Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi People!

Seems to me like what we are missing in order to make our post on wiki stick is to "sale" our idea properly.

We have to preset MD as a new product in terms of making clear what type of game it is, what makes it singular or unique. Much like a marketing campaign.

See what I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi People!

Seems to me like what we are missing in order to make our post on wiki stick is to "sale" our idea properly.

We have to preset MD as a new product in terms of making clear what type of game it is, what makes it singular or unique. Much like a marketing campaign.

See what I mean?

Erm, maybe. We do have to show why it deserves to have an article and its unique aspects. At the same time we don't want to laud it or show bias.. if it sounds like a marketing campaign then they'll take it off, because these articles are supposed to be impersonal and sources of information, not for advertising purposes. Although they may well serve such purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we say about it won't matter... it's not about selling it to the editors. They have a fairly precise definition of what they mean by "Notability" which can be seen in the link bellow in a lot of detail but which is summed up by the sentence "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." As individuals presenting the game we do not qualify as either significant nor independent sources so no matter how good of a job we do at saying why it's a notable game we will be ignored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

To prove notability we need to tell the editors what sources to look at that are both significant and independent of MD. The voting sites which we rank highly on may count, I don't know, but that's the type of thing we need not a good sales pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe creating a web page would be the best bet for having a wikipedia for magic duel

if it is something that is a good goal you first need to ask king manu about it as he would be the final say

if you can then convince him on the idea then putting together a wiki would be a task i will help out anyway i can on

that would give more than just 3-4 members ideas we can find out what other roles and things happen throughout the story there is

due to the fact i have 2 characters Evoker MorganJade and Morgana Le Fey

i have taken 2 totally different story paths and will continue to do so one evil and one good

this will help during the wiki process as doing only the good will not be what everyone does nor should that be encouraged the game has many many storylines and should all be explored

there is very different aspects to be considered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with chewett about Manu's plans.

However, if wikipedia is strict about following its notability guidelines Eldrad was talking about (post #28), then I'm not so sure they'd accept any article we'd write up. Eventually, maybe (I'm inclined to think probably), since I believe magicduel will attract attention with its unique concepts.

This is an odd kind of alpha.. a lot of major things are being tested, many plans still have to be implemented and the game is far from beta testing, I would think. Yet the game is open to the public and magicduel even needs advertising to increase the player count. Well, I think some things need a large amount of players for testing so that the results will accurately represent what it would be like with the amount of players magicduel is supposed to have when it's finally done testing, but in any case it's an interesting predicament: trying to publicize it while it's still in alpha and undergoing major changes constantly.

I think things will be fine without a wikipedia article with regular advertising until magicduel actually goes out of alpha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm mostly not responding to that because it all sounds quite good, the thing with alpha is i thought manu/mur mentioned something about being in perpetual alpha, constantly updating and adding new things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I thought he meant that even after we go out of alpha, a lot of things would still be changing (but it would still go through beta and into official).. but still, the main things like the battle system and whatnot would become fixed in alpha.

In any case, the problem is that wikipedia wants notability for the subject of any of their articles, and magicduel doesn't really hasn't been significantly received by game critics or become well-known. But usually that stuff comes after alpha, if even in beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I contribute to Wikipedia and maintain a few articles there, and I would not consider Magic Duel notable nor would the vast majority of the more significant contributors. I think you guys have a significant misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate assortment of articles. It is not a source of news, nor a place to document what you believe is interesting. It is not an outlet for original thought, primary research, or even direct documentation. It is not a manual, not a directory, and most definitely not a place for advertisement.

Wikipedia is a free open encyclopedia that is provided in a variety of languages. Stop and think about that for a second. You are trying to submit Magic Duel as part of an encyclopedia, a game that hasn't even reached the end of its alpha cycle that has a relatively small user base and has never once been mentioned by a vetted reputable source in any context even in passing.

It doesn't matter how unique the game is, or whether it's excellent or horrible -- it must be notable with objective evidence to support that claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i dont want being a pain in the ass but doing that wouldnt spoil the game?Since you are going to put data from the game it would enter too creatures and events that happen in the game....well at least is what i think.

I contribute to Wikipedia and maintain a few articles there, and I would not consider Magic Duel notable nor would the vast majority of the more significant contributors. I think you guys have a significant misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate assortment of articles. It is not a source of news, nor a place to document what you believe is interesting. It is not an outlet for original thought, primary research, or even direct documentation. It is not a manual, not a directory, and most definitely not a place for advertisement.

Wikipedia is a free open encyclopedia that is provided in a variety of languages. Stop and think about that for a second. You are trying to submit Magic Duel as part of an encyclopedia, a game that hasn't even reached the end of its alpha cycle that has a relatively small user base and has never once been mentioned by a vetted reputable source in any context even in passing.

It doesn't matter how unique the game is, or whether it's excellent or horrible -- it must be notable with objective evidence to support that claim.

Oh about that,you are wrong wikipedia is nothing more than a resource of information,this game is information like any other thing that exist in the world,it doesnt matter if its only one person playing or 1 billion it is still information...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on which "wiki" you're talking about, for the spoiler issue. An article in wikipedia needn't spoil much, only cover the game system, various unique features and notable other-things. A wiki, in which many people would contribute to a database of information concerning MagicDuel, would contain spoilers--a lot of strong spoilers. The "wiki" mentioned in the topic refers to an article.

