Talk:DragonRealms

Untitled
I have reorganized the Dragonrealms page and removed some of the very verbose information for later addition and editing in subtopic pages. I also added a mythos section, and converted everything to use headings instead of bold tags. I don't think Dragonrealms should be capitalized as DragonRealms but I suppose both ways might work, something may need to be done about that however. - Anthony 6 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)

According to the usage guidelines located here, DragonRealms is the correct capitalization. --Cosmosis 18:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lyras
Lyras is a female, not a male as far as I know. Hopefully this can be edited to incorporate this aspect, as the article refers to her as a man.

Raziaar ( Posted May 2, 2006 by 71.96.232.157 )

Leveling
Circling ==

Leveling in DragonRealms is referred to as Circling; leveling is not considered proper terminology in game. Should that be altered?

Edit to the list of original GMs
Claire Murphy was not one of the original GMs and in fact didn't become a Gamemaster until about 1998-99.

Wikipedia policies
Please ensure that any information added to this article conforms to Wikipedia policies. Specifically those such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Blogs and message board posts cannot be used as sources. See Reliable sources. --Elonka 07:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-adding Criticism
I am readding criticism's section for two reasons (a) other games like City of Heroes, World of Warcraft and even muds like Medievia have them and (b) deleting an entire section because one subsection doesn't cite sources seems arbitrary and extreme. If you can point to *specific* paragraphs or sentences that need citations or doesn't conform to the NPOV, please use Wikipedia tags to flag comments/sentences/paragraphs that need revision.

--Winter Light 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and NPOV
User Elonka has stated that the Criticism section doesn't conform to NPOV and I have therefore added a NPOV tag. Are there individuals that agree/disagree? I concur with the idea that this section needs some cleaning up and editing. Notwithstanding this, I believe that this section conforms to NPOV because it represent views fairly without bias. In DragonRealms, abilities are changed all of the time and players are not given the opportunity to unlearn these abilities. Travel time is excessively long, taking upwards of 12 hours straight to travel to some places within the game world. The basic subscription to DragonRealms only includes one character and cost customers $3 per each additional character. While games like City of Heroes or World of Warcraft offer almost a limitless amount of characters for 14.95, DragonRealms only allows you one. These are, I think, legitimate criticisms about DragonRealms.

I should also note that Information suppression is against NPOV: Information_suppression

--Winter Light 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether or not a criticism is "legitimate", but whether or not information is verifiable, and from reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place to post what is known as "Original Research".  See No original research, and Verifiability.  Further, any unverifiable negative information about living people is required to be removed immediately, per WP:BLP. --Elonka 00:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Elonka
Are you kidding me, Elonka!?! It has *everything* to do with whether a particular criticism is legitimate. User Elonka, you initially removed an entire section under the cloak of "Wikipedia policies". I then repaired the article, added a NPOV tag and invited you to (a) highlight particular paragraphs or sentences that were unacceptable and to (b) engage in a dialogue about improving the section. Rules stated in Verifiability

"Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the Fact template, or tag the article by adding Not verified or Unreferenced. Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.[1]"

Instead of engaging in a fruitful discussion on how to improve the section or perhaps a dialogue on making it an entirely new one, you simply removed it again, and proclaimed that it doesn't matter if a "criticism is 'legitimate,' but whether or not the information is verifiable".

The problem is here is that these complaints are legitimate and, interestingly enough, conform to Verifiability

