can actually find this thing for download or access the server in question. However, once again, we can question the necessity of this project to be here in first place; perhaps we should move all material about this thing to the Ultima wiki, as it's not yet close to be released.

I absolutely disagree with the conclusion that StrategyWiki shouldn't be linked, however. In case people familiar with history, StrategyWiki "inherited" many game guides that were previously hosted in Wikibooks, and the reason they were transwiki'd was simply because of the scope of Wikibooks, not the quality or extensiveness of the articles; in my eyes, SW is a well-maintained, actively used, and extensive wiki, and thus the Criterion 12 doesn't really work. Criterion 13 is wholly invalid: The links are to articles that are directly related to the games in question. If you ask anyone here, you probably get the idea that Wikipedia is not meant for game guide information, and most replies also include a mysterious phrase "that's what External Links are for". I absolutely don't see a problem with links to GameFAQs or similar sites.

In short, please put the StrategyWiki links back - and please get us some other ones too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I added the Official Websites of the games (WP:EL, "What to link", "What should be linked", criterion 1) - as far as official websites even exist. Clearly, two sites that are a bit sparse in details and that were last updated over a decade ago beat the heck out of StrategyWiki. =) And before you say WP:POINT, let me remind you that these official sites are, in all honesty, a rather interesting peek to a game marketing a long time ago. I believe the site was originally made by a fan and taken to EA's servers and given a facelift in preparation of Ultima Collection release. We don't see this sort of stuff happen these days - no way! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am Irish so I can take a huge beating with sarcasm, but seriously don't do it again. Here's a good link for you. The only reason I was going to revert it in a day, was because this article isn't a hot topic, and I wanted to make sure it got what it needed before it dropped off my watchlist.
Second, the official site link is not only fine, but encouraged, according to point 1 here. I have no problem with that at all.
Third, as far as external links and references go, most or all of those links did not have the caliber required to be considered a reliable source.
Finally, StrategyWiki is probably okay, now that I checked them out. The policy for wikis is that they need enough editors to cover the material, and a long track record of reliability. What is "enough" editors? Since they are not numbers set in stone, I would like to use Wikipedia, if I may, as a benchmark. StrategyWiki has a ratio of about 3 pages to 1 user, Wikipedia has a ratio of about 2 pages to 1 user. Since it's smaller then it's probably not so bad. Cheers, Wikidan829 13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm Finnish, so, accordingly, I have absolutely no sense of humour. I'm sorry if I went overboard with my absolutely unfunny and ultimately pointless attempt at sarcasm. Yet, in this situation I have to catch your WP:CIVIL toss and throw back a random WP:AGF. My intention was merely to demonstrate 1) the time limit was slightly unreasonable from my (and probably someone else's) point of view, though there's little we can do about this sort of issues, now is there - reacting to this stuff can be slow, 2) removing links that support the contents of the article, in a way of references, is occasionally just as bad as removing actual citations because it leaves the article weaker and completely unreferenced (It'd be highly appreciated to evaluate the links, consider if they can be turned into inline references instead), 3) it's not just you, it's a problem with Wikipedia as whole, 4) no matter how you cook it, the language rationale is bizarre, but there's more weighty reasons to remove the links anyway. In no way it was meant to be a personal attack of any kind.
Then, some random comments on reliability: The previously removed site was The Collectible Ultima, which I'd consider a more or less reliable source even when it's basically a personal page maintained by a collector; if someone has a more reliable and complete list of Origin/Electronic Arts game and soundtrack releases, please update the article accordingly. I'm not aware of any official site that would have comparable information. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's do this then. Since(and I believe you on this one), it seems that since the game isn't extremely popular and it's not exactly new, reliable citations are impossible to find. We should then not limit the article because of guidelines and policy. So, although rare, I'm going to throw one of these out here. I do not mean the article should become a free-for-all again, but if these rules are preventing us from making this article whole, then f em. If The Collectible Ultima is the only site of its kind, although it is far from meeting the expectations of a reliable citation, then let's put it back in, not as an external link, but as a citation. Anything added as a result of this, however, should be fact and not speculation/opinion. For example, even though personally I despise the Church of Scientology, it seems very much that the link was original research. The only way to prove it is not is to find a document, an interview, anything, from a reliable, editor reviewed source, that has the creator of the game, or someone involved in the project, saying this is a fact.
How about that? Wikidan829 14:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I have nothing at all to say aside of a) always, always make decisions on case-by-case basis and b) principles (and policies) are good, but will only get us so far. Obviously, good sources (and good external links!) are appreciated and wanted, but until we have them, we have to keep on with what we have, and if we want this article ever to get to FA grade, we obviously need to address these kinds of issues as well. And as for the CoS issue, if the sources come up, let's add it back, but not until that. Regrettably, "gamer/developer lore" trivia is harder to source than material from games themselves... *sigh* --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Electronic Arts material

