Talk:Myth II: Soulblighter

New article
I've (eventually) began a split of the Myth series, starting with this one having more info on it. While it might now look like much now and even a slight rehash of what is already in the other article, rest assure when I get more on its gameplay, plot, development and reception it will be its own thing soon enough, I swear. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that old merged version was a mess. --DocumentN (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki external link
User:Nikkimaria has removed the external link to the Myth wiki (Mythipedia). I have reinstated it. I note that wikis are specifically noted as possible external links by ELNO, and that the wiki links at articles like Star Wars, Star Trek, etc have survived the test of time, with no one even seeming to question whether those wikis ought to be linked. If you think the Mythipedia link should not be there, your reason has to be better than "it's a wiki, therefore it can't be linked". Perhaps explain how you believe this SPECIFIC wiki link violates something in ELNO. And even at that, "normally to be avoided" does not mean "must be removed". Mythipedia certainly satisfies the criteria of "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." And since Mythipedia contains documentation written by the developers of the game, it seems it qualifies as "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ...amount of detail" (see ELNO). And since Mythipedia contains a judicious "links" section, it seems it qualifies as "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. ...A directory link may be a permanent link". --Jason C.K. (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:ELBURDEN: disputed links are excluded by default.
 * WP:ELMAYBE does not specifically list external wikis as links to be considered. Furthermore, just because a site contains external links does not make it a directory.
 * Other wikis like Memory Alpha have hundreds or thousands of active contributors, allowing them to meet the "except those with...a substantial number of editors" proviso of ELNO. Mythipedia, on the other hand, has had 16 editors ever. It in no way meets that exception.
 * As an open, pseudonymous wiki, there is no way of ensuring that its content is "neutral and accurate" or that it is added by "knowledgeable sources". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * External links are not required to be 100% provably reliable. The guidelines specifically state that valid links can be to "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."  Mythipedia is not being used as a source citation to support some assertion in a Wikipedia article.
 * Since you know nothing about the subject matter, nor about the Mythipedia site, you have no basis for judging whether the sources are knowledgeable. And some of that content is from past or current developers.  There is no source more knowledgeable than them.
 * And since some of the content was either written-by, or directly derived from, material by the developers of the game, that would qualify as "neutral and accurate material". --Jason C.K. (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed that external links are required to be 100% provably reliable; however, external links are required to meet the external links guideline, and this one does not
 * It's an open and pseudonymous wiki; there is no basis to claim that all contributors qualify as "knowledgeable sources". As charming as your personal commentary is, you seem to have failed to recognize your own bias
 * No, it wouldn't, because again this is an open wiki, one with no mandate or claim of neutrality nor any apparent control of accuracy. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Myth II sales
Hey. I noticed that you reverted the US sales figures that I added on Myth II. Wanted to say—the reason the sales figures don't match up is that the ones already in the section are probably inaccurate, and original research to boot. The first Myth only shipped 350,000 copies worldwide as of 1997 (source), and how many of those were actually sold through by 2000 (when this source appeared) is unknown. As a result, it's OR to write that Myth II sold 350,000 copies on day 1, especially given that Chicago Reader nowhere makes that specific claim. The Bungie article that says the first Myth ultimately sold 350,000 copies (source) is from the mid-2000s, years after the Chicago Reader piece. It makes sense that the initial 350,000-copy shipment would have sold through by that point.

The sales figures I added were obtained by PC Gamer US from PC Data, the market research firm responsible for tracking PC game sales throughout the 1990s, all the way up until around 2001. PC Data's sales tracking was a main resource for game companies of the era—it was sort of a predecessor to NPD's sales tracking. If you'd like to see the article the Myth II numbers come from, it's scanned here:,. PC Data's figures are as accurate as it gets from the era.

Given all these factors, I'm going to go ahead and re-add the US sales figures to the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Bertaut (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the message. So a couple of things. Firstly, yeah, regarding that 350,000 figure, I hadn't taken into account that the Bungie article from which I took it was written some time in the mid 2000s, so that's fair enough. I'll remove that figure.


 * However, irrespective of that, there are still a number of problems. Firstly, I'm assuming that the 87,000 figure you added doesn't take into account the 140,000 pre orders, presumably because they would have happened in 1998, and as far as I can ascertain, the PC Gamer info is only for 1999. However that still leaves the issue of day one sales for v1.1 on January 7. The Chicago Reader says they equalled total sales of The Fallen Lords up to that time, but if we take the PCGamer info as accurate, that would imply the first game has sold quite a bit less than 87,000 units by the end of 1998, which obviously makes no sense. So either the Chicago Reader is wrong, or the PC Gamer figures aren't taking the v1.1 day one sales into account for some reason.


 * Either way, we can't leave the paragraph as it is now, as the info you added directly contradicts the info that was already there. We either need to rephrase things or remove something. Bertaut (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, ! I think the answer lies in comparing worldwide sales figures to United States sales figures. It's a safe bet that the Chicago Reader article refers to worldwide sales—i.e. 140,000 worldwide preorders. The PC Data figures refer to the United States alone, as that organization didn't track sales in Europe, or even (to my knowledge) in the rest of North America. Given the massive size of the PC market outside the US, particularly in Germany and the United Kingdom, the missing sales could easily be accounted for. (Strategy games, such as Command & Conquer and Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines, tended to be especially successful in Germany.) Taking everything together, Myth II's global sales on day 1 would be at minimum 140,000+ copies, given the worldwide preorders that counted as day 1 sales—and that would likely be enough put it above Myth 1. The PC Data figures just tell us how many of those Myth II sales happened in the United States, compared to the rest of the world. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Makes sense. I'll fiddle about with the phrasing slightly as soon as I get a chance. Many thanks for clarifying that for me. Bertaut (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Source

 *