This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DragonFable article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

WikiProject Artix Entertainment	(Rated Start-Class)	Artix EntertainmentWikipedia:WikiProject Artix EntertainmentTemplate:WikiProject Artix EntertainmentArtix Entertainment articles
v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Artix Entertainment, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Artix Entertainment and their games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject Video games	(Rated Start-Class, Low-importance)	Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
Video games portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help with: edit · history · watch · purge A membership list has been started. If you are an active member, be sure to list yourself as such. Peer review: Crash Nitro Kart, Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir, Bayonetta, DJ Hero, Halo: Reach Featured content candidates – FA candidates: The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, Sacrifice, School Rumble - FL candidates: List of songs in DJ Hero Good content candidates: Scribblenauts, A Boy and His Blob (2009 video game), Izuna 2: The Unemployed Ninja Returns, Guitar Hero On Tour series, Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, Steins;Gate, Saw, Brütal Legend, Tifa Lockhart, Xenogears, Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, Michael Salvatori, Mario, Final Fantasy II, Defender (video game), Sword of Aragon, Final Fantasy IV, Aquaria, Hildegard von Krone, Band Hero Final Fantasy XII (GTC) - Music: Yasunori Mitsuda, Takahito Eguchi, Hiroki Kikuta, Noriko Matsueda, Jeremy Soule, Inon Zur Article status review – FA Review: Final Fantasy VIII Bounty board: Wario, Beyond Good & Evil (March 28, 2010) / Reward board: Beyond Good & Evil (GA), Beyond Good & Evil 2 (GA) Pages for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Announce your new pages. Grant requests if they are suitable for inclusion. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Remember to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to every video game article, template, category, image and project Talk page. Monitor changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Help clean up articles in Category:Video game cleanup or translate Japanese-language articles. Remember to get articles you've significantly improved re-assessed. Sign up for the VG Newsletter.

The following users are actively involved with this article, and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Eruhildo (talk), Alinnisawest (talk), Ronan Alifar (talk) This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Necropolis or Doomwood? 2 Length 3 Bacon? 4 Dragon Coins 5 POV, Rewrite 6 New Editor(s) 7 Uhhh...Base Classes/Armors section of DF 8 Stuff to remove 9 Errors in the Article 10 Clean up update 11 Re:DF Base Classes/Armors 12 Doom cloak?!? 13 Paladin Class 14 Player vs. character 15 Quality Scale 16 Edit summary 17 DF links 18 Dragonfable Logo 19 Moonridge/Necropolis 20 Weapons 21 Dragon Amulet 22 Complaints Section 23 Moonridge/Mooncrest 24 DF wiki articles 25 Bank Added and Class List 26 Ballyhoo's back! 27 Notability 28 DF updates... 29 Houses 30 Unreleased Classes/Special Classes 31 Class Skill Access 32 Sections for Archknight? 33 Problems with the article 34 Question about "meh" 35 DragonFable Wiki to cite references?

[edit] Necropolis or Doomwood?

There is a so called town named Doomwood in the article where clearly, in the game, it says Necropolis if you use the travel button. So I think people should keep it at Necropolis because that is what it is in game. And Doomwood is only where the Necropolis is located at. Den5328954 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Den5328954

However, as of yet, the Necropolis is not accessible, Doomwood is. I reworded the description to reflect that the Necropolis is the only accessible place in Doomwood. Please use the <!-- --> tags to insert a comment (such as your about the griffin) into article text, or simply provide an edit summary. That makes things a lot easier to differentiate between vandals and dedicated users. Thank you for contributing! Alinnisawest (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length

As it stands, this article is far too long for a Wikipedia article. Information from it needs to be trimmed according to WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:IINFO. If formatted according to policies and guidelines the article would be about, I estimate, one-seventh of its current length. That means no fanboy over analysis and no directories of items. In short, things need to be removed from this article. A lot of things. Sticky Light 05:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Controversies should be deleted, it's absolutely rediculous, knowing DF has comical nature often making parodies of other games, movies, etc. The examples given are no exception. The bag space complaint is also fairly stupid, almost every RPG has limited item space, DF is no exception. Xan's description's also fairly long, and should be trimmed. Additional classes should be merged with classes/armours. Design Notes are not really part of the game and are uneeded. The War Notes are just useless aditions that have no place in the article. Soon to Come and Unreleased classes also don't add much to the article. Those are the ones that bring up my attention the most.