I removed the following material from the page:

EA's logo in 1992.
EA's logo in 1992.
Parts of the Ultima VII storyline are inspired by game creator Origin Systems' conflicts with competitor (and later, their new owner) Electronic Arts. The main antagonist of the story, The Guardian, is presented as a 'destroyer of worlds'. Origin Systems' corporate slogan was 'We Create Worlds' and it can be implied that The Guardian represented Electronic Arts' attempts at destroying the competition. The three evil 'Generators' created by The Guardian in the game took the physical shapes of the contemporary Electronic Arts Logo: a cube, a sphere, and a tetrahedron. Elizabeth and Abraham, two apparently benevolent characters who later turn out to be murderers, have the initials "E" and "A". The EA logo is again mocked in Ultima VIII as an animated cube-sphere-tetrahedron object.

I've heard this before also, but it requires citation, or else it is simply original research, and thus impermissible. Nandesuka 02:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've returned it to the page, with slight changes. --70.142.54.36 10:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batlin's killing spree comment

The picture Image:Avatar killing spree.gif is captioned "The Avatar being chided by Baitlin after killing a dozen civilians" - however, Batlin's comment is actually part of the Personality Test (USECODE function 0x084e) and is actually triggered by a dialogue choice (in response to a question 7 in the test, about killing a dog that is attacking you) rather than actually being a result of directly killing people. I think this screenshot is very misleading in that regard; I'll remove it because I think it is just superfluous and doesn't contribute to the article in a way that Fair Use could be justified. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually one of the most unique characteristics of Ultima VII, at least when it was released in 1992, is that the player could commit all sorts of heinous crimes. What better way to illustrate this most salient issue than with the picture in question? As for the caption it has been fixed. Vranak 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Think of it this way: If anyone who hasn't played the game looks at the picture, they understand the picture as if Batlin would be commenting on the carnage around him... which isn't the case. The screenshot is staged and misleading, plain and simple. Also, the Avatar doesn't get "chided by Baitlin for his violent temperment"; the answer is part of the personality test. The specific question is, "Thou hast just killed a small dog by throwing a rock at it. Is it more likely that thou hast done this because A: the dog was going to attack thee, or B: the dog was going to attack someone else?" and the player answers B. Now, Batlin says this babble about being the Avatar being a violent person whether the player was truly honestly having aggressive thoughts or they were thinking of justifiable self-defense in a plausible situation. Basically, he's weaseling the worst possible interpretation of the player's answer to make it sound like the Avatar is in need of Fellowship teachings. Besides, if we're really wanting to make a point that the player could make all sorts of heinous crimes, wouldn't it be better to not include a screenshot where the player appears to have been caught red-handed and getting chastised for the vile deeds in question? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Point the second: Do we need a screenshot of this particular aspect of the game? I feel this is adequately explained through text. In my opinion, in game articles, we need screenshots only to illustrate the GUI, the graphics style, the characters - but in rarer cases very abstract kinds of game mechanics, like lack of virtue system and ability to kill innocent bystanders. Plus, it's hardly a screenshot of a very typical situation in a game that could be justifiably explained in an encyclopaedia anyway; screenshots should illustrate remarkable features of the game, not remarkable un-features in a way that confuses people. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well Wolf there's two in favor of keeping the image, one against. If you want to unilaterally remove it that's your perogative but it's usually good to keep some measure of respect for democratic ideals. Vranak 04:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, two in favour of keeping a misleading image that doesn't contribute to the article and that probably can't even be justifiably called fair use. Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy, but consensus, and three people can't really yet form either - so let's discuss. I'd rather like to hear from the proponents of this image why these points I've brought forth are wrong. I've listed them below, along with a couple of more. I have nothing against you, or anyone who wants to keep this image; I just want to hear if there are some good arguments that outweigh the many problems they cause. So far, I haven't heard any good reasons to keep the image. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I hate to point out boring technicalities, but since you uploaded the image, please add a Fair Use rationale to the image. If we could get at least that part of the debate sorted out, that would be very nice... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing misleading about a screenshot! And if you still don't like the caption change it yourself! Vranak 11:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I'm recaptioning the picture. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for or against the image

