Talk:Entropia Universe

Not "officially" an MMORPG?

I'm not sure what that line means in the introductory section. MindArk repeatedly refers to Entropia Universe as an MMORPG on its official site. Does anyone object if that line is simply removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quothz (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody objects (didn't think anyone would), I did that thing.

It's true, MA does not like to call EU MMORPG, but in the fact it is. And it's a technically an MMORPG, no matter what deverlopers says. You can add a note however, to citation that Entropia isn't called MMORPG (or game) by developers.
Faalagorn?/? 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

FPC - (the only) developer and publisher?

I have some doubt, should we really mention FPC (First Planet Company) as a developer and publisher? I know that this is a group of original creators of Plant Calypso and it's universe previously called MindArk, just as rest.
Right now however they are treated in the same manner like Planet Partners - it's a department of MindArk responsible for developing Plane Calypso (but not the game itself - like engine updates, fixing bugs in engine structure etc).
In my opinion we should rather add "Planet Partners" instead "FPC" to the list, since all of the current and future planet partners are developing the game somewhat - or leave only MindArk, as the creators of the platform.

Faalagorn?/? 18:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

Controversy

The section on "Controversy" was removed as it is a work of original research (WP:OR). It is important that criticism is attributed to reliable, third-party sources (WP:V). If this can be done, fine. Otherwise I'll remove it again in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Marasmusine (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Find

Remove mine at your own risk...I have proof which I am willing to share!

What I have 'no' proof of is a concerted effort of Mindark to deliberately alter the wiki (though there were numerous articles in the Entropia Forum that 'did' link to the occurances; and several in the Entropia Reality website).

Oh yeah...I played for 3 years...satisfied?

I see. As I mentioned above, our policy is to attribute all information to reliable, third-party sources, and to avoid original research (WP:V, WP:OR). This is particularly important in any "controversy" sections. The section in this article is an opinion piece, violating both WP:Neutral point of view and verifiability policies, and therefore I'll remove it. If you want to write an objective "critical reception" section, I would advise taking a balance of negative and positive comments from published sources. Marasmusine (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Find

Well, apparently, verification of facts have to be proven publicly here. As the facts relating to the matter in question require the private details of individuals to be published I shall both accept the alteration, and further commend the wiki on having such an astute and unbias representative who promotes merely factual and verifiable data be assigned to this space and is willing to devote such time to policing it on behalf of an unrelated organisation.

I hold true to my offers to provide proof under agreed anonymity for personal privacy reasons and will happily accept contact under those conditions. I stipulate this for reasons that will become clear should such contact be attempted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findelin (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be considered original research, which is not encouraged.DarkNightWolf (T|C|M) 17:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

I've noticed that some fan-made websites catering for other languages have been making their way into the article. What I was wondering is if I should just delete them? because I know Wikipedia isn't a link index... I don't want to start an edit war or something... DarkNightWolf (T|C) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL is our guideline on external links. It asks us to avoid fan sites and social networking sites. In this case, I think you'd be justified in removing everything except the official link. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The better reference?

I'm not sure about the following reference: and in 2010, a virtual space station, a popular destination, sold for $330,000.<ref>[http://www.psfk.com/2010/01/virtual-space-station-sold-for-330000.html Virtual Space Station Sold For $330,000. psfk.com]</ref> The psfk article is refering to Man Spends $330K On In-Game Space Station which is refering to Man buys virtual space station for 330k real dollars which is refering to Crystal Palace - And the winner is.... So would'nt it be good to have the most original article as reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.156.74 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We use the most reliable secondary source. The Entropia forum post is primary. It's nothing against the original source per se; it's just that we try to focus on information that other publications have already reported. In this case, yes, I think that the citation should be changed to Jostiq. Marasmusine (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Although using a forum the original article Crystal Palace - And the winner is... is obviously editorial content. However, I changed the citation to the joystiq article now. Might change some others too, for example secondary sources reported on the recent CND sale as well.