Talk:Cities XL 2011

Monte Cristo?
I thought Monte Cristo had started developing 2011 but couldn't go any further due to finance troubles? I didn't think Focus had completely developed it. --DJBoddington (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if the article is to say that it needs to be backed-up clearly by sources per Verifiability (WP:V) and Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). Cities XL.com is reliable but the source does not appear to come close to saying that Monte Cristo actually planned Cities XL 2011 and started developing it. GaloreGaming almost certainly does not meet the standards required to be considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source. Also, it appears that this website is being self-published i.e. it is being referenced by the website owner. It is generally not considered appropriate on Wikipedia for users to reference themselves on Wikipedia, and it is not looked on well by the Wikipedia community. In response to the comment left on Twitter, please read the small print under the "save page" button, and possibly WP:OWN. If content is submitted to the main (article) space it may, and in some cases, should be edited swiftly to maintain Wikipedia's quality standards, and I give no apologies for that. What particularly caught by attention was the upload of copyrighted material to Wikimedia Commons, which needed to be sorted out swiftly. I will be going offline shortly so I will be bothering this article little more for now, however I will say now that material which violates policies and guidelines, such as those I linked to earlier, will be deleted.  CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, yea fair point i don't recall Monte Cristo announcing they had started development. I have changed to url to SimTropolis which Monte Cristo posted on their themselves, if that's better? Ooh that's why the image disappeared, we had thought you may have deleted it. Regards with the comment on Twitter, please accept my apologies..I didn't mean it, I have now deleted it. Fair enough you swiftly edit things to bring them up to standards. I don't know why i published it..--DJBoddington (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology; I have received much worse from other users so don't worry about it. I don't dispute that Monte Cristo were probably still working on Cities XL when they went bankrupt. The problem is the current article suggests that Monte Cristo had the same plans as Home Focus Interactive and were developing a brand new game, Cities XL 2011, when Focus Home Interactive took it over. This is not backed-up clearly by the sources. While the Simtropolis source is okay as it comes from Monte Cristo, it says nothing about Monte Cristo starting to develop this new game before been taken over, in fact it doesn't mention Cities XL 2011 at all. Unless a clear source can be provided which backs up the statement "It was known that Monte Cristo was developing Cities XL 2011 to include the features they didn't add in Cities XL.", this can't stay in the article. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah wow really? That's not good. I have done some searching and found nothing official about, if I recall I never saw them announce anything about it. So I think I'll have retype it and remove them from it. While i go edit it, I do assume there needs to be some sources to backup the features section? Also Is there any sources need adding, I don't think everything needs sources but lost on what does. I'm actually kinda a newbie at Wikipedia, don't want to create a page and leave it for someone else to complete. --DJBoddington (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Verifiability, the core policy on sourcing states "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question." In practice this translates to everything needs a source except for when stating the obvious e.g. Paris is in France. So yes, really there should be some sources to back-up the features section as well. How unsourced content is dealt with depends on the situation, with unsourced material about living people almost always removed, but less problematic content is often left with a tag added to it. Don't worry about leaving others to finish a page; nobody should be expected to know how to contribute perfectly from the start, and this article can't be complete until after the game is released anyway. Even if this wasn't the case, in practice it always requires many people to be involved until an article is considered truly complete i.e. a featured article. Wikipedia is about collaboration, and most people, like myself, only contribute because they love it! CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah thanks :) I think it'll take a while for me to fully understand Wikipedia. I have also removed the Monte Cristo references, unless someone knows a source to back it up. --DJBoddington (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)