There is a seperate page for lists of characters for DF so why not make pages for towns, and classes? Also. The critical feedback is quite long enough. I think the critical feed back is very long and some of the info is not even needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Den5328954 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is an old discussion and not everything in it applies to the current article. Just because there is a page for the characters doesn't mean other splits are justified (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). In my opinion, not even the characters article is justified and it should be merged. We are currently cleaning up the critical feedback section. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bacon?

What kind of a type is bacon!??! Battle Piggy is NATURE!!!--jackowaco 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does there even need to be a list of pets? I say it's just taking up space. In fact, there's not even a need for a list of towns.--jackowaco 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the pet list needs to go, the town list isn't really that big so I think it could stay, but the pet list is simply idiotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.47.87 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Coins

If it is unnecessary to own a Dragon Amulet in order to purchase DCs, the why is Dragon Coins a sub-section under Dragon Amulet?--jackowaco 13:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

An excellent question. Perhaps they could be grouped under a heading Upgrades with seperate sections for Dragon Amulets and Dragon Coins? If there's no objections, I can do that next week. Alinnisawest (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (Yay, just went to Target, now have a DRAGON AMULET!!!)

[edit] POV, Rewrite

Both-

"A lot of fun"...POV

I have, very good, grammar.- yeah...

Someone with GRAMMAR and SPELLING skills, please rewrite...

[edit] New Editor(s)

Err... I am new to the whole wiki-editing thing, but I have been playing DF since the beta so I got kind of irked when I saw the bad grammar and stuff in this article. I recently edited it and I hope to do future edits as well... I will re-read this entire thing pretty often to check for grammar/spelling/conventions so ya...

Anyways, I created this section so anybody with complaints about grammar/spelling/conventions can post them here and I will deal with them as soon as possible. I will only do "minor" edits as in I won't be dealing with formatting the wiki-page, just the content.

DarkXymphony (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uhhh...Base Classes/Armors section of DF

May I put the section of Base Classes/Armors section in a new page? The whole page of DragonFable seems long for me Enterprise-1701e (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you hold off on that for a couple of days? I plan to do some major revisions to this article during my spring break. After that, if the article is still too long it should probably be ok to split it. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait for those revisions. Enterprise-1701e (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To Eruhildo: Are you done with those revisions? I'm itching to put it in a new page. Enterprise-1701e (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff to remove

I'm about to remove the section about references to other media and thought that some people would want the list preserved somewhere, so I was going to put it over on the DragonFable Wiki but discovered that I apparently need an account to edit anything (even the talk pages) over there. I was wondering if anyone had an account and wanted to help me out with this?

I also plan to remove the list of wars and the list of events. They are listed on the DragonFable Wiki under Category:Wars and Category:Events. Someone might want to double check that all the same data is over there as is over here since I do not plan to do so. --Eruhildo (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I support what you want to do. I cannot because I do not know how to create a page; I can only edit it. Enterprise-1701e (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody *please* work on trimming the list of references to media down? I'd do it, but I don't have time. Alinnisawest (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed it entirely, as well as the other stuff I said I would. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in the Article

"Sandsea Saga : Working for the Emperor: 3 Quests-Currently 3 Bosses: Anubis Knight, Sandwitch, Zhoom, and Sphinxter"

I presume this is an error; could somebody who's actually completed this part of the saga check it out for me? I'm stuck at the Mumragon, so I don't know if there's actually 4 bosses, or if one of those listed is actually not a boss. Alinnisawest (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I think there are only 3 bosses, since the last time I played DragonFable the Emperor had 3 quests. Enterprise-1701e (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You actually battle Zhoom in the quest "Zhowdown", but actually the last monster to beat is Sphinxter. By the way, they're both the same level as your characters.Captain | contribs 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the Anubis Knight is not a boss, you verse him multiple times in the last quest. (121.72.237.224 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Clean up update