In your response, if there is a response, please (a) indicate paragraphs/sentences that need adjustment either on the talk page or by using the fact/uncited source tags and (b) be willing to engage in a fruitful discussion on this page. This isn't your sandbox. We all work to make Wikipedia the best it can be. --Winter Light 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Elonka, in your profile, you claim to be an employee of Simutronics since 1990. If you are an employee of Simutronics and because DragonRealms is a product of the said company, then it certainly lends to the idea that you have some sort of bias. I have hope that you wouldn't intentionally or otherwise contribute to suppressing information because it negatively affects a company that you admit being employed to.
 * For negative information, the burden of proof lies on the person who wants to insert the info, not on those who wish to have it removed. The style of writing is clearly POV, and inappropriate.  If you persist in continuing to re-add it, you risk being blocked from Wikipedia. --Elonka 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you've yet to say what specifically is negative. If a POV is negative. Explain how it can be improved! Engage in the community. Do not use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. I am notifying a moderator about this. This is completely unacceptable. --Winter Light 03:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Elonka, I've exhaustively went over Verifiability and can't find where it says anything about the burden proof of anyone but the person who wants to change the edit. *Again* if there are problems with the article, please, please, please, cogently state them here so we can discuss them. Don't just sweep other people's work on the article because you find it disagreeable. Explain why you feel the way that you do and contribute fruitfully in exploring what changes are needed to make the criticism section as NPOV as possible. Please, again, I beg you, contribute to the discussion without one-liners and a drive-by edit. Thank you. --Winter Light 04:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative information
Here's my concern. There are very clearly stated policies on Wikipedia about negative information. Please review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. These policies clearly state that negative information about living people, can be removed on sight. It's one thing to criticize a game. It's another to criticize people. Many of the things that you have added to the article about specific people, could be perceived as libel. According to Wikipedia policy, the only times that negative information can be added about a living person, is if that information has already appeared in some other outside verifiable source. The definition of what a "verifiable source" is, is very clear on Wikipedia. Blogs cannot be used as sources. Message boards cannot be used as sources. An editorial on a MUD site cannot be used as a source. So, any negative information that is based on sources like those, must be removed. Immediately. I am willing to discuss other information that you want to add, but the negative "POV" pieces have to be removed first.

I have asked someone non-involved, an IGDA volunteer, to come in and take a look at your edits, and offer an outside opinion. --Elonka 06:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Elonka I thank you for engaging in a discussion here. Thank you. I should first say that any thing I edit is under my name, Winter Light. I don't agree with your interpretation of the Wikipedia policies (I've exhaustively went over my point in previous postings so I won't repeat them here). Nor do I agree with this ultimatum style in which you want to discuss the article, "YOU MUST REMOVE INFO OR I WILL NOT TALK!!!!1111". I've narrowly tailored the criticism section to the game and the game's pricing scheme. If you see any problems, please *add* tags to sentences that are unacceptable. I do think, however, you'll find everything as NPOV as can be. Thanks a lot.--Winter Light 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Edit
Looking at this from the point of view of someone who has never played DragonRealms, I found the criticism section way out of proportion to the rest of the article, and most of it seemed to be typical of MUD player drama. Not useful or interesting to an encyclopedic aricle. In pretty much every community there are those who are not happy with decisions made by the management. That goes without saying most of the time. Wikipedia is also not intended as a hint guide to playing the game, which much of the criticism section was turning into, suggesting strategies for choosing skills.

This is also not a good place for a discussion about what "skill based" means in game dev contexts. If you feel it's worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, create a new page for it.

I edited down the section down to its core points. Still, I'm concerned that there aren't any good, verifiable sources for them. The ones included earlier don't work because they're posts on message boards, as far as I could tell. Please read Verifiability and provide sources for the items under criticism. If you don't, I think the specifics should be deleted entirely, and replaced with something more general. Even that is being generous with the Verifiability policy. Subversified 06:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've further edited the section to include examples. I should note that I've only added/re-added things that has my signature "Winter Light". I disagreed with Elonka's mass erasing of a section without fruitfully engaging the community. The criticism section as it stands now uses secondary sources to synthesize information from whats already available. Please highlight *specific* areas that need work instead of erasing everything. Thanks a bunch. --Winter Light 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Verfiability and DragonRealms
DragonRealms is an online game with no archive of its postings online. What is a good way to make sure that an extension of articles conform to Verfiability if Simutronics doesn't archive relevant postings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter Light (talk • contribs) 09:38, August 15, 2006
 * Sorry, but DragonRealms message board posts cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. It's standard Wikipedia policy that message board posts and blogs cannot be used as sources.  This policy is not made by me, though I support it, especially when it involves negative information (on any subject, not just Simutronics games).  Sometimes there is leeway for simple neutral additions of information (like about races or quests), but even then it's borderline, and often runs afoul of Wikipedia "notability" requirements (see Notability).  Basically, many people seem to have a misperception of what Wikipedia is -- they think that it's a place to post pretty much any information about any subject, no matter where the information comes from.  In reality though, Wikipedia has very strict rules about what can and can't be added.  These rules are very stringently enforced whenever information strays into very negative or very positive information.  For example, just as the phrase, "DragonRealms sucks" would get rapidly deleted, so would the phrase, "DragonRealms is the coolest game ever" also get rapidly deleted, as it would run afoul of the WP:PEACOCK guideline.


