Talk:TradeWars 2002

TradeWars 2002 vs. Tradewars 2002, Trade Wars 2002, etc.

If anyone has any insight as to the correct naming/capitalization convention, that would be great. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is John Pritchett, TW co-author and current owner of the game. I hold the trademark on TradeWars, and that includes all variations; "Trade Wars", "Tradewars", "TradeWars", "TradeWars 2002", etc. The Sherrick version always used the name "Tradewars", while Martin's version used "Trade Wars". I have chosen to officially use "TradeWars" in reference to the game, because it is a more unique title than "Trade Wars" (which is often used to reference the common economic concept), making it easier to locate relevant info in the search engines. Therefore, though it's not what the game was originally called, I currently call it "TradeWars 2002", and will refer to any new games as "TradeWars", including, for example, TradeWars Rising.

Ship types

As mentioned earlier, I would like to add a sidebar box for each ship type page, similar to the taxobox at European badger, the battlebox at Battle of Brandy Station, or perhaps the sidebar at F-16. There is a lot more info that can be added to these ship type pages.. Definitely the basic stats should be there.. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 12:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have added an infobox for Havoc GunStar. If anyone gets the time, they can add the info for the other ships. It should be pretty easy; just use Template:Infobox TradeWars Ship. Note that the safety rating and trading efficiency factor come from [1]. 69.243.41.28 04:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

still need to make one for Escape pod (TradeWars 2002)) because Escape pod goes to a mostly unrelated article.--WhiteDragon 21:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safety rating and trading efficiency factor

Safety rating and trading efficiency factor come from [2]:

The listing under "Safety Rating" is the total fighters plus shields, multiplied by the ship's odds. This is the number of fighters it will take to kill a fully loaded ship of this type, assuming an attacking ship with 1:1 odds.

More info about trading efficiency is available at that same website.69.243.41.28 04:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is not fancruft

By the way, these ship details are not fancruft! TradeWars 2002 ship types are an integral part of the 1990s door-game-playing subculture, and the continuing Telnet BBS subculture, just as details about ships like the Super Star Destroyer are an important part of the Star Wars subculture. In addition, I view the idea of fancruft as rather arbitrary and subjective, but then again, I'm an inclusionist. 69.243.41.28 04:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Improving the page

So, how can this article be improved? Unless the ship pages are redesigned to make them lengthier (i.e. at least as long as the Imperial StarShip article), it might be better to move them into the main article. In that case, a revision to the ship template would be in order, to make it more compact. Also, a grid-style table should be added for easy comparison of vital ship stats.

Whether topics such as Ferrengi, FedSpace, Captain Zyrain, etc. should be folded into the main article is an open question. What should be done with articles like atomic fusion also puzzles me. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Crossover with Tradewars

What should be done about the crossover between this article and Tradewars? — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree to tie the 2 pages together. TW2002 and TWGS are really the same game, and haveing 2 seperate articles with separate bits of information causes both articles to be incomplete 24.79.64.9 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

By the way, does anyone have any good screenshots we can use here? I am looking for one of the FedPolice HQ building, as well as a screenshot of a Helper that will be legible if shrunk down. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Captain Zyrain & FedSpace & Major Space Lane ---> Federation (TradeWars 2002)

Okay, I am going to consolidate these three articles into a Federation article. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 14:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Captain Zyrain is female. In an add-on product called The Mad Hatter's Trade Wars 2002 Universe Expander it was possible to meet Zyrain, and she was most definitely a she. Gary Martin was aware of this, he was in contact with me at the time about what I was doing with the Expander, and I agreed to make certain changes to it to keep it in line with his view of what TW2002 should be. Yes, I am 'The Mad Hatter', and while I haven't done any work on the Expander in a long time, I still have the source code. I also probably have some of the emails from Gary archived, and it's possible that John Pritchett has copies as well. I've considered taking the original Expander either LGPL or GPL, but there are some permissions I need to get, and I really should get up off my ass and get them. Regards Wayne Borean aka The Mad Hatter aka UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More attractive lead picture?

