This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warzone 2100 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Warzone 2100" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Also, its resource system is quite different from mainstream RTS games; Oil Derricks are established over specific, scarce locations which constantly provide a slow, fixed rate of income. Combined with a mission time limit, this resource method prevents players from simply waiting for long periods of time to amass surplus resources and ridiculously large armies.
All these Earth 2150 references are really inappropriate, bordering on original research. They're not directly related games; they're just in the same genre. A mention of some similarity according to reliable, third-party sources is fine, but the point by point comparison that takes place later in the document seems to me a violation of policy, not to mention pretty pointless. Xihr 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a single image for this game? Hmm... Oddity- User Talk 06:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you add some? We'd appreciate it. Larrythefunkyferret ( talk) 07:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
User Fleetcommand doesn't seem to know that commercial isn't the opposite of free software. Proprietary is. There is plenty of commercial free software.
He reverted my changes with a hostile comment "Non-constructive edit with an unacceptable reason". Palosirkka ( talk) 18:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, Palosirkka
First and foremost, although I do understand that it is quite common to see newcomers misinterpreting reversions as hostile actions, you should understand that there was no hostility involved; it is simply a routine in Wikipedia called BRD cycle. If you stay with us for a while, you'll see that we Wikipedians revert each other's edits with confidence and then discuss it in a very friendly manner. What we never do here is edit warring. You'll get used to it. Also, we are quite used to sending curt messages to one another and we know that it is neither impertinent nor an act of hostility.
Second, discussing antonyms is completely out of context here. It is the message of the article that must be considered. The message is that the computer game was originally sold for profit but the company further changed it into a community project. Replacing "commercial" with "proprietary" damages this message because proprietary software that are available free of charge are quite common and upgrading the license of such software into GPL is merely a form of advertisement.
Fleet Command ( talk) 07:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
First, if you think my tone of "Non-constructive edit with an unacceptable reason" is hostile, report me to Noticeboard; they will ban me for eternity if they too think it is hostile.
Second, you are the first person to say such a thing about software and I'm happy to get to know such an open-minded person. In time, I think it is best to reach a compromise by writing "proprietary commercial" and be done with it. What do you say?
Fleet Command ( talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)I'm happy with using both terms together. Palosirkka ( talk) 18:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Eik Correl removed excessively the later hisotry of the legal and authorized open sourcing of the game. I will fix this unfounded removal. Shaddim ( talk) 10:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBlackwing ( talk • contribs)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warzone 2100 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Warzone 2100" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Also, its resource system is quite different from mainstream RTS games; Oil Derricks are established over specific, scarce locations which constantly provide a slow, fixed rate of income. Combined with a mission time limit, this resource method prevents players from simply waiting for long periods of time to amass surplus resources and ridiculously large armies.
All these Earth 2150 references are really inappropriate, bordering on original research. They're not directly related games; they're just in the same genre. A mention of some similarity according to reliable, third-party sources is fine, but the point by point comparison that takes place later in the document seems to me a violation of policy, not to mention pretty pointless. Xihr 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a single image for this game? Hmm... Oddity- User Talk 06:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you add some? We'd appreciate it. Larrythefunkyferret ( talk) 07:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
User Fleetcommand doesn't seem to know that commercial isn't the opposite of free software. Proprietary is. There is plenty of commercial free software.
He reverted my changes with a hostile comment "Non-constructive edit with an unacceptable reason". Palosirkka ( talk) 18:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, Palosirkka
First and foremost, although I do understand that it is quite common to see newcomers misinterpreting reversions as hostile actions, you should understand that there was no hostility involved; it is simply a routine in Wikipedia called BRD cycle. If you stay with us for a while, you'll see that we Wikipedians revert each other's edits with confidence and then discuss it in a very friendly manner. What we never do here is edit warring. You'll get used to it. Also, we are quite used to sending curt messages to one another and we know that it is neither impertinent nor an act of hostility.
Second, discussing antonyms is completely out of context here. It is the message of the article that must be considered. The message is that the computer game was originally sold for profit but the company further changed it into a community project. Replacing "commercial" with "proprietary" damages this message because proprietary software that are available free of charge are quite common and upgrading the license of such software into GPL is merely a form of advertisement.
Fleet Command ( talk) 07:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
First, if you think my tone of "Non-constructive edit with an unacceptable reason" is hostile, report me to Noticeboard; they will ban me for eternity if they too think it is hostile.
Second, you are the first person to say such a thing about software and I'm happy to get to know such an open-minded person. In time, I think it is best to reach a compromise by writing "proprietary commercial" and be done with it. What do you say?
Fleet Command ( talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)I'm happy with using both terms together. Palosirkka ( talk) 18:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Eik Correl removed excessively the later hisotry of the legal and authorized open sourcing of the game. I will fix this unfounded removal. Shaddim ( talk) 10:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBlackwing ( talk • contribs)