Wikipedia is a resource of information that is notable; they probably wouldn't allow you to clutter up the system with articles about things nearly no one would care about nor need, would they? Well, I really can't say anything as I'm not an authority on it and I'm only basing what I say on logic and what others have said, but you can try verify on your own and tell us how it goes. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That type of wiki is cool,with some lores from the game to attract people and wiki allows that i`ve already made some articles about lets just say ''unusual things''....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

o_o;

Hmm. On wikipedia, you say? Are they still there? I would like to see them to compare to the subject of MagicDuel, because a MagicDuel article really would be beneficial :P Do you mind pming me the link to those articles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do wikis on software. Why not talk about the programming specifics involved. How it was started by one person who lived in his car (not that Manu did, but it sounds impressive). lol

Struggles of game development, the process, what the future brings for other game development based on the implementation of MD. How MD is setting standards for other game writers. It's not just about storyboarding and writing, but getting an entire community involved to bring out the real game. It almost takes on an adventure of it's own. How each player can determine the next alpha version. Saying something in a forum can make you a hero in gaming history.

That's a reason to be wiki worthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the fact that an independent wiki would be a bad idea.

You only need 1 person to do it. Especially if all edits have to be approved before being posted. Also, if you restrict it to MP4's, or perhaps even MP5's, then you have less to worry about. Mur could even get someone to do it in echange for 50 credits or something. Perhaps someone that was going to do MD Archiver work would switch over to it? all Mur has to do is take a look and approve it once the basic wiki gets set up, with someone to proofread the English version. It'd at most take about four to eight days a month, of cleaning and approval denial, which could easily be setup as two hours a day or some such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at the last few posts. Setting up a wiki is easy. The software is free.

If someone is looking to create and administer a MagicDuel wiki, I am happy to spawn one as a subdomain of SpiritSeeker.net and provide the hosting. I will not administer it though. I have to many other game related things to do. The wiki software would be MediaWiki, the wiki created for Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Manu doesn't want a wiki for MagicDuel. Game wikis are basically databases of information related to the game: creatures, their stats, game mechanics, maps, secret features, walkthroughs, etc. The thing is, these are considered critical spoilers in MD; they're not allowed ingame, on the forums, and are strongly disapproved of elsewhere because they eliminate the discovery and learning aspect to MD.

Technically, you could create one if you wanted to, but it would bring unhappiness to many players even if it makes some players happy for the easy knowledge. I imagine players who contribute to something like that will face complaints and more (frog spells from me :D).

However, back to the topic of a wikipedia article, I think we can do it. MagicDuel isn't really notable to wikipedia's standard at the moment, but if we highlight different things (ratings on game portals, any professional reviews, etc) we might manage to escape deletion. I looked up Renaissance Kingdoms or whatever it's called and it has an article on wikipedia, though it's been tagged as lacking in third party references and therefore under review for notability. I read the general guidelines for notability on wikipedia and it said deletion is a "last resort" when it's not yet been decided if the article is notable or not.

So why not create one now? It could still help our recognition, and even if it does get scrapped, we can have an idea of how to best go about creating a wikipedia article for when we do achieve notability. :D Any input?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked into it last night, and here's why MD was deleted.

"to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable"

So it would be as simple as saying taht it's an unusual game built around a philosophical core which players must come to understand to advance further within the game, and has the potential to revolutionize games.

So that's pretty simple, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mm, although it would be better if we could prove ourselves to have some semblance of notability. In any case I don't think any article we make about MagicDuel will be deleted easily if we take the right steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to help on this project. It really isn't fair that games like runescape and puzzle pirates can have their own wiki but this one can't. I want to help because wikipedia has a page listing browser based mmo games. The only way to get this game on that list is to have an article IN wikipedia. maybe that can be another relevant point to getting Magicduel in wikipedia.

Can we compile historical background of this game? Creator publisher, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should make a list of people who want to help with this effort. I'm not exactly sure how a group of people would collaborate in the creation of an article; maybe different sections written by different people and suggestions/corrections thrown out by everyone? I don't have any experience with creating articles in Wikipedia and I don't know all of the guidelines, so I'm not sure I could help much but I'll try do some reading and contribute as much as I can.

Ahem, so is there actually anyone who would like to write the article or part of it? Or help in other ways? Copyediting/proofreading? Does someone have an idea as to a plausible organization and different sections of the article? Is there anything else we should think about and delegate people to?

I think the more people involved, the more fun (and less work) this project will be.

As for information gathering, it'll be a little tough. Manu always seems busy but maybe if he or Shoeps is contacted they could supply some information which might help. We'll also want as many secondary and tertiary sources as possible--meaning reviews, ratings, anything that can be found about MagicDuel not from the actual game or homepage. And I did some brief google searching for those things.. :') Oh well, we can always redo this article thing later when we're more well-known. Best effort! i__i

I can't get much from my brain thinking about historic background. The creator is Manuel Tanase from Romania, and the game went public last year some month. I think it's been in works since 2005. Apparently he did some web designing and advertising artworks (banners and such things) for an occupation, don't know if he still does. He paints for a hobby. And Manu is 26 or some age around that. Manu.. should do some interviews, any which might be publicated. :P In English. *tries to read some website Manu created in Romanian, translated by google*

Anyway, I think we should first a) think of what should be in the article b) find sources which have information about such things, and c) ask appropriate persons the rest. We can do the five Ws (and one H) and list then some broad questions to research or as a second resort interview people about. Report our findings and decide who should write what.

Keep in mind we should be objective and identify the controversial/dislikeable things about MagicDuel as well as the unique concepts. Primary sources aren't really appreciated unless cited in secondary or tertiary sources, which is trouble. Wikipedia emphasizes "no original research." So if we go asking Manu some questions, his answers or details he includes in them should be published somewhere reliable if possible, maybe even his own webpage, before we submit whatever we come up with.

Rather long post. Oh, I never want to become a professional journalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Statistics

    15,973
    Total Topics
    174,640
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews

×
×
  • Create New...