Does anyone have a better screenshot that could be used? 205.217.105.2 19:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Broken link

Under "The Telnet TW2002 scene", the Cyberia BBS link is broken... any ideas on where it went? Or is there another example that could be cited? David aukerman 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://thestardock.com:8808/twgssearch/ link in the "The Telnet TW2002 scene" is not working.Dxco 21:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

In the late 1980s/early 90's there were a tremendous amount of add ons to the game (especially designed for v1.03/1.03d.) Some examples were the Borg, Crystaline Entity, etc. As might be noticed a very Star Trek TNG theme to them. Greg Foley of Data Warehouse BBS in Hamilton, Ontario wrote a great utility to unify many of these add ons and called it Gextern.

It's also worth mentioning that a considerable number of features that ended up in the Gold version--such as the ability to edit shiptypes--were pioneered by third-party addon developers like Jason Boyd and Brandon Bannerman. These addons were a rich part of the game's progression and the TW2002 culture during the early 90's, and in fact what addons were deployed in what fashion was often what set one BBS's game apart from another. Perhaps someone well-versed in what all these addons were could write up a section on them?

I am one of the named authors (Bannerman), and would be happy to provide any firsthand knowledge I have from that era, but I'd prefer that someone else do this sort of writeup, as otherwise it would feel too much like self-promotion. I agree that add-ons were an extremely important element in the history and evolution of TradeWars 2002--the shiptype editor is an obvious example. The problem with adding this kind of information to the article is that most of it would be anecdotal or tribal knowledge that is impossible to corroborate from a reliable source. I could relate, for example, the story of when I briefly visited Gary Martin and suggested a number of ideas to him, one of which became the Limpet Mines--but from a Wikipedia perspective it's pure hearsay and original research. Amezuki (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brandon! This is John Pritchett. I maintain my own TradeWars wiki and I have a ton of old add-ons and other TW-related stuff. I'd be interested in including anything you could give me, and am also interested in your memories of the early game, Gary Martin, etc. Email me at jpritch at eisonline.com. Thanks! --JohnPritchett (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, damn, it's great to know you are still around. Back in the day I was The Mad Hatter, and I beat Gary to 20,000 sectors by several years :) UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missile Frigate merge

The AfD on Missile Frigate was just closed with a "merge" result. I think this article is big enough that we should just make a single new tradewars 2002 ship types article containing missile frigate and the others, rather than the current collection of small articles for each found in Category:TradeWars_2002_ship_types. I'll wait a day or two for feedback here, then if there's no objection i'll put up merge templates and start off the WP:MERGE process (Which I've never done before). BCoates 11:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merchant Cruiser

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merchant Cruiser has been closed with a large number of related articles now redirecting to TradeWars 2002. Feel free to get the content from the old revisions and merge them to here or to one separate article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 07:46Z

TradeWars 2002 Economics

A section needs to be added to Game Play titled Economics of TradeWars. An understanding of the game economics, basically cashing methods. PPT (Paired Port Trading) used by Blue and Red Players both. SST (Steal, Sell, Transport), SDT (Steal, Dump, Transport), RTR (Rob, Transport, Rob), SSM (Sell, Steal, Move), MeggaRob (MBBS version only) are all Red strategies for earning credits.

My main concern is that while Tradewars is a strategy game, there are no references to the strategies involved.

Cernnunos 09:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but articles on Wikipedia are to describe the subject, not a place to discuss strategy or to host strategy guides and indepth discussions. See what Wikipedia is not. /Blaxthos 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And describing the game is what I am talking about. There is no description of the economics of Tradewars and even the part about Trade Efficiency is limited and out dated. There is no description of the differences between the classic Tradewars or the MBBS version of Tradewars. So Blaxthos why not let the other editors post before YOU decide was is okay and what is not. Cernnunos 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications RE macros and scripts and red play

I have attempted several times to clarify the difference between macros and scripts. I have also tried to explain what a bust is, where currently there is no explaination of this prior to it being used in context.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

First paragraph: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks."

Every change I have made is completely verifiable. I have attempted to post such references in the external links but they continue to be removed. It is definately hard to claim that such links are not neutral when they have little in the way of active opinions to bias them.

