Talk:The Precursors

Initial comment
how come you just come and ransack my page??? i will NOT stand for this!!!!

Dude, your preview article doesn't reflect Wikipedia's policies, and is rather unpolished. I just made it better. - XX55XX, 10 October 2005

What is this "Game Convention"? Do you mean E³? Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 03:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not the E3. It's rather vague... Some pictures were shown at Deep Shadow's official site, but I'm extremely sure about anything about it... It was held in Leipzig, Germany, though.

Most likely, it was a low-key convention and was not mentioned by most gaming sites. - XX55XX 14 October 2005

Star Control
Is this game in any way, shape, or form, connected to the Star Control trilogy? In Star Control, the Precursors were an ancient, advanced race that looked like wolly mammoths.


 * They're at Precursor (Star Control). I'll add disambiguation. Bryan 06:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not connected to the franchise you speak off. - XX55XX 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also Precursors in Halo, yet I don't see a wiki page about them... Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.152.252 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability
So...it's not projected to be released for eleven years, it's existed for nearly five, the only reference is to a blog posting, the only external links are to sites related to the game itself? How does this pass the notability guidelines? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The game has been released last year, but the English info available is always calling it "The Precursors" and not "Precursors". So could someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia please swap both pages because Precursors should point to The Precursors and not the other way around. Thanks! Wesp5 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Patches section
The existence of an unofficial English translation is not notable unless it has been covered by a WP:RS, something which this entire article only has ONE of so far(see discussion above). Eik Corell (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion "The Patches Scrolls" is a reliable source in that sense, it is a well reknown patching site with thousands of hits, a good reputation and it mirrors e.g. the official WoW patches. Also while forums "are largely not acceptable.", I think the official developer forum for a game should count as a reliable source of unofficial patches for that game. Last not least, I myself am Wesp5, the author of the "The Precursors" translation patch, and I am well known for my "Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines unofficial patch" which makes me a reliable source according to the following section "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." because my work on Bloodlines was published in several paper magazines like PCGamer (August 2008), PCZone (UK) and GameStar (Germany). I've added some more, hopefully reliable, sources regarding the game release in Russia and the current online version of the game. There are lots more in Russian, but those won't help English readers. Wesp5 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see anything that qualifies as a reliable source here. You having your work an unofficial patch for another game mentioned in a gaming magazine doesn't make you an established expert, though, it merely means some of your work caught the attention of some higher-ups. Next, a forum is not a reliable source, even if a post is stickied. I tell you what, bring out what you think qualifies as a reliable source and I'll have a look at it, but as it stands now, I'm not seeing anything but unofficial fansites and forum posts. Other than that, I'm pretty sure there's a conflict of interest here when you're adding mention of your own work here. To me, it seems like you're trying to promote the patch. Eik Corell (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is "The Patches Scrolls" no reliable source but IGN is? Because it's bigger or because it's US-based? Why don't you provide me with a "reliable" source that the game exists at all in the US-centered game world? How do you expect a "reliable" source for an unofficial patch when the game release itself, including the official patch, is completely ignored in the western media? I thought Wikipedia was created for exactly the reason to give info without being dependent on mainstream notions! If you have any interest in "The Precursors" at all, just download it, test the patch and see for real that the western world is missing a great game here and that my patch is the only thing that makes it playable. That is the reason I created the patch in the first place and why I mention it here. I can't yet understand your motivation... Wesp5 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliability has nothing to do with nationality. It has to do with whether there is an editorial process.  In basic terms, do people run the website as a living, or is it a fan-run website?  Now as to the reference -- I don't think it's appropriate as a citation in the article, however I could see it working as an external link under WP:ELMAYBE, since an English patch would prove useful to many. --Teancum (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "The Patches Scrolls" is a fan-run website. The problem is that the big US game sites seem not to be interested in games not released in the US and thus it is impossible to get "reliable" sources for such stuff. I would be happy to have the translation patch somewhere else when it doesn't fit in the main article, but I think it is important that it is mentioned on the main page itself so people are aware that they can play the game even although it wasn't released in English. Wesp5 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Think about it like this - The patch makes the game comprehensible for an English-speaking audience, but that doesn't make it notable, because the game wasn't made for them -- It's not actually a necessity; it's a luxury. The argument that it's a necessity because it's in Russian would only work if it was released in Western countries, in Russian. If that was the case, it would indeed be a necessity, and a patch would receive at least some coverage by reliable sources. Eik Corell (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The game was made for an English speaking audience. My translation patch is based on almost complete English subtitles stored in the game files which I only activated to work with the Russian version. The English site, English forum and presentation at western game conventions show this as well. 2. The game is available to an English speaking audience right now, via the distribution service mentioned in the article as well as occassional ebay auctions. 3. This means there is a necessity to offer information on the translation patch and the official patch, which isn't available from the English site. As for the patches getting coverage of reliable sources, I already told you that the western magazines don't even have acknowledged that the game itself was released. 87.78.221.66 (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the subtitles were not included, and the game not sold elsewhere than Russia, Russian-language websites and Ebay auctions, then it's not targeted at an English-speaking audience, even if it has an English-language forum. As I see it, my argument stands. Eik Corell (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't you read? The subtitles were included, only to be activated in the English version which was never released. Why don't you remove the whole Wikipedia entry because without the translation patch no English speaking audience could ever make any use of the game. I bet this kind of complete censorship would be good for your ego. Wesp5 (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Define "activated". By "activated", I'm assuming you're talking about modding the game files in one way or another. As far as deleting the whole article, check the debate above this one. I see you're starting to become nasty, so I'm gonna read your next reply before touching the article, and if it's grasping at straws like your other arguments, I'm done here. Eik Corell (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Activated" in that the official Deep Shadows resource editor had only be tricked into believing he was editing the English version of the game to then copy all the English subtitles back into the Russian version. As for becoming nasty, it looks to me that you are doing this whole editing thing only to get some confrontation. You should know by now that there is a great Russian game out there being playable in English, why don't you give English gamers a chance even if mainstream game magazines haven't acknowledged it yet? One additional line in links clearly validated by the WP:ELMAYBE rules shouldn't hurt you that much. Wesp5 (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we are talking about modding. Let's go through the guideline you cite: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article" the subject of this article is the game, not the patches. So that one is out of the way. "from knowledgeable sources." -- Even if you somehow argue that the sources are knowledgeable, the info at the site is not about the subject of the article, and the placeholder info it has, like the publisher and developer of the game, is already present in this article. Basically, you're interpreting this guideline backwards; You want to include mention of the unofficial patch in this article, and you justify including it because of the minimal amount of info on the page hosting the patches. It doesn't work like this - The purpose of including it under WP:ELMAYBE would be for the information, not the files, which is what you're arguing for here. So, it's about files related to the game, unofficial ones as well, which, by the way, one would typically find on fansites. Eik Corell (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, just a few thoughts on this: Thanks! Fin©™ 17:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The Patches Scrolls is not a reliable source, it's simply a website that hosts patch files. If a reliable source hasn't covered the unofficial patch, then it shouldn't be included. Just because a patch exists does not mean it should be in the article. Something like the nudity patch for The Sims 2 did receive coverage from reliable sources, so there's a section in its article on it.
 * 2) Working on something does not make one an expert - I've made some mean C++ demos in my time, but I'm nowhere near approaching anything I'd call "expert" level. Even if one is an expert, they shouldn't be editing articles directly related to them (for instance, adding papers they've published, in this case, patches they've developed).
 * 3) A game including subtitles for a specific region or language does not mean the game was targeted at that region. If a hack or patch is required to unlock or access the files, its safe to say the developers didn't intend for users to access them for whatever reason.
 * 4) Official forums are ok to use as sources when it's a developer posting. A random post on an official forum does not give the post legitimacy.
 * 5) Be cool.