 * If I sound very unforgiving on this, it's not that I mean to be rude, it's just that I'm trying to abide by Wikipedia's own guidelines on these issues. I'm not a GameMaster here, I'm just an editor. :) In the Simutronics boards, Simutronics is in charge.  Here on Wikipedia, it's a different set of rules, a different set of community guidelines, and I try to respect that whenever I am editing on Wikipedia pages.  This means keeping things very dry and "deposition-like", and avoiding strongly emotional language.  Good rules to follow can be seen at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.


 * Bottom line, I'm just as constrained by Wikipedia guidelines as you are (in some ways, more so). Believe me, there are a lot of things that I'd love to add to Wikipedia articles about Simutronics games, which I cannot.  Even though there are things that I know to be true, I can't add them based on firsthand knowledge -- I can only add things that have already been published elsewhere. --Elonka 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to keep redoing this over and over again ad nauseum. The post I linked is a DragonRealms GameMaster giving an announcement about Aesrela Everild. On the DragonRealms play.net page, Aesrela Everild was changed under spells. The problem Elonka that some leeway needs to be fostered because (i) this is a MUD which all of the information is transmitted via electronic text and (ii) other games' pages like City of Heroes, Medievia, and World of Warcraft all use the same synthesis of information. If you are emboldened in change it, please go to these entries and edit them as well. You won't because, i think, you are "unforgiving" on this discussion because you work for Simutronics as per your talk page. Your editing comes off as blatant nepotism.

There is nothing on the criticism section that comes off as mean-spirited or anything but a neutral tone. Please see criticism sections for other games to get a good feel on how criticisms on games like DragonRealms is done: World of Warcraft, Medievia, and City of Heroes. --Winter Light 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Characters who had these spells before April 17 and disliked the changes are not allowed to "unlearn" the spell." - This statement is actually false as there are mechanics readily available in-game that allow characters to unlearn spells they no longer wish to use. Games such as World of Warcraft allow characters to change all their learned skills at any time (for a cost), not just when major changes are made (Cannot quote for City of Heroes, since I am not familiar with that game).  However, World of Warcraft has made changes to spells players did not agree with and did not provide skill changes for those abilities.


 * "gamemaster bias and favoritism" and "Specifically, forum users may be banned for using excessive sarcasm or for passionately critiquing changes in policy or a revision of game mechanics." - These statements have no factual basis towards the article as they are player-opinions. Removing them per Verifiability and WP:NPOV. - Argothe 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only address my part.

When a gamer chooses a spell or skill for his or her character, that decision predominately rests on existing information. In DragonRealms, this logical flow-through is somewhat hobbled by the fact that spells can change at any time, without any warning, and if the player doesn't like it, s/he can either utilize onerous mechanics to unlearn the spell or suck it up. In either case, the player is inconvenienced.

I am not referring to necessary revisions or tweaks to spells that are needed for the stability of the game. Obviously, developers in DragonRealms have the responsibility to make sure the game, whether the players agree or not, is balanced. I am narrowly addressing the instance in which newly revised spells bear very little semblance to the original version. If we agree that clairvoyance is a myth, or at the very least, unattainable by most, then it should naturally follow that players can only use current information to judge potential spell choices.