Appearantly we have a disruptive user here that refuses to allow changes he dislikes. Hopefully enough discussion on this can make the point more clear.Dnyarri 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Dnyarri[reply]

External Links

Blaxthos has removed links that I've added two or three times, without providing reasons. This area has been added so that he/she can provide proper reasoning.

UrbanTerrorist 11:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm admittedly not Blaxthos, but it seems to me those links are not in line with WP:EL -- keep in mind there's already 3 external links on the article. Additionally, the megacorp example link you added is a 404. Given this, I oppose the addition of these links. RTucker 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links don't comply with our external links guideline, simple as that. They add nothing to the article, and are not appropriate... We don't need every (or any) of your favorite tradewars helper sites, fan sites, or places to play. Only official sites, or sites that add significantly to this article, should be added to external links, and nothing you've added does. /Blaxthos 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RTucker - I may have misstyped that link - I checked and the site is up. UrbanTerrorist 02:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxthos - Please explain your reasoning. I have read that page - indeed I've quoted it to people in the past. Why are they not appropriate to the article? Why do you feel that they don't add to the article? Also - none of those sites are favorites of mine, not am I associated with any of them. They are sites that are considered important in the Trade Wars community (I've been playing TW for over 20 years, and keep up with happenings), and as such merit inclusion. Now if you wanted my favorite Tradewars website you'd have to go to Sourceforge. Yes, I'm the person developing that software - in my copious (NOT) spare time.

Let's let things sit for a week - my wife's father is dying, and my next week looks like it will be a disaster. Post me an answer, and I'll get back to you after the funeral. UrbanTerrorist 02:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on the delay -- Wikipedia will be around for awhile. :-) Which is, indeed, part of the reasoning behind the external links debate. The best, encyclopedic way to deal with external links is to use them as references -- rephrase their knowledge into the text of the article, and then use the original site as a reference. That way, the information is useful to those who are reading Wikipedia without a live Internet connection (whether on paper or CD or whatever). If I get a chance, I'll see what I can do with these with some more time and thought. First and foremost, though, best wishes for you and your family. RTucker 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is using those resources as references appropriate? Under the guideline about reliable sources, those don't seem to qualify. The existing EL policy makes sense to me. On a few articles I've seen a link to the DMOZ directory as a way of linking to sites, but not letting the article become overwhelmed with them. (Admittedly, that dmoz link was included in a couple of incarnations of the EL section.) --GargoyleMT 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, they don't really contain information that isn't already in the article... they simply to serve to promote a particular product (helper), place to play, or as a directory of other sites -- all clearly prohibited in WP:EL. /Blaxthos 16:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: DMOZ seems to be specifically allowed (as a "link to consider"), though it is unclear if its use is acceptable only when there is no consensus about which ELs to include, or if it is always appropriate. (The latter seems to make more sense....) --GargoyleMT 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding [3] to the links section as it stands now (the three links) would work for me. RTucker 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible to rephrase all of the information on external links as text of the article. You could not possibly hope to post all scripts, all strategies, all definitions as an article and to do so would bloat the page beyond reason. It's also generally not appropriate for wikipedia.

While wikipedia may not be a discussion board, it is not inappropriate to post related facts or methodologies of any given subject. Nor is it inappropriate to link to such information if it's relevant. An entire walkthru on the subject might be inappropriate, but if the walkthru was on a site with a high reputation for accuracy then a link to that site would be appropriate.

There isn't an overwhelming number of links that would be appropriate here. Many require registration or are too transient in nature. Those that are not self-promotional, are generally considered authoritative, do not require registration and are not generally transient may make a good addition to the page.

Navhaz, a site I currently administer, is such an example. The material there is compiled and written by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people. It is a compilation of material from many other authors, not just my own self-promotional material. It has been added by neutral parties prior to now, and has been removed at the whim of a few.