Sorry it's taken me so long to get this done - I got distracted with cleaning up the MechQuest article and then with reviving our WikiProject, plus there's always that school thing. I'm about 60-70% done with cleaning now. The main part left is the plot section. Speaking of which, I may end up merging the List of Characters in DragonFable into this article if it doesn't have enough notable characters, so be prepared for that too. I hope to get this finished fairly soon, but I make no promises. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! It looks much better now. I noticed you (or someone) removed the section on Wars, though. Shouldn't they at least be mentioned in passing in the article? They are important events, even if we don't need a whole section for them. Alinnisawest (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alinnisawest, Eruhildo removed the wars section. May I put it instead in a new page? I don't have time for sources, you have. Captain | contribs 10:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The wars aren't notable enough to justify they're own section, let alone their own article. But you're right Alinnisawest, they are notable enough to be mentioned in the article as a recurring event. Thank you for pointing that out - I didn't think about it when I removed the section. I think I'll work it into the Annual Events section and rename it as Regular Events or something like that. That seems like the best place for it anyway. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Better is "Regular Wars" rather than "Regular Events" as DF wars continue to appear every year. Captain | contribs 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we could just add "Wars are also a regular event in DF... blah blah blah" after the list of holidays. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Captain | contribs 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the worst edit I've ever done is on the page and waiting for some kind soul to fix. I was trying to put in how there's traditionally a war at Frostval and on Friday the 13th, but I don't think I did it very well. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:DF Base Classes/Armors

Eruhildo, when can I put the Base Classes/Armors in a new page? I'm totally itching to do this. Captain | contribs 10:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain it will need to be split, but after I finish with the DragonRider class and the special classes I'll know for certain. I'll try to finish that over the weekend. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I completely forgot about that part. I'll get on it. After that, it's just the complaints section left. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doom cloak?!?

As the creator of the doom weapon section I am very disappointed that you would include something like the doom cloak as it is not A weapon in the slightest. Please give a reason for including or I may delete as it has nothing to do with the doom weapons. Ļăŋ (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern with the quality of this article. I've recently been cleaning the article up and have not had a chance to get to the doom weapon section yet. I don't remember there even being a doom cloak in the game, so I'll probably end up removing it. I plan to cut down the section a lot and move it to a more appropriate position in the article. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Oh, I found info on the Doom cloak. Apparently it can only be used during certain events. See here for details. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It was available last weekend (March 28-30) in a special DA-only wekend shop. It will be upgradable in the "upcoming Doomwood expansion", as I believe its description says. I have one!! I imagine it's similar to the doom weapons in that it is doom-related and will be upgradable. If more doom stuff is released, we should probably change that section to "Doom Items" and have all of the weapons/accessories there. Alinnisawest (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, at which point it should no longer be a subsection of weapons. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the Doom section should be moved out of the weapons section (and to the plot section) and shortened very significantly, to the degree that it simply mentions that the items exist and seem to have an important role in the storyline. Listing the items may be too much information for Wikipedia. If people want more in-depth information on the game, they can go to its website (correct link now), the related forums or dfwiki. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that way, please do so. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Beleg, but the link for the DragonFable website is Dragonfable not [1]. Please remember this, at the latter link will cause a redirect. Thanks Captain | contribs 22:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As this cloak is not a important item connected to the story line and I doubt an future items with "Doom" in them will be valid to the story line a section for doom items is unnecessary Ļăŋ (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A recent change in the MOS says that we shouldn't list weapons or items at all. All we should be doing is explaining how doom weapons work. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paladin Class

OK, so I just went through the Moonridge war (Doomwood is coming!!! Yay!!!) and the new Artix has a *lot* of new stuff to talk about. He says we'll be able to purify our doomies (note to self: buy one) and there will be a paladin class. So should we add this to the classes yet or hold off until we know more about it? (if you want to see what he says about it, go to the Moonridge war and talk to Artix) Alinnisawest (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: On the homepage, the Seppy animation has been replaced with the new Artix NPC and some text about the Necropolis. It says: "The Quest for the Darkness Orb will take you to new places, battling new monsters, unlocking new classes (including Paladin and Necromancer) and put the fate of the world in your hands... Join the event now!" So both Paladin and Necromancer classes will be coming. Could we put in a mention of "Coming Classes" or something? Alinnisawest (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Loi, "Darkness Orb". Hmm.. I think it would be best to not mention a class until it's actually released. Think of it this way: it's not really something that someone who's never played the game needs to know even if they wanted to start playing. Check out WP:GAMECRUFT. Thanks for bringing this up. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that Paladin class should be included on the Free classes section when it's released. It might cause confusion. Captain | contribs 04:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Provided it's a free class. LK Arthas (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)LK Arthas