I used Aesrela Everild as an example. I think it's an apt one. The spell was significantly changed from its original version and players were either forced to (i) tolerate the change or (ii) pay a significant in-game price tag (in TDPs and currency). In both of these cases, the player is inconvenienced and s/he shouldn't be. In other games like World of Warcraft or City of Heroes/Villains, significant changes to a spell/skills are abrogated by allowing players to rechoose (or, as they call it, "respec").

The problem with this scorched earth approach to game design is that it prevents players from making informed decisions about spells/skills.

Winter Light 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Even though criticism is rarely pleasant, I agree the section is a bit too harsh and may need rewording.


 * Actually, it's not really an apt one. There are two different types of changes within both structures; one that provides the ability to repick one's skills/spells and one that does not without cost.  The big examples are when DragonRealms converted their magic system to Magic 2.0 and when Blizzard rewrites talent trees.  In both cases, both corporations provided characters with the abilities to change their character spells/specs.


 * Making individual modifications to specific aspects of those systems (one spell/talent/ability) by both corporations rarely provides characters with the ability to make modifications without significant cost if they disagree with the changes that were made.


 * In my perspective, a criticsm section really does nothing to enhance or improve an article other than to attack the organization's desicions on multiple levels. In the online venue of persistent worlds themselves, any change (or even non-change) can come under criticsm by the users of that product.  So how can we say any criticsm of those changes is within the boundaries of WP:NPOV.  It is your opinion that there is a problem with the "scorched earth approach", but to others it may not be much of a problem.  When that perspective is added into the article, it is no longer neutral.


 * At least we both do agree that some of the context in the prior edits was inappropriate (although you use the term too harsh). - Argothe 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask that you read my previous reply carefully, as I believe I've thoroughly addressed the points you've brought up. Briefly, I am not blindly referring to decisions that involve spells/systems changing. Indeed, developers and administrators must be able to adjust, tweak, throw out, revise any facet of a game in the interest of stability and balance. As I stated before, I am "narrowly addressing the instance in which newly revised spells bear very little semblance to the original version".

Your example of DragonRealms 2.0 is a bit difficult to understand, could you clarify please?

Winter Light 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you believe the Criticism section is inappropriate, then please be WP:Bold. Please edit out what you think is non-neutral in the article or, alternatively, simply give specific examples in which you feel the section is not neutral. With a bit of editing and talking, I think we can improve the section.

Confilct of interest, Elonka
There must be something in the rules that applies here. How is it that you can have business relations with Simutronics and yet be un-bias towards what goes into this article? We call that a conflict of interest in the goverment. Davidf84 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in here that would qualify as a reliable secondary source. Just the official site and sites related to it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the editor(s) has a direct and profitable relation to the company/product in question then they are going to be bias towards it.. more-so if they like their job, I doubt they would backstab their employer in a public enviroment. That should be all the justifcation needed. Davidf84 03:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

mediation
Hello editors. It looks like there is a dispute here over the contents of the entry and wikipedia policy. As a longtime editor at wikipedia (over 8000 edits) and a long time DR player (I won't name my characters, but I've been playing since it was on Prodigy for several dollars per hour and I racked up 600 dollar a month bills ;0 ), I'd like to help clarify any concerns you may have here. Would the disputing parties, which appear to be Elonka and Winter light, please state their positions below about what the dispute consists of? ⇒   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the issue has been resolved.