We host Traitor's TW-Cabal site now, which is widely known to be the most comprehensive site on TW ever compiled. It is constantly referenced and linked to by people in the community, and regardless of whoever adds it... it is highly relevant and not merely self-promotion. It is far more than a list of links and is considered the most reliable source of information on the topic. Those who actively play the game can easily attest to this. After I finish work on the EIS forum database project it will also contain the collective wisdom of the last 5 years of active Tradewarriors. Far more than just a self-promotional blog or a list of links.

Thestardock.com is another good example. Eleq has ran this server for years. He maintains a current list of new games for players to play on, has strategy guides and a forum for people to post on. Eleq is often referred to as the "Godfather of Tradewars." A list of active servers would be inappropriate, but a link to a constant and reliable site that maintains such an active list would certainly be appropriate. It is so appropriate in-fact that it's even in the article text, so what precisely would be wrong with putting a link to the main URL?

If you can find any better authority on this game than the people that actively play the game and win large tournaments (such as myself) I would love to hear it. Wikipedia is not just a history lesson, it's a living collection of knowledge. Dnyarri 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Dnyarri[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear as to why we remove your links. I apologize that new users may not understand "link creep":

Every TW player who comes along wants to add his or her favorite site, server, script, or strategy guide to the article. Over time, this leads to a list of external links as long as the article itself. Clearly this isn't acceptable.
If we try to pick and choose which servers/sites/scripts to include, invariably there are dissenting opinions. Since we're dealing with a topic that isn't really covered by reliable sources, it becomes a pissing match as to who gets to decide what sites are "better" to link.
Most of those sites have redundant information, causing readers to have to dig through numerous sites with numerous overlapping areas of content.

You've made several claims ("Godfather of Tradewars" "a site with a high reputation for accuracy") without any attribution. Who gets to decide what sites have a "high reputation for accuracy"? Who decided that so-and-so site is "widely known to be the most comprehensive site on TW ever compiled". (Check out WP:WEASEL).

There are perhaps 3 people in the game that can outmatch my knowledge, K3, Traitor and JP himself. Are you any of those 3? If not, then you are not an expert on the subject. What was the last tournament game you won? --Dnyarri

Wikipedia is set up so that no one user (such as you) can claim to be the de facto authority on a subject. Likewise, the number of TradeWars tournaments a particular editor has won has absolutely no relevance. Additionally, the grandeous claim that you are one of the three most knowledgable people regarding TW ever is being a dick.
Conflict of interests -- You've admitted to being a super duper tradewars expert... don't you think that this maybe clouds your judgement? I haven't played TW or run a TW server in several years, and I don't have much interest in it. I simply have an interest in ensuring that Wikipedia articles are compliant with our content policies/guidelines. (which brings us to...)

I'm not a wikinerd, I don't really care about the customs of the people around here ... We will continue to re-add these links as neccessary, and given the number of people involved you will be hard pressed to stop us. --Dnyarri

Wow... calling us nerds when we know the policies... Blatantly stating that you don't care about our mores and norms/values/rules... and making an outright threat that we'll be "hard pressed to stop" violators is beyond incivility, and earns you zero respect. Once again, see m:DICK.
Now, on the positive note... if one of those sites is actually mentioned in the text of the article, and contains verifiable relevant information, then I have no problem with it (singuarly) being EL'd.
Most importantly:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: ... Instruction manuals (This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.) ... Internet guides (Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance...)
— What Wikipedia is NOT

I would argue that both of these apply... the goal here is to contextualize the game (ie show its significance), not offer resources for aspiring players or to attract more gamers to your favorite fansite.

Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is a good policy to keep in mind. I can tell your site dear and believe it to be a very good resource for players of all sorts. Wikipedia's WP:EL guidelines were, largely, meant to stop anyone from promoting a particular site, regardless of its merit. Some of the EL guidelines have been waived with a consensus of editors and through calm discussion (see Talk:Ultima VII. Blaxthos seems to be quoting from some other conversation, and those remarks do seem incendiary. Please don't do that. --GargoyleMT 03:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[How do I get this thing to indent my replies?]

To blax:

And I'm just adding 1 favorite site? Is that it? Again, people knowledgable about the game disagree. I would cite sources but most require registration and they aren't fit here. If you personally want to invest the time to visit these sites, then by all means let me know.