  • For:
    1. You can commit crimes in this game, and this image can illustrate that.
    2. Two people asked to keep the image.
  • Against:
    1. No matter how the picture is captioned, the image is still misleading and confusing in itself. The dialogue in the screenshot has nothing to do with the killings; person who hasn't played the game will look at the picture and think they are linked since they're in the same scene.
    2. While the scene depicted may be possible in the game, it's hardly typical. It doesn't, as such, illustrate the game plot or the sidequests.
    3. There are better ways to illustrate the fact that you can commit crimes in this game.
    4. The abstract concepts (such as that you can commit crimes in this game) are easier explained through text, which doesn't require a screenshot.

Anything to add? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say that I'm generally opposed to providing or asking for reasons for anything. Bottom line, you either like it or you don't. Vranak 11:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me share an observation with you: Unwillingness to discuss one's overall goals and reasonings when controversy rises has generally just caused friction and unnecessary drama. I'm trying to explain my actions here. This issue could be fixed much easier if you'd try to do the same. Please? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
OK fair enough. How about you upload a similar picture, that illustrates just how violent the game can be. Vranak 13:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need a screenshot that "illustrates how violent the game can be"? How about a deal: let's let this particular screenshot stay in the article until I can make a better screenshot that illustrates the combat system in general? I really don't mind a screenshot that depicts an actual plausible part of the plot - you know, a situation where an ordinary player might easily run into while playing the game. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
RE: "While the scene depicted may be possible in the game, it's hardly typical", here are my thoughts: It's not typical for the official canon session of someone who's trying to win the game, but it's very typical for someone who wants to take a break from that and just screw around. In fact, i don't think there's a single Ultima VII player out there who never saved his game and then unleashed a fury of death upon the townspeople in a fit of rage and/or experimentation. This is one of the unique and great things about U7, and i think the picture illustrates *that* perfectly. Contrast with, say, Zelda, where if you tried hacking away at one of the good guys, it would either do nothing or cause magic beams to start hurting you, as a way of keeping you on-course. --Mike Schiraldi 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes exactly my sentiments. Wolf I have been wondering if you were perhaps more offput by the graphic nature of the screenshot than then 'misleading' caption? If so just say so and we'll move on from there -- it's as valid a position to hold as any other. Vranak 17:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to the graphic nature, just the fact that people can interpret the dialogue as being triggered by the carnage in the image. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: It's not the killings I object to - it'd be a good example of how you can do bad things in the game. It's not the dialogue I object to - Batlin's adaptation of OCA is worth a discussion if we can find sources. It's the combination of the two I object to, because people who look at the picture and haven't played the game think these two are somehow related, when in reality, they have nothing to do with each other even if what Batlin says is coincidentally appropriate in this occasion. People can't read the full dialogue based on this screenshot alone and make wrong conclusions. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
All right. And how do you propose we cram this information in the screenshot caption and/or the accompanying text? At the moment, the caption is next to a section that explains how the virtue system doesn't work, and for that purpose, this is a bad screenshot because it implies that Batlin's comment is a result of the carnage. However, this would be a much better screenshot for a section that deals with people's freedom to do several crazy things (including killing random bystanders), with proper caption of course. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Baitlin's text is one thing; the background is another. No connection is implied except in your head. And even if it were misleading, what does it matter? Vranak 21:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No connection is implied except in heads of everyone who hasn't played the game. If one doesn't know what's really going on, one will misinterpret the image. It basically boils down to this: This is an encyclopaedia, which means we need to have simple, clear information on basics. This is not the place to have Goofy Screenshots that Amuse the Experts. It's a contrived scene, not something you see every day in the game. If you are absolutely certain that screenshots like this are not a problem, why aren't you posting screenshots from Accidental Video Game Porn Archive (obviously not work-safe)? Hey, they're all possible situations in the games and show all that rampant sexualism that's going on in these games... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
How can you claim to have access to the heads of people who haven't played the game? Seems a bit presumptuous to me. As far as I'm concerned a screenshot could only ever be misleading if it were doctored. Vranak 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...and another caption issue