I give up. I hope you all are glad you were able to withold important information for anyone actually interested in the game because it isn't mainstream enough for western game magazines. I always thought Wikipedia was supposed to avoid such a censorship by ignorance of the majorty... Wesp5 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You should check the list of things that [WP:NOT|Wikipedia is Not]]. A lot of people come to this site, thinking for example that it's all-inclusionary, when in fact, it isn't. Eik Corell (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I learned what it is, namely the private power playground of bureaucrats like you who don't care one bit about the actual information content. I'm disappointed! Wesp5 (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are actually bureaucrats on Wikipedia, and I'm not one of them. Eik Corell (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what you think. Wesp5 (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, you can click the link and see if I'm listed as such. Not a bureaucrat. Eik Corell (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. You know exactly what I mean... Wesp5 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tsk Tsk Eik Corell, You never cease to amaze me with your obvious bullying. have a great day, and don't give up Wesp Magicianbink (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Jesus loves me and that's all that counts. Unless Yahwe is the fake one, and Allah is the real one, but I digress -- Nice to see you, too. Eik Corell (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you took that well, Falcon on the other hand was offended on your behalf, Isn't that special :) Magicianbink (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

lol@Eik What a dick. If this game is russian-only why even bother to create an article for it you stupid idiot? Patched and Mods are an essential part of gaming culture and if you are ignoring this you´re a pretty worthless editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.237.151.206 (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like turtles. Eik Corell (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest source
I have to say that the new source isn't sufficient. My rationale is that it was added "08.21.2010". By itself this wouldn't make a difference, but the article says that you contacted them about it. As I see it, the coverage is actually you getting your your own work listed, as opposed to it being noticed naturally. Eik Corell (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again I have to remind you that the games "being noticed naturally" is difficult when the big US sites didn't even acknowledge that they were released. As for the GameBanshee link, of course I contacted them because this is the way these kind of news get around. How do you think the True Patch for Bloodlines got on GameBanshee or on Kotaku? Still GameBanshee researched the issue themselves which you can see by the download locations they mention which are not the ones that I use. Also if you accept GameBanshee or Kotaku in the Bloodlines article, you need to accept this one here too. Wesp5 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you probably won't accept this as well, but there is a FAQ up at GameSpot right now mentioning the translation patch, and no, it isn't from me: http://www.gamefaqs.com/xbox360/932746-the-precursors/faqs Wesp5 (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I also just noticed that there is even a Steam group trying to get Valve to publish the game. Very probably no reliable source for you, but still interesting: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/VtThPrec Wesp5 (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And another possible source. It's from a Swiss webpage in German and mentions both the German and English patches: http://www.gbase.ch/PC/news/3239/44500.html Wesp5 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Falcon9x5 made me aware of a list of reliable sources for video games here on Wikipedia on which I found Blues News, so I exchanged the Swiss link mentioned above with it. Wesp5 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be putting a lot of work and effort into making this article better, good job dude :) Magicianbink (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)