--Winter Light 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a good thing. ⇒   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  08:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Link removal
I disagree with one of the links being removed, elanthipedia.com is the main site most of us players use now days, the maps/guides help immensely and it has a good chunk of history if things that have happened in the game --Legeres (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to restore it since it's the unofficial wiki. All the game articles i've visited have at least one link like this--Legeres (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That other articles are not in compliance with out guidelines is poor logic to expand non-conpliance. WP:ELNO is very clear - no links to fansites, no links to wikis. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * it doesn't say no wikies it says "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." the wiki is stable(barring the minor issue with their server) and has a lot of editors so it complies, i'm not seeing the problem--Legeres (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We can ask for a third opinion about whether or not it complies or you can go to the EL talk page and ask there, but it is not gonna fly. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * or i can join the debate on said talk page concerning wiki links--Legeres (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First I want to apologize for not reading the rules, I've corrected that by reading a good chunk of them. I'll apologize as well for the "poor logic" as you put it. Although I still think it should be included in the external links section, on the basis that is has valuable information for those who want to know more about DragonRealms. I'll leave it be for now until either someone else brings it up(stating better reasons then I was able to provide) or if I can find a reliable source saying something along the lines of having reliable information and enough editors to keep it that way.--Legeres (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How many editors are required for a wiki to be considered "substantial" and how is the stability of a wiki is determined? I might be able to come up with that data if pressed. For instance, I noticed that the WoW wiki is allowed. Are there any guidelines available other than the extremely vague ones listed in the Externals links area? -- ZeroDivides (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For open Wikis? Wikipedia doesnt count as a reliable source, so I would say a LOT. For a Wiki that is edited only by known and recognized experts in the field - it would depend on how big the field is. You can bring your proposed source to [] and find the community consensus.-- The Red Pen of Doom  17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible references(including reasons)
--Legeres (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Business Wire Sept 4, 1996 article stating Eric Slick as product manager
 * Business Wire August 4, 1997 article stating popularity as well as other things
 * Gamespot Oct 13, 1997 article stating hours of traffic and a bit more history


 * The business wire appears to easily meet our WP:RS requirements, the gamespot is a bit more shakey, if we assume the "about us" is factual, it would appear to be OK. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gamespot should be okay it's a fairly old video game site.-- Legeres (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability?
WP:NOTE requires that a topic have coverage in reliable third party sources (independent of the subject) to be considered notable. As of yet, I don't find this to be the case with this article. Please note that I am not saying that DragonRealms is not notable... only that there is no statement as to why it is notable in the article, and no sources to demonstrate this notability. At the moment, the only section that is properly sourced is the section on the Hoax... which indicates that the Hoax might be notable, but not the game itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We are half way there... the article now includes a statement to the effect that it is one of the oldest and most popular games... the next step is to substantiate this with references to reliable independent sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if this will work or not, it says it's a review though and it's more recent. DragonRealms Revisited --Legeres (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it supports the statement... but it is certainly an independent third party reliable source that can be used to substantiate notability. A few more like this and you should be all set. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The business wire link (Aug. 4) in the section(possible references) above has something on popularity of DragonRealms. Looks like I missed a few articles in the business wire as well, the first is about DragonRealms and the second is about online popularity of Simutronics games  and .--Legeres (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this would be an excellent resource to speak of Dragonrealms' popularity because it's a third-party that tracks MUD usage statistics by monitoring the connectivity to these games by the ports they use. If you look at the page for Dragonrealms, Dragonrealms is #1 for all fantasy multi-user-dungeons and shows that Dragonrealms is #3 over-all in current multi-user dungeons usage.--Nikpack (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly I should have read the history and noticed that was previously added and removed from the wiki on March 24.  I'm wondering why this source is not a reliable source.  It is because the data it gives is continuously changing?--Nikpack (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this will help. Looking up news sources for DR. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30116040/ Kallimina (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

More sources: Paper article establishing an early interest in Dragonrealms and cites 1,300 players at that date. Ann Hearn, an actress, got hooked on the game when her husband earned a part in the CBS sitcom "Dweebs" where he plays a nerd. Pendleton, Jennifer, "Trends; Nice Work if You Can Master It", Los Angeles Times, Section D, Page 6, 08/18/1997. Kallimina (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wired.com calls DR a "mainstream" environment. In more mainstream environments -- EverQuest, DragonRealms, Second Life -- cybersex can be the logical culmination of ongoing flirtations with other players, but you don't go around asking for it unless you want to be ostracized and alone. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2005/01/66423 Kallimina (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)