b0rsuk wrote:To be fair, Wikipedia and encyclopaedias in general are for documenting stuff. Instead, you were using it for advertising.
You were putting the cart before the horse. Have patience. Make it a good game, make it popular, influential, and people will pressure Wikipedia to make an article because Tome4 will be relevant to their lives.
In the same vein, I'm a fan of splitting a forum into subforums once it starts becoming unwieldy and specific needs of the community become apparent. If there are numerous threads about mods, create "modding" subforum. Many threads about bugs - make a Bugs subforum, or a tracker. Don't start by creating a hierarchy of subforums, you'll have a ghost town.
As DG said, I'm not sure what you meant by advertising. If you look back at my post, I actually attempted to look up INFORMATIVE information, which is exactly what Wikipedia is for. Beyond that, the submitted article that was shown here on this topic is informative, at least as much as some of these pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bindin ... eo_game%29 Quite short. Relatively little information. Doesn't even begin to compare to the detail that Tome held.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_of_Dredmor Also quite short with a lack of detailed information, and that's one of the more well-known recent roguelikes. I could go on, there are tons of these pages for one indie game or another that throw a few brief sentences at you, followed by a link to the homepage to buy it.
Maybe it's me, but it seems like we had a better page then many of these. I fail to see any 'advertising' in any of what was suggested for ToME's wikipedia page.
If your argument is that there isn't a reason for this information to be documented, ToME, both in it's current and it's previous T2 form are an integral and quite influential part of roguelike history. The former is at least as well known as things like ADOM, Rogue, and Angband. For that matter, T2 actually held a large enough audience to spawn it's own variant built on it's back. (NewAngband, later Portralis) This is not even counting that this is one of the first roguelikes to be accepting of player made content, setting another new standard to the genre. It's had enough influence with people to spawn a wikipedia article in the first place, prior to some ambiguously reasoned 'removal'. Trying to repair that mistake is... advertising, somehow? I can't seem to follow this logic.
Furthermore, your second paragraph could've been worded a bit more... politely.
Also someone is writing a book on roguelikes at the moment - I'm sure ToME will get a worthy mention!
