![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Is it really necessary to have three different ADOM MobyGames links? Lochok 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Mule Man 09:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about add one more link - link to Polish ADoM's forum ( http://adom.phx.pl/forum/? This forum exist over 2 years, have over 200 members (more than 30 is active) and over 30k posts. I think that this link should be add :P Therendil
Right now, the article doesn't seem very neutral to me, especially the "some significant features" section. It might also need some cleanup... Torte 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the useless history section which was an exact copy from the ADOM's homepage. IMHO a link to the history page would suffice instead of copypasting the page here. Arsestar 14:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The official webpage discusses working on the Jade release as recently as 12/24/06. Is there any standard length of time for what is labeled "Vaporware?"
That term is rather pejorative, and seems to be more opinion or interpetation than objective fact. ThomasLB 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Really, should that simply be accepted as a fact? "Eternium" isn't such a creative word that those folks at Bli$$ard couldn't have made it up themselves without even ever having heard of ADoM, so I'd really like to see some references for that or have it removed -- 84.186.236.251 01:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
(begin)
(end)
D. Brodale 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the information on the ADoM "licensing" page ( http://www.adom.de/adom/licensing.php3) more than qualifies as a citation for Thomas' possible commercial intent for the game. From the author's mouth: "ADOM has been very successful in the past two years and I strongly believe that ADOM - pepped up with some additional stuff - could be a very successful commercial game." and "If you can provide the artists and designers to create a great look, we probably have the hot-seller of the next summer lying before us." It would make sense that if he thinks of ADoM as a possible commercial hit that he would not release the source code, even if it is only one of several reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandemicennui ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It puzzles me how anyone possibly can provide more information on a non-commercial low-profile solo-written game then its author... I suggest the removal of this unreasonable claim, because it cannot be fulfilled. What's your opinion?
Llewelyn MT (
talk)
19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, primary sources are bad, per the rules. “how anyone possibly can provide more information on a non-commercial low-profile solo-written game” The logic of this site is that if there aren’t reliable 3rd party sources, then the topic isn’t notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. “a non-commercial low-profile solo-written game” would likely be a candidate for low notability.
Now, there is constant conflict on this site between Inclusionists and Deletionists. (I’m in a phone otherwise I’d provide a link, but the names of the opposing groups are pretty self-explanatory.)
in the end, there are personal preferences and there are rules.
Best. 2600:1010:B17D:A876:8C34:46F0:8C2D:F2E0 ( talk) 03:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I checked the history, and there are secondary sources cited in the article, many of which were added since the template was added in December 2007. If anyone believes that there are insufficient sources, feel free to add the template back in. I would just ask that you either add it to the section(s) that do not have sufficient secondary sources, or drop a note here to make it clear where the unsourced material is. Joshua Scott ( talk) 14:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear at this point that ADoM (at least, non-iADoM) is not being developed anymore. The Development section should probably be amended to make note of this. 173.67.243.204 ( talk) 01:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ancient Domains of Mystery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Is it really necessary to have three different ADOM MobyGames links? Lochok 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Mule Man 09:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about add one more link - link to Polish ADoM's forum ( http://adom.phx.pl/forum/? This forum exist over 2 years, have over 200 members (more than 30 is active) and over 30k posts. I think that this link should be add :P Therendil
Right now, the article doesn't seem very neutral to me, especially the "some significant features" section. It might also need some cleanup... Torte 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the useless history section which was an exact copy from the ADOM's homepage. IMHO a link to the history page would suffice instead of copypasting the page here. Arsestar 14:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The official webpage discusses working on the Jade release as recently as 12/24/06. Is there any standard length of time for what is labeled "Vaporware?"
That term is rather pejorative, and seems to be more opinion or interpetation than objective fact. ThomasLB 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Really, should that simply be accepted as a fact? "Eternium" isn't such a creative word that those folks at Bli$$ard couldn't have made it up themselves without even ever having heard of ADoM, so I'd really like to see some references for that or have it removed -- 84.186.236.251 01:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
(begin)
(end)
D. Brodale 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the information on the ADoM "licensing" page ( http://www.adom.de/adom/licensing.php3) more than qualifies as a citation for Thomas' possible commercial intent for the game. From the author's mouth: "ADOM has been very successful in the past two years and I strongly believe that ADOM - pepped up with some additional stuff - could be a very successful commercial game." and "If you can provide the artists and designers to create a great look, we probably have the hot-seller of the next summer lying before us." It would make sense that if he thinks of ADoM as a possible commercial hit that he would not release the source code, even if it is only one of several reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandemicennui ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It puzzles me how anyone possibly can provide more information on a non-commercial low-profile solo-written game then its author... I suggest the removal of this unreasonable claim, because it cannot be fulfilled. What's your opinion?
Llewelyn MT (
talk)
19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, primary sources are bad, per the rules. “how anyone possibly can provide more information on a non-commercial low-profile solo-written game” The logic of this site is that if there aren’t reliable 3rd party sources, then the topic isn’t notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. “a non-commercial low-profile solo-written game” would likely be a candidate for low notability.
Now, there is constant conflict on this site between Inclusionists and Deletionists. (I’m in a phone otherwise I’d provide a link, but the names of the opposing groups are pretty self-explanatory.)
in the end, there are personal preferences and there are rules.
Best. 2600:1010:B17D:A876:8C34:46F0:8C2D:F2E0 ( talk) 03:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I checked the history, and there are secondary sources cited in the article, many of which were added since the template was added in December 2007. If anyone believes that there are insufficient sources, feel free to add the template back in. I would just ask that you either add it to the section(s) that do not have sufficient secondary sources, or drop a note here to make it clear where the unsourced material is. Joshua Scott ( talk) 14:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear at this point that ADoM (at least, non-iADoM) is not being developed anymore. The Development section should probably be amended to make note of this. 173.67.243.204 ( talk) 01:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ancient Domains of Mystery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)