Talk:Space Empires IV

New Discussion

• Adamant mod squabble aside, does anyone care if the discussion below gets blanked or archived, We should resume talk on improving this article first.Doric Nash 04:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Mods I've cleaned up the mod section a bit by removing information about game mods in development that lacked reference material. I also added links to existing mods next to the mod's name and added the TDM mod information to round-out the scope of mods presented as examples in this article. I also removed the links to the adamant mod and kwok's fan site as they seemed inappropriate for the article.Doric Nash 04:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I reworded the part for the TDM mod a bit as it was not created in the beta of SEIV but after its release. Neither T, D nor M was part of the SEIV beta. [Mephisto] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.101.92 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Adamant Mod

This entire article is written by the mod's creator. Frankly, you can't get much more biased than that. The article doesn't even include that virtually all SE fans realize this mod is nothing more than a hodgepodge of ideas from other mods created by other people, with the Adamant Mod creator taking all credit. 71.254.192.208 07:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I personally feel that while this article isn't NPOV totally (it was written by the author of the mod is question), it lacks sources from independent sources and lacks nuetrality. It does also mention that it contains other peoples works. Reading the first part, it does sound like it it is promoting the topic instead of discussing it. I think that does qualify as a NPOV and I'll research further after work and when I can log in.

But really, the question needs to be asked if this article is useful to the wikipedia. I think its mention in the Space Empires IV article would be sufficient coverage as long as a link was provided to the mod in that mention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.114.123.217 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 2 July 2006.

• • The latter suggestion does sound far more appropriate. 71.114.123.101 04:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing "npov" about the article, and it contributes no less to Wikipedia than hundreds of other articles on specific game mods. Some people just like to crap all over the work of others... The person mentioning "hodgepodge of ideas" doesn't care to look into the Credits information included in the mod, or the countless mentions of where many ideas came from in the history file. This is probably from the same person that kept trying to add inflammatory remarks to the article. If you don't like the wording of the first part, feel free to change it. There was no need to delete this article... 71.118.82.83 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • And yet... It doesn't list all the sources it stole, sorry, borrowed information from. There aren't even mentions of the old Ultimate Mod, of which much of the work was "borrowed" without credit. Either way, it's not notable enough to have its own article. Remerge it into Space Empires IV, especially when one considers the fact that it's a hodgepodge of other peoples' work.. SWVRoma

• • • I'm not sure what the problem is. First, the Adamant mod is probably one of best documented for credits of all the SE:IV mods I have used (which is most of them). Second, although elements or ideas in Adamant also exist in other mods, it is not just a hack cut and paste job. Third, you act as if mod elements can be patented. If it was custom images created for another mod that were used without the author's permission, I could see a "stolen" claim, but that's not the case. This seems more vindictive than trying to maintain integrity of wikipedia etc. Captain Kwok

how is this for a post. It is rather sad that you cannot get over something that occured almost 5 years ago. The se ladder is long dead. So y0u could have lost a game of seiv. Wow. Se3 was a good game.... but it was not life...... Grow up. This mod yuu talk about was built by se4 fans and players. Kaz. has made one of the best mods out there and all of us who helped out is mentioned.

