Talk:Travian

Addition to research project per: Technische Universität München
The following might be of interest relating to Travian; but doesn't quite qualify as Further reading. Suggest a concise section on Research projects would be of interest to some readers. There are already good sources listed in Further reading section. Note: it would be improper for me to WP:BEBOLD and WP:DIY per policy: WP:COI. 98.26.28.41 (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Prof. Dr. Isabell M. Welpe, et al.; Communication, Trust and Leadership in Virtual Organizations and Teams; Technische Universität München (DE) 98.26.28.41 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.s.: I did not intend to imply that I am the author of above -- I am not; but merely have possible conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.28.41 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this the study from the research server? --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article again, that paper is already listed under Further reading.  I don't think that the article makes good use of the available sources, currently. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox software
The article current uses Infobox video game, which was by Ko2007 in early 2008. The problem with this infobox is that it really does not suit browser-based games like Travian. Parameters that are very important for an article about a browser-based game, like, are absent from the template. I propose that we switch to Infobox software, which is used in articles about other web-based applications, like Google Docs. What's everyone's opinion on this? --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since no one opposed, I've gone ahead and changed the infobox. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Items section
I created an empty section to describe the artefacts and the items used by the hero unit, with the summary "WP:GAMECRUFT, #6". The content guideline in question is as follows: Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts: Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, vehicles, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. Since the artefacts are fundamental to the game, the referenced guideline supports the inclusion of the Items section, rather than justifying its removal. Would the editor who removed the section please address this point? --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern was that this would turn into a long list of items that would essentially just serve as bloat, like the Weapons section on many video game articles. If it's presented properly and concisely, I have no problem with it. Eik Corell (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I have added the section back to the article with some content. If you have any concerns about any of the content in the section, please state them here so that I may address them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources tag
A primary sources tag was added to the article last month. The article has around 15 secondary or tertiary sources, and the primary sources are used to refer to changelogs and the game mechanics description, the other parts being supported by third-party sources. This is not unlike other articles on software, like Google Chrome, which has a large number of references to Google's own publications. In addition, there are seven research papers on the topic as well. The tag is meant for articles lacking reliable sources, not ones like this. This is why it adds tagged articles to Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2017. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed the tag as no justification was provided for having it in the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)