Talk:Outpost 2: Divided Destiny

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jack Marston (Red Dead) (5 participants)
Joshua Tomar (5 participants)
Juhani (Star Wars) (3 participants)
Starwing Paradox (2 participants)
Pit (Kid Icarus) (13 participants)
Vette (Star Wars) (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Conistinoga[edit]

Should Conistinoga be Conestoga (like the conestoga wagon)? (I didn't play the game so I don't know). RJFJR 00:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and it it can be seen in the Novella, along with several places in the game. FrostDust 18:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Structure[edit]

The Outpost 2's article still doesn't have a very good quality standard. I think the best would be to separate the info about the Tech tree, Units, Weapons and Buildings in separated articles. Then the main article could focus on the game outline and cult status, not into game mechanics. Also, I think both the "Planet Information" and the "Danger" paragraphs are spoiler, but "Travel" "Separation" and "Plot" aren't. So, we should separate the spoiler in a sub article about the game story . BTW, the reason think those last three articles aren't spoiler articles is because they are the story told in the game intro, and that would hardly count as spoiler.

PS: I'm already separating the Weapons subsection in a new article, and i'll make a article about the blight(How about classifying it as "Fictional Grey Goo Nightmare?" :P)

PS2: I'm also putting a disc cover image in the main article. --Byuu 13:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the Weapons section doesn't have its own article is because it was deleted due to a vote that such info does not belong in Wikipedia, as it is already listed in the instruction manual (I couldn't find the mention of the article's deletion anywhere, so I'm just paraphrasing from memory). While I was not ready to make such a drastic change as deleting the other two (the Techs and Units lists), I felt that listing the weapons, along with a non-existant link to the same list, was redundent. Michael Baptista 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing almost everything[edit]

Although I applaud efforts to trim this article by moving content out to other articles, it seems to me much more good would be done by simply removing it, period. The wiki is not a game guide, topics like complete tech trees and unit lists are simply not germaine. A discussion of the game is, of course, but items within the game are generally not unless they have some sort of widely known "life" outside the game. In this case, there is none, nor would we want it. An article on the Robodozer?! Come on people!

I am considering a massive snippage of all the "detail lists" in the article. I have already re-merged the New Terra article, and I think it could be trimmed much more as well.

Any complaints?

Maury 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes...[edit]

I've made changes to many sections of the article, but then I have my name literally written all over the History page. I apologize if this causes trouble for anyone.

Content merged from Units and Structures -- historical only[edit]

Is there any reason this page exists? The wiki isn't a game guide or manual. The main article has all the detail on the game that is needed, and much more. I would suggest removing this article completely, along with the similar items in the main article.

I will do this, if I remember, within a week. Saving time for comments...

Maury 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, I agree that this article should be removed. Isolocis 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

I think this article is one of those examples of how collaborative editing can work. I'd say it's one of the better game articles now. Maury 12:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... that's a big step forward from "I suggest removing almost everything" 85.147.25.7 (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...that's because we did remove just about everything. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Outpost 2 CD Cover.PNG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

The following images, used in this article, have been nominated for deletion:

File:Outpost 2 CD Cover.PNG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011
File:Opshot (2).JPG has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

https://web.archive.org/web/20000524114237/http://headline.gamespot.com/news/97_10/23_outpost/index.html