• • • Please stop spreading FUD and slander. Wikipedia is about accurate information, not your personal grudges. Adamant Mod is most clearly not a "hodgepodge of other people's work" and is definitely not related to the old Ultimate Mod. The greater SE4 modding community has always shared ideas equally and freely. This is a large part of what has made SE4 the success that it is. As such, there are naturally a lot of ideas that surface in multiple mods. The vast majority of the mod is original work. The few parts that were taken from other mods were done with the permission of those mods' authors, and is documented in the mod. I don't see any reason to make the article a gigantic list of credits. The mod website has a credits page. What more do you want? Again, please take your personal grudges away from Wikipedia. 71.118.82.83 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • [[1]] & [Standards] It isn't worthy of its own article as per Wikipedia's standards. Please stop acting as if you know all and follow Wikipedia's regulations. Thanks. SWVRoma 04:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • That article specifically says it is not a regulation. Further, the mod is quite notable and impacting in the SE community. If you are going to delete one mod article for "notability" reasons, you have to delete all of them. And yet, I see plenty of such mod articles all over Wikipedia. Please drop this crusade against me you have going: deleting links to anything related to me, petulently editing my name on the main space empires article talk page, etc. Now you've moved on to trying to use official unofficial rules against me... 71.118.82.83 06:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • 1) TescoSamoa's post was removed due to language issues. Please act like a mature member of the wikipedia community. 2) "Articles are deleted daily on grounds of notability, and this has been common practice for over a year now." 3) A small cult following does not make a mod notable. Space Empires isn't a widely known game, the mod being even less known. 4) I'm sorry that you are apparently afraid of logging in and taking credit for what you say. Perhaps because it would enforce the NPOV argument? SWVRoma 06:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I get this strange feeling when I read comments made by you it's more like the deleting of the Adamant mod article is just a grudge and has nothing to do with the rules. Maybe if you'd post why it should be deleted without resorting to slander it wouldn't seem like a grudge. Maybe you are not able to do that because you don't have a good enough reason to get the article deleted and just want to fake your way through it. Bobarific

Can't you just let people live in peace? Why all the hate? I sure hope the admins don't take this seriously... 71.118.82.83 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Adamant Mod Shouldn't Be Deleted

The article does what Wikipedia is for, providing useful, relevant information on a nontrivial topic. Merging the information into the Space Empires IV article would bloat it, thus the separate article.

"Unverified sources"

All of the links are relevant, there are no quotes from unknown sites, etc. I'm not sure how many "verified sources" a game article needs in the first place. What would a good "verified source" for something like this be?

"no original research"

It is certainly no less "original research" than the dozens of other game mod articles on the wikipedia. It's accurate information, it's all relevant to the subject, it's not copying preexisting sources. I can't even imagine how this would apply.

"NPOV"

The article is not written with bias, it just tells what the mod is. If there are specific sentences that may be trouble issues, please point them out and they can be fixed. I do not see anything that looks biased, but that is just my interpretation.

Overall, SWVRoma is just trying to make my life difficult, again. You can see this in the blatantly wrong FUD about stealing work he has tried to put into the article in the past, the FUD he spread all over the talk page to get the current attack started, the FUD he continues to spread, the derogatory editing of the name "Fyron" to "Fryon" in the Space Empires talk page. The only goal here is to attack me in whatever way he can. None of the issues he has posted previously are correct or relevant, thus he has to keep posting new falsehoods.

If the admins determine there really is an issue with the article, it can be fixed. I just need to know what to do.

71.118.82.83 07:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• During its original topic for deletion, it was agreed on to instead merge it into the Space Empires IV article and then it was decided THERE to shortern the article to conform to the set standards for said topic.

Unverified sources, no original research All lead to the creator's personal spaces, personal threads on community forums, or where his mod appears merely as a self-sbumitted advertisement. It is the equal of anyone simply creating a webpage, putting information on it, going to another forum and doing the same, then submitting a banner to one or two sites and claiming it is legitimate sources. It is entirely self-made information, which lends credit to the Neutral Point of View argument. Many mods that have articles within wikipedia are frequently mentioned in gaming magazines and professional gaming sites rather just by their creator.

Recreation of deleted material As stated above, it was agreed on that the article should be moved and the Adamant Mod page deleted and turned into a SE4 redirect. Against this general consensus, its creator restored the article to its previous versions.

Unfortunately, it seems everything is taken as a personal attack against him. It is generally well known outside his circle of friends that much of his information has been taken from other mods without credit or consent. Typically only when called out on it does the name appear in the next version of the mod. Ironically, complaints on such actions tend to be deleted off the forum he lists as a reference about his article by any moderator that frequents his personal forums.