Clearly you have not visited the sites in question. There's not a lot of redundant information there. It is a compilation of tutorials, guides, formulas and scripts that don't exist elsewhere because the originals went down a long time ago. Case in point being:

http://tw-cabal.navhaz.com/strategy/hagglelessons.html

Which is CK's haggle lessons. Back when the tavern was up he the original there, but when he left the game he shut down his site. Today it's either the Google cache or here. Most people looking for information about the game will not know to search for something this specific, so having it listed proves important.

So who gets to decide? Who gets to decide that any of the sources used on wikipedia are credible? The people that read it, that's who. Not just you. I've tried to quote sources and you keep removing my links. Are you saying then that if I phrase all of my links as references you'll stop removing them?

"Additionally, the grandeous claim that you are one of the three most knowledgable people regarding TW ever is being a dick."

There are 3 people I listed, I'm not one of those. Obviously I didn't include myself in that list. There's a hole your logic there.

"Conflict of interests -- You've admitted to being a super duper tradewars expert... don't you think that this maybe clouds your judgement? I haven't played TW or run a TW server in several years, and I don't have much interest in it. I simply have an interest in ensuring that Wikipedia articles are compliant with our content policies/guidelines. (which brings us to...)"

Being knowledgable is not being biased. Conflicts of interest rules do not regulate the content of articles themselves (atleast I can find no rule about that), but only to links. This is to keep someone from setting up a site and spamming the wikis with it, which clearly we're not doing (despite several "spam warnings" you've submited). If you were to limit content submission to only people w/ no current experience or knowledge in the field this site would become amazingly useless in a very short amount of time. I do not believe, and have never seen evidence, that such is the intent of wikipedia's founder or the wikipedia foundation. If you can find a rule that makes that specific claim, without reading your own intent into it, then let me know.

"Wow... calling us nerds when we know the policies... Blatantly stating that you don't care about our mores and norms/values/rules... and making an outright threat that we'll be "hard pressed to stop" violators is beyond incivility, and earns you zero respect. Once again, see m:DICK."

Because you continue to violate the rules yourself? Maybe I overstepped my bounds there, but you obviously don't know all of the policies yourself. Case in point being my earlier reference to the dispute policies. Your respect is not my concern. Your continuing disrespect of others has become, however. But at the end of the day I will do whatever is neccessary to make my case known, people will then be free to make their own determinations of value without you being able to censor them into oblivion. Perhaps wikinerd wasn't the right term, perhaps (Godwin reference warning) Wikinazi would be better. Is that uncivilized? Perhaps. But it's uncivil in a very civilized way.

"Now, on the positive note... if one of those sites is actually mentioned in the text of the article, and contains verifiable relevant information, then I have no problem with it (singuarly) being EL'd."

Verifiable by whom? Players today have already verified the data... example:

http://tw-cabal.navhaz.com/formulas.html

Which lists many of the formulas in the game. The data there has been routinely verified by people that play the game. We use it every single time we play. But to people that don't play there would be no way to verify this material, you can only verify it as a player by experiencing it first hand. Do you want me to cite unverifiable references?

If you bothered to examine the sites in question you could see that most of this is in fact self-evident to the marginally informed. How can you verify the accuracy of any of the links in this article at all? Other then being there in person and having a 1st hand account, what are your criteria for being verifiable? I don't ask for wikipedia's because I've read that page and it's standards are appearantly much lower than your own personal standards.

Wikipedia just says it has to be verified by a reputable outside source. Of those it lists primary sources, of which I am one, and most certainly these sites would qualify. They are neutral in the sense that they're built from facts rather than opinions, but if you're making the case that all informed sources are biased and non-neutral then you must be prepared to edit a lot of pages on wikipedia. It certainly doesn't seem that's the intent of the founders, tho.

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias

It doesn't list "knowledge" as a bias there tho. Gosh, who woulda thunk it.

