Talk:Final Fantasy XI: Treasures of Aht Urhgan

This is bull. I was the one who originally created this page.

Should this really have its own Wikipedia page? Look at how short the article is... couldn't someone just merge it with the Final Fantasy XI article? Just a thought... 199.1.40.18 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If Chains of Promethia has its own page then this one should as well, imo, this one is still a work-in-progress and probably the users will just click the link to see what descriptions are provided. I think its ok for now, however i am concerned about the Blue Mage reference, it could be misleading and i dont believe its fact based. i cant check from here but whoever is above make sure its legit or we cant include it.Tik 15:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Blue Mage job addition is confirmed, check out http://www.playonline.com for offical details. This is a product of its own and desirves its own page, just like the two previous add-ons. -Labnset 12/16/05

Lab, i added the playonline link about a month ago after i did some looking, i added it to the history when i made a edit, hopefully it still leads to the page, so yeah your correct. Tik 03:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

isnt this exp due in march, i believe the 360 version is out in march and this exp is to be included as well. Tik 21:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Puppetmaster
Same deal here as with the main article. I am adding this now to help stave off the invasion any second now of excited fans updating the news. I will add a link to the playonline website about the job as soon as it's available. -RaCha&#39;ar 04:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reception
Same deal here as with the COP article. No sources have been added and the person who added the sections to this and the COP article has not responded to a message left on his talk page. I will be removing the entire Reception section as POV and original research very soon if this is left untouched. -RaCha&#39;ar 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This article's Reception section has some serious problems. I strongly disagree with some of the statements, but that's just my POV.  The statements are quite obviously another person's POV.  It seriously needs re-writing without POV.  I agree that the entire section is worthy of removal if it can't be re-written better; I've made an attempt to fix it up, but the vast majority of it is really POV and I'm not sure how to fix it without offending via weaselwords.  Feel free to modify more if you see fit.  ＾＾； 24.131.120.80 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I updated this some. It still contains POV, and it still contains weasel words.  However, it no longer states opinions as facts, and I think that that's at least a step in the right direction, though there's still more to do.  It's a tough one to fix, because the idea of a Reception section seems to be highly geared towards stating opinions (as opinions of course).  What it really needs are verifiable sources of statistics that show these opinions - reputable marketing surveys, etc.  The best I can do personally is cite anecdotal evidence in this case.  But, again, at least it's no longer stating opinions as facts.  24.131.120.80 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it's pretty much a hopeless section, I removed it. Sometimes the best thing for wikipedia is removal, not addition -- febtalk 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)