Most likely, it would be free, though half of the skills require DA status. Classes that are related to Dragon Amulet require the Dragon Amulet. By the way, would like to join the AE wikiproject? You seem to know a lot about AE. We could use an extra hand.Captain | contribs 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Player vs. character

I would like to see this article emphasize the difference between a player (i.e. someone playing the game) and a character (i.e. an in-game hero being controlled by a player).

For example, in the section Gameplay it currently says (emphasis mine) "In DragonFable players are able to walk around and explore a 2D world." In reality, the "player" does not walk around: the player's "character" does. Here is a suggestion for rewording this particular entry: "In DragonFable, players navigate their characters (the in-game heroes) through a 2D world."

Is there some general (or even Wiki) rule to be followed when distinguishing between player and character? Any objections to me going through the entire article and making that distinction clear wherever appropriate?

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I have no particular objection. Alinnisawest (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do so. I've recently been cleaning up all AE article (they were a real mess) and I've used player and character a little interchangeably. It's something I was trying to avoid, but sometimes I had a bit trouble coming up with a good way to word things. Really, all of my work needs a good clean up itself. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Scale

OK, so this article is "Start-class" on the quality scale. Who makes the judgements on the class? Is it with a peer review or something like that? If so, what needs to be done to this article so we can submit it and (hopefully) get a higher class? I'd really like to see this article improve!! Alinnisawest (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alinnisawest (Do you have a nickname? like Alin?), =} I agree that we should do our best to get this article to a high quality ASAP. To that end, I suggest we model the style and content of this article after a successful game article. For example, we could use Halo 3 (a "featured article") as a template. What do you say? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Artix Entertainment/Assessment. Since I'm still in the process of cleaning everything up, I rated it as Start class. Once I finish and y'all go through my work it will probably be at B class (I'd like some more refs from non-AE sites though). As for improving the article, the best thing to do first is to get it to comply with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we need more external links... what sort of links should we be looking for? I can try to find some... do we want reviews on game review sites? There's also Artix's interview for Gamezone [2]. Alinnisawest (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think more external links will cut it. We need more Reference sources that are not from AE supported sites like Gamezone, or any other game-rating site. I have read that interview and I don't think it pertains to anything DF related. It just tells about how AE was started and stuff like that. It would probably fit better in the Artix Entertainment article.

ɫ§Veonyx§ɫ ^{~Talk to Me~}_{~My Acts~} 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just call me Alin. It's the name of a character in a story I once wrote, and her name is actually Alin Nisawest... back on topic, should we add this to the video games wikiproject? If we're going by those guidelines, I mean? Things can be in multiple wikiprojects, right? (wow, that was a lot of question marks!) I guess one place to start working on the article is removing or editing the stuff that's only valuable to players. Alinnisawest (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, articles can fall under more than one project. WP:ARTIX is a subproject of WP:VG, so putting it under both is kind of redundant. Though I guess it doesn't matter one way or the other. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other featured articles that we can use to fix the DragonFable article? I hope it's a long article and it's an online game. It'll be good for all AE articles. Captain | contribs 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, and Final Fantasy X are all FA articles on RPGs. Final Fantasy XI is also FA and is on an MMORPG. MapleStory is close to GA status and is also on an MMORPG. I can't really think of more right now, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured articles has all the VG project's FA articles listed and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good articles has the GA ones. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

I would like to encourage everyone to always provide an edit summary when making updates to the actual article. For example, an editor removed a link I had added to Sepulchure, but no reasoning was given. Without knowing why the update was made, I am tempted to simply undo it. To avoid having your edits simply undone, please explain the edit within the "Edit summary" field.

