ToME off of Wikipedia

[greycat]

Are those "extra RPS articles" real? Are they any good? Can we use them? I couldn't find anything except one forum thread.

Are there any critical reviews out there we can include for balance? There ought to be some, right? The game isn't perfect, and some people may hate the roguelike parts (if they were expecting an RPG), or they may hate the MMO-like parts (if they were expecting a roguelike).

Are there any other changes the article needs right now? Or is it time to hit the "beat me with a stick" button again?

ToME is out for 3 years not 6 month BTW (being beta certainly doesnt count as many other things in beta status are there).

Yeah, I keep coming back to this point. We apparently aren't presenting the timeline correctly, if b0rsuk perceives it this way. On the other hand, it's not clear how things should be presented. We're the "inner circle", so we may see things quite differently from how the rest of the players will see them. To you and me, the game has been "out" for 2 or 3 years, depending on exactly where you draw the line between "playable" and "try again next version". But to a wikipedia reader, that silly 1.0.0 tag actually matters.

[Crim, The Red Thunder]

Alright, what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Starve a small commercial game that's been release in april, it looks fun but I'm not sure how influential it is either.
So why is it on wikipedia ? Because this does look a hell of a lot like advertisment as you say.

ToME is out for 3 years not 6 month BTW (being beta certainly doesnt count as many other things in beta status are there).

Also important is the distinction between T2 and T4. I've certainly been playing T4 longer then 6 months (8 and a half months, according to my user page, though I played for a bit before making that account), and it's been fully playable for longer then that, but the earlier verison of tome has been around long enough that 'ToME' as a whole has been around for almost (or is it over?) 10 years. I'd say a decade is enough time to warrant some god**** historical documentation.

And it's because of that historical factor and how very long ToME has existed that makes it worth documenting, along with how influential it's assorted forms have been to other roguelikes/game developers. Not 'Herp-a-Derp let's get more people to buy our free game' the way some people seem to be assuming.

As for how long it's been around, what was the first T4 version that was 100% beatable? I'd say call the first one of THOSE that was available to the public as a 'release'. We're like a MMO that has updated with expansion packs. Changes and tweaks and new content have been released over time. Doesn't change that our game has existed in a fully playable form for much longer then that.

[greycat]

ToME 2 and ToME 4 are radically different games, though. They don't have a lot in common besides the developer (DarkGod), the 4-letter abbreviation (ToME), and a roguelike heritage. And the town layout of Bree-- I mean, Derth. And the ubiquitous presence of slime. And Yeeks.

So, OK, they have a few things in common. But still, it's hard to see how one could reasonably document them together, instead of as two separate games.

Beta 10 (Sep 5, 2010) was the first "winnable" version, I think.

[Crim, The Red Thunder]

My understanding (admittedly limited, since I can't find any documentation of it anywhere though) is that Tome 2 became Tome 3 (with an attempt at the system we now have in tome 4, but retaining the Tome 2 storyline/world/etc.), which was eventually discarded in favor of creating the modern 'Maj'eyal' world we now have and called ToME 4.

I wasn't saying they should be in the same article (seperate articles for each, in my vote!), though a link to the other article for historical significance wouldn't go amiss. I noted that because it's been around for soooooo very long. (Close to those 10 years.) I see the two as an outgrowth of the same original project, and think that one can say that project has been around for almost 10 years. Which is a bit different from 'I made a game 6 months ago, gimme free attention' that some think we're trying to do.

If the 2010 date is right, then yes, we have indeed been around for almost 3 years. (2 1/2, whatever you want to call it.) Clearly, we aren't some selfish people saying 'Hey, we made a game, time to advertise'.

[Grey]

Wikipedia entries made by fans always look like fans saying "Hey, look at this cool game we like! Wanna hear loads and loads of irrelevant details about it?!" Keep it short, really fecking short down to the absolute basic facts and it will have a way better chance of getting passed.

RPS article for reference: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01 ... roguelike/

[greycat]

Ah, OK. We already have that RPS article as a reference. I'd been looking for some other newer one which apparently doesn't exist.

I'm gonna hit the button! BAM!

[greycat]

Submission declined on 3 July 2013 by Bonkers The Clown (talk).

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

... you have GOT to be fecking kidding me. This is ridiculous. NOTABILITY is FECKING ESTABLISHED. What the hell more do they want?!

[greycat]

^ a b Sykes, Tom. "Tales of Maj’Eyal is released, despite being out for 109 years", PC Gamer, 18 December 2012. Retrieved 11 January 2013.
^ "Roguelike Radio:Episode 18: ToME 4". Retrieved 8 January 2013, posted 10 January 2010.
^ "Angband at oook.cz - Variant list". Retrieved 9 January 2013.
^ a b c "Freeware Game Pick – Tales of Maj’Eyal: Age of Ascendancy". Retrieved 8 January 2013.
^ a b c "Tales Of Maj’Eyal Is The Best Roguelike You’ve Never Played, Now Released After Years In Beta". Retrieved 8 January 2013.
^ "2011 Seven Day Roguelike Challenge Evaluation". Retrieved 14 January 2013, posted 8 April 2011.
^ "2012 Seven Day Roguelike Challenge Evaluation". Retrieved 14 January 2013, posted 9 May 2012.
^ "Winner of the Ascii Dreams Roguelike of the Year 2010: T.o.M.E. 4". Retrieved 9 January 2013.
^ "Winner of the Ascii Dreams Roguelike of the Year 2011: T.o.M.E. 4". Retrieved 9 January 2013.
^ a b "Full Results for Ascii Dreams Roguelike of the Year". Retrieved 9 January 2013.
^ Smith, Adam. "TOME Is Where The Heart Is: Happy New Roguelike". Retrieved 8 January 2013.
^ "Tales of Maj'Eyal Review - Gather Your Party".


ARE THEY EVEN LOOKING AT THIS?!

[darkgod]

Bonkers the clown .. yeah ..
This is quite ridiculous indeed.
Anybody here has any idea what's going on? Clearly there are articles with so much less sources on wikipedia

[Grey]

They must have gotten on before Wikipedia got as strict about notability.

[darkgod]

Dunno some are recent I'd say, and in any case, talk about fairness ..

[Grey]

Yeah, it's a bit shit, but don't take it too hard. At least there's a mega-cool TV Tropes page for the game!

[lukep]

I'm thinking I made a mistake on my first try. I should've just created the page instead of submitting it for evaluation...

[darkgod]

*whips lukep* I name thee the wikipedia-maintainer. Get tome on it ! Naow !

[greycat]

I've been doing some reading on wikipedia, trying to figure out how this stuff all works. It's pretty confusing. They have their own special jargon, and they have their own mysterious acronyms that don't mean anything to outsiders.

As near as I can tell, the purpose of the "Articles for Creation" is to help get articles in shape so that they aren't deleted immediately when they're created in the regular wiki. Which, as near as I can tell, implies the presence of roving bands of wiki thugs who delete new articles as soon as they appear, if those articles don't meet whatever unknowable criteria the roving wiki thugs demand. (Which may or may not be the same criteria the AfC thugs demand... it's impossible to tell.)

Oh, another thing I learned is that if an AfC article isn't edited for 6 months, it may get deleted. We just barely missed that between January and July. So, we need to keep pecking away at it once in a while to keep it "alive".