I am also intreagued to know how a typoing an unsigned name when you are attributing a source is derogatory. As it didn't exist before, the name most certainly wasn't edited in!

I also protest his unfounded, unsupported claims that I had anything to do with this article in the past. I see nothing of my IP in the history, not to mention that many ISPs tend to recycle, or even share, IPs between their clients. Perhaps more than one person knows of the history of this mod? SWVRoma 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an article, not a book. All the mods should be limited to at most, three sentences. History of the mod is not notable. Jefffire 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Several other mods had history outlines in them when I created the article, so I thought it would be appropriate. If people other than SWVRoma think the article should be removed, then so be it. I just think there should be some real reasons... What do the admins see as the issues with the article? Honestly, I don't care anymore. I just don't think it is appropriate at all to be constantly slandered by SWVRoma.

More FUD from SWVRoma... According to the text in the hangon block, I thought I was supposed to remove it after adding reasons to the talk page. Omicronpersei8 said that shouldn't be done cause the admins could miss it, so he added it back. Then SWVRoma deleted it again, presumably so that the admins would miss it...

"It is generally well known outside his circle of friends that much of his information has been taken from other mods without credit or consent. Typically only when called out on it does the name appear in the next version of the mod. Ironically, complaints on such actions tend to be deleted off the forum he lists as a reference about his article by any moderator that frequents his personal forums."

More ridiculous slander. Completely unfounded, unsupported slander. Nothing he claims here is true. More evidence that SWVRoma is just trying to get the article removed as a personal attack.

"I am also intreagued to know how a typoing an unsigned name when you are attributing a source is derogatory. As it didn't exist before, the name most certainly wasn't edited in!"

It was signed before... wth. Whatever.

"I also protest his unfounded, unsupported claims that I had anything to do with this article in the past."

Who cares if it was you personally; it was either you or part of your small cadre of friends that sees me as some great enemy. This is just part of the same cycle.

"Perhaps more than one person knows of the history of this mod?"

The history of the mod includes nothing of your accusations, so it would just be another person trying to slander me.

71.118.82.83 19:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"All lead to the creator's personal spaces, personal threads on community forums, or where his mod appears merely as a self-sbumitted advertisement."

"Personal threads" with information from dozens/hundreds of other people, perhaps. There is plenty of information, good and bad, to be found there from all sorts of people. Certainly not "personal" in any way. If you would like to help improve the article by adding anything relevant, please do so. Second, there is now a link from an independent source that has nothing to do with Fyron, thus invalidating this point entirely.

"It is entirely self-made information, which lends credit to the Neutral Point of View argument."

Not true. There is no credit to the Neutral Point of View argument. If you have real, non-slanderous information to add to the mod article, please feel free to add it. If your concern really is the NPOV, then help fix it. Wikipedia is about collaborating on articles, not destroying them. But many do not think this is your goal at all...

"Many mods that have articles within wikipedia are frequently mentioned in gaming magazines and professional gaming sites rather just by their creator."

This one has mentions from plenty of people/sites that are not its creator, so this is invalid. The rest of the point is trying to invoke some sort of popularity contest, which I do not think is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. There are countless articles that are only of interest to small groups of people; so what if this hasn't been mentioned in a gaming magazine? How does it hurt Wikipedia?

The vast majority of the anti-arguments here have been unsupported libel and slander, having nothing at all to do with the purpose of Wikipedia or the expansion of the useful information it provides. A few semi-valid points have been thrown in, but they can be addressed easily (and have been started to be addressed). And frankly, it is not the article author's fault that noone ever wanted to add their own information to the article. Apparently, everyone (save SWVRoma) was quite satisfied with the unbiased information it presented. The article deletion is not appropriate, and should be dismissed. Improving the article is a far more appropriate course of action.

71.118.82.83 05:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • 1) The standards have already been stated and set.