If either you forget to give a summary or feel that the "Edit summary" field does not offer adequate space for your explanation, then please post your reasoning for the edit here in the talk page.

Thanks! :)

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Edit summaries help a lot. I try to put one for every edit I make. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have it set to remind me! It's so much more helpful when you're scanning the history for recent changes. Alinnisawest (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DF links

I am wondering about what links are the most appropriate... I have recently added both internal (i.e. Wikipedia) and external links to the article, but I think some consistency should be expected. For all in-game info, what kind of links should we use? There are basically three sources:

1. Wikipedia itself, for example: List of DF Characters
2. DragonFable Wikipedia
3. BattleOn.com DF Forums

Personally, I think we should link directly to the BattleOn.com DF Forums, as this information is the most reliable and most up-to-date. It will take the most effort (as linking to Wikipedia internally is by the far the quickest and easiest), but it has the highest payoff. Any other opinions?

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Use internal links within the article. The DF wiki and the DF forum are already linked to at the bottom of the article and don't need links to specific pages of them here at least 95% of the time. Also note that any part of the forum that was not posted by an official staff member should not be linked to here unless it's for the criticism section or something like that. The AE articles are still a work in progress so we won't be able to link to everything we might need to right now. Check out WP:LINKS for more details. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this link? (DragonFable) Captain | contribs 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonfable Logo

Should the Dragonfable logo be added to the info. box on the article? There are logo's for MQ and AQ why not DF? ɫ§Veonyx§ɫ ^talk_{to me} 22:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded an edited screenshot of the logo. Please tell me if it is ok. Here is how it will look in the info. box, I don't even think it needs to be scaled down:

~ɫ§Veonyx§ɫ ^talk_{to me} 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks nice! Alinnisawest (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... now that I'm looking at it and looking at random VG article info. box images, it may be to big. I'm going to change it to a scale of 200px from the original. ɫ§Veonyx§ɫ ^talk_{to me} 18:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It'll be nice to get something on that page. One step closer to a higher rating for this page! Alinnisawest (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That and it looks very unprofessional. You look at the AQ, and MQ articles and see this nice pic, and then you come here and its like, "Where's the picture?". By the way, that was exactly what I said to myself when I saw it ^-^.

ɫ§Veonyx§ɫ ^{~Talk to Me~}_{~My Acts~} 18:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been meaning to fix that (always did think it was weird that there wasn't already one there). What's to the side right now looks fine, though I think it may look better without the dragon (cropped to just below the shield). --Eruhildo (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me as long as the picture's not deleted. Captain | contribs 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be cropped and some backround context taken out (the wing behind the shield). I should have a new one within a few days (as I have homework to do -_-) and it will be put right onto the article when finished. As for this one I will put that template on its page to be deleted.

ɫ§Veonyx§ɫ ^{~Talk to Me~}_{~My Acts~} 23:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I tried cutting out the wing once, but gave up. (Graphics editing is a pain in MS Paint.) --Eruhildo (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is done! YAY! Anyway, I don't use MS paint (as you have realized, it is a pain) I use a program similiar to Photoshop that came with my printer.

ɫ§Veonyx§ɫ ^{~Talk to Me~}_{~My Acts~} 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work - it looks great! Good job with the rationale too. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• sings Hallelujah Chorus* Very nice. The page was looking... so... un-game-y. All the other games have a logo or screenshot, except DF. Nice!!! Alinnisawest (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moonridge/Necropolis

Could someone give me a cite saying which it is? It keeps getting switched back and forth, and I'm too tired and lazy to look it up right now. --Eruhildo (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Moonridge. The Necropolis is apparently an underground city of necromancers. As nothing is really known about the Necropolis, we probably shouldn't add it yet. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you wanted a cite, didn't you? I suppose it would be on the forums... unfortunately I'm at school and they blocked all games/forums, so I can't find one right now. It may be in the DNs. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons

I have noticed that throughout this article the term "weapon" or "weapons" is being used when what is actually meant is weapons (i.e. daggers, staves, swords, wands, etc.), accessories (i.e. belts, capes, helms, necklaces, rings, etc.), pets, etc. Essentially, the word "weapons" is being used when, in actuality, "equipment" or "awards" should be used instead. I will go through (while making my other updates, as mentioned above) and correct this issue as well. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven't notoiced it. I will also go through the article once again. (FINALLY! SOMETHING TO DO!)Captain | contribs 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Amulet

I would like to submit the following verbage to replace the current Dragon Amulets section. I believe my suggestion to be more in line with the kind of details typically found within Wikipedia. In part, I also feel that mentioning pricing is not a good idea--let the DragonFable website do that.