Infact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete

I won't disagree that one point of the article is to contextualize the history, impact and meaning of the game. For sure, we'd be missing an important part of the article to completely dismiss it. But I also think that we can't pass up the current players and we shouldn't blindly ignore the current status of the game. Resources of play, especially when they are widely determined (by other players, having won awards, etc) to be a reputable source of information, are most certainly relevant and useful to visitors of the page.

"Most importantly: [snip about what wiki is not]"

Again you are reading your own interpretation into that rule. It does not say that you cannot post links to guides or manuals, just that you should not use the manual or guide as the article itself (I assume because it wouldn't be in the encyclopedic tone) as "wikipedia is not a bunch of manuals."

Example in point is the World of Warcraft article. It has links to hacks, bots, gold farming techniques, characters, mod sites, and a lot of other resource sites. Clearly, such things are acceptible links.

"I can tell your site dear and believe it to be a very good resource for players of all sorts. Wikipedia's WP:EL guidelines were, largely, meant to stop anyone from promoting a particular site, regardless of its merit."

And I understand that, but IMO there are different issues here at hand. The link's acceptibility is one, and if it's deemed unacceptible that's ok, or if it's unacceptible just for me to use (but others could cite as a reference) then that's ok too. What bothers me is the constant reverts that have effectively censored our ability to work in this page. If I knew it wasn't going to be erased in one fell swoop I'd take the time to build references for everything on here, but I can't see spending that time when it could all go poof.Dnyarri 04:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Dnyarri[reply]

If you want your replies indented, just add additional colons to the beginning of each line. If you two both keep up this lengthy point by point quoting and responding, I don't foresee this being resolved in a meaningful way. Already there have been too many personal attacks, and more than a couple strawman arguments. Dynarri, I would like you to add your knowledge to the article, it just has to be factual and neutral POV. In addition, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place for original research (OR) - each statement here is supposed to be verifiable, being able to be tracked down to a specific reliable source. Reliable sources are essentially like newspapers and "respectable" old world media that have each statement fact checked. Self-published sites don't count (generally, there's a policy if you follow the WP:RS link above). The article contained quite a bit of OR before any of your edits, you're responsible only for that in your own edits, of course. Has someone made a TradeWars 2002 print strategy guide? That would be an ideal source for the article. You're right that in this instance WP:COI seems to refer mostly to people editing their own biography or that of their company, and the most applicable portion of that guideline is avoiding linking to a website you're associated with. If added by others, I think that links to navhaz or thestardock (etc.) mainly fall under "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed." (from WP:SPAM) I think there are some aspects of items in "what should be linked" and "links to be considered" that apply to various TW2002 themed web sites, but I don't feel that any full items do. --GargoyleMT 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALL: Players come here looking for information, they want links for places to play the game. This is why I add my link so that players can play with us if they want. I make no money on my BBS and i dont even take donations nor do I care about advertising. This isnt an advert its giving people info and that is what Wikipedia is all about information. You can go on other pages and see links to other peoples websites for games. Try Grand Theft Auto and see what you get. The point is that people want to play right away, they dont want to sift through 50 pages on another website to find a telnet BBS. They want to play like it was back in the day and I provide that free of charge. So please leave my link up there as it does not violate any terms at all. Ive gotten hundreds of emails from people who have signed in to the BBS to play TW saying how happy they were to be able to play it again even if it was just for a day or 2. Most people are doing it for nostalgia sake so who cares if there are a few links in there to BBS's. That's how it should be, because without the BBS you'd have no TW. --tonicfan —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AlienDerelict1.gif

Image:AlienDerelict1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handled. /Blaxthos 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Twimage.jpg

Image:Twimage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. /Blaxthos 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TW2002PlanetM-recrop.gif

Image:TW2002PlanetM-recrop.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to BBSes now allowed?

Just wondering why the House of Lunduke BBS is linked from this page. Are we now allowing BBS systems who run Tradewars 2002 to be linked from the page? I've read the back and forth on this, and it's seriously TLDR; so can we get consensus? I ask because I run a multiline/multisystem BBS that runs MajorBBS TW2002 v2.00p, The Door Version of TW2002 and a fully registered 100 port/25 game TWGS server. I wouldn't mind being linked to be honest. --204.209.209.129 (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]