2) The hangon is to be deleted, as it says on the object itself. Just because it can be missed doesn't mean it shall be. If the coulds were all one followed, all would be afraid of leaving their beds in the morning. You're just showing again that you have an overactive persecution complex.

3) The author of this article/creator of the adamant mod knows fully well about problems with usings peoples work and reposting it without permission.

• Can you be more specific? You keep saying this but I've never seen any actual "proof" and I'm not talking about similarities in concepts/ideas because any two SE:IV mods will contain these. And if you are talking about the "Ultimate Mod", that was an obsure and barely released work, and I sincerely doubt that the Adamant mod's author ever bothered with it. Captain Kwok

4) No, no it wasn't. At least not when I saw it. I can't really fathom why someone would delete only a signed name from a comment. Seems asinine.

5) Persecution complex again and unsubstantiated.

6) See above.

7) The Captain Kwok review also isn't a neutral or valid source either, his website being an affiliate of this article and mod's creator.

• I can assure you that I run my website indepently to the Adamant mod's author wishes. Captain Kwok

It's not a grudge, it's about keeping the article creator honest as well as to keep Wikipedia clean of spam and advertisements. He (the article creator "Fyron") originally created the article, in his own words, as a project for his class teacher.

• You say it is not a grudge, but are mostly arguing unsubstantiated claims about "stealing" work etc. Since you only later decided to argue based on its wiki merits, I find it vindictive on your part. Captain Kwok

The question isn't how does the article hurt Wikipedia. It's how does it improve it. This article does nothing of the sort, being naught but an advertisement. SWVRoma 05:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article comes across as matter-of-fact and gives some detail about the mod. Yes, it is true that the article could be condensed with a link (or as a blurb with link in the SE:IV page mod section) to the mod's website for a more detailed description. But what is upsetting is that its not the reason you started this debate... and somehow I doubt if another user had a SE:IV mod page you'd be so persistent. Captain Kwok

The article is most certainly not an "advertisement" or "spam." It's contribution to Wikipedia is the same as every other article, to provide more information on a topic. There is no "persecution complex," there is only reaction to the slander you keep repeating SWVRoma. There has never been any dishonesty on the part of the article creator. You keep repeating the "using peoples work and reposting it without permission" bit, but you provide absolutely no evidence of this. The burden of proof is on you. Since you have no evidence, it is merely slander. Now you attack Kwok's integrity as well. Admins, please dismiss this whole case. It is clearly not about Wikipedia, it is about attack. 71.118.82.83 07:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Usenet. If you want to argue please don't do so in article talk space. Jefffire 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot

Shouldn't we update the screenshot to the new Deluxe intro screen? The current one is from Gold edition, I think --Mindeye 02:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 'Maybe a screen shot from each version of the game? 72.146.100.204 17:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

General opinion on this article

I don't mean to step on toes here since I'm a dedicated SEIV player myself, but my general opinion of this article is that it is not very encyclopedic. Rather than talking about the details in the game like what races exist etc that people who hadn't seen the game don't care anyway, it's better to talk more about what technical and genre innovations that this game brought to the market; things like how it appeals to people who enjoy very complex management challenges; and perhaps a little history plus how the game developed by essentially a one-man company gets distributed and marketed (as opposed to the big names) etc. CW 19:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

True True - have at it. Morphh ^(talk) 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SpaceEmpires4-001.png

Image:SpaceEmpires4-001.png 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) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot for the quickstart screen

Why is the screenshot for the quickstart screen reduced in resolution so that you can't read the descriptions?

This is not print media, no one is planning to make a wall poster with that picture and sell it for profit. It is certainly inconceivable that someone will be able to 'use' it to create a imitation version of the game.

In short there is no good reason to reduce the resolution for that screenshot apart from a rather baffling application of overly zealous wiki-rules.

Could we please get a full-sized version of that screenshot instead?

--I (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• https://web.archive.org/web/20020807004450/http://www.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r14156.htm
• https://web.archive.org/web/20021104101650/http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/history_spaceempire/p3_10.html