Current caption is "Baitlin assesses The Avatar's suitability to join The Fellowship,, as numerous victims of the player litter the floor." I don't think this is good either. Batlin's comment in the screenshot is a response to a question that has absolutely nothing to do with the carnage in the picture.

For the reference, here's the dialogue in question:

"Question Seven: Thou hast just killed a small dog by throwing a rock at it. Is it more likely that thou hast done this because A: the dog was going to attack thee, or B: the dog was going to attack someone else?"
(The player answers A) "This question tells us that thou art an overly defensive person. Thou dost need to stop assuming that the world around thee exists only to bring thee potential harm." Batlin strokes his chin thoughtfully.
(The player answers B) "This question tells is that thou art an overly aggressive person. Thou dost need to stop trying to solve all of thy problems through violence." Batlin strokes his chin thoughtfully.

Bear in mind that this question gets asked no matter what the player has done previously. Please consider every word of that dialogue before trying to caption; this is a very difficult thing to do. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Change it back if you want, I just thought that the previous version that you wrote was too redundant (had the same block of text basically repeated twice, e.g. The cat jumped over that lawn that the cat jumped over). Vranak 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone happy now? --Mike Schiraldi 14:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that new pic is glorious! Vranak 15:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Much better. Now, let's deal with technicalities: Before it gets deleted from Commons, please reupload it to en.wikipedia. (Image licensing is so very annoying, is it not? *sigh*) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest violence pic deleted

Next time please make sure it won't be deleted. Vranak 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what happened here.. It was speedy-deleted for copyright violation. What's different about the other screenshots on this page that allowed them to escape that fate? --Mike Schiraldi 22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I wish I knew. Perhaps Wolf can tell you; as close as I can figure he nominated your picture for deletion. Vranak 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said above, it was uploaded to Commons, and Commons only accepts images that are free to use, modify and redistribute (primarily GFDL and Creative Commons images); All copyrighted images that are used under Fair Use provisions (incl. game screenshots) have to be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, i don't have a copy of the picture anymore. Is there any way to get it out of the Commons, or does deleted really mean deleted? --Mike Schiraldi 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a Commons admin so I can't verify this, but I'm pretty sure Commons uses the same tech as Wikipedia (that is, deleted images can be recovered). You could ask some Commons admin for help. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Mike did you check your recycle bin? Vranak 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Meh the only 'Avatar doing violence' pic I can find is the one Wolf doesn't like. I don't have U7 anymore so I can't take a screenshot. Mike please do whatever you did before! Vranak 15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable characters and Horance

I admit it: I created the article on Horance because he's totally cool and kicks Sephy's butt. Article-worthiness of such a rather minor character is definitely in question; I've put the article up for deletion as a result. We've got better places for minor characters nowadays, anyway =)

Likewise, I removed the "list of notable characters" bit, which was originally added by me as a completely unjustifiable attempt to give credence for the Horance article. As a list it was somewhat useless and unneeded.

That said, the article really could use plot summaries (which in turn could mention the notable characters). I'm going to write one later on. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Vranak 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Avatar killing spree.gif

Image:Avatar killing spree.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ultima VII The Black Gate - entry into Brittania.jpg

Image:Ultima VII The Black Gate - entry into Brittania.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 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) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)