Though DragonFable may be played without any form of payment, Artix Entertainment offers a wide variety of in-game incentives for players to upgrade their accounts by purchasing (with real-world money) a "Dragon Amulet". Players who have purchased a Dragon Amulet are referred to as "DA-holders". DA-holders may create up to six characters, instead of the standard three, and are granted access to every playable aspect of the game (many of which are restricted from non-paying players). A comprehensive list of in-game features offered solely to DA-holders is maintained within the DragonFable forums.^[1] In general, those characters which have been equipped with a Dragon Amulet may experience the following kinds of benefits:

• Access to DA-only areas, quests and battles.
• The ability to equip DA-only items, such as special weapons and armor.
• The ability to mount a full-grown dragon.

The Dragon Amulet upgrade is similar to Artix Entertainment's "Guardianship" upgrade in AdventureQuest and "Star Captain" upgrade in MechQuest.

Dragon Amulets may be purchased from the DragonFable website. Upgrade cards (similar to gift cards) are also available at participating Target stores within the US.^[2]

Please let me know what you think. I will assume it is OK, if no feedback is received relatively soon. Thanks for the quick feedback! :)

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of those wikilinks aren't needed since they're linked to earlier in the article. The external links are not needed at all. Also, boldface should not be used like that per WP:BOLDFACE. You are right that we don't really need to list the prices. Some of that looks too much like advertisement for my taste, though. So how about something like this:

Though DragonFable may be played without any form of payment, players can purchase a "Dragon Amulet" which allows users access to special areas, quests, weapons, and other items which are not accessible to non-paying players. Players who have purchased a Dragon Amulet are referred to as DA-holders. DA-holders can create six characters instead of three, and also have the opportunity to make their character a DragonLord with full control of the character's dragon and its customization. Dragon Amulets can be purchased from the DragonFable website or using an upgrade card which can be purchased in Target stores located in the US.^[3] The Dragon Amulet has the same functionality as the Guardianship upgrade in AdventureQuest and the Star Captain upgrade in MechQuest.

I will change the other two articles to match this one when we come to a final conclusion. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to say, Beleg's right, it *does* need to be fixed. Whichever you guys decide is best, I'm OK with. Alinnisawest (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Eruhildo, thank you for your feedback: it was very helpful! :) I have updated my original suggestion (see above), having implemented some of Eruhildo's suggestions/corrections. I believe that the remaining parenthetical comments add clarity to the topic and will be helpful to the reader. Though accurate, I consider the inclusion of the Dragon Lord benefit to be an example of giving too much information, as it already falls within the benefit types "DA-only armor" and "mount full-grown dragon". Do you agree that my compromise is satisfactory or do you have additional suggestions? (By the way, I am also working on a complete re-write of the Gameplay section, specifically using the article on Halo 3 as a template.) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you not change your previous posts? It makes it harder to tell what changes have been made. I don't really see a need to list out what a DA gives you in bullet form. I also don't see a need for multiple paragraphs. The word "incentive" just sounds wrong to me for some reason. I don't really think "payment" needs to be linked to 'cause if the reader doesn't know a payment is they won't know what "purchase" or probably "money" means either. There's no need to link to a guide on DAs even with a ref. Don't need quotes around Star Captain or Guardianship (that should be Guardian in this context now that I think about it). I prefer to avoid using parenthesis in articles as slight rewording can usually render them unnecessary, plus I think they look a bit unprofessional. I made a couple of changes, is this better? (Changes in bold):

Though DragonFable may be played without any form of payment, players can purchase a "Dragon Amulet" with real world money, which allows users access to special areas, quests, weapons, and other items which are not accessible to non-paying players. Players who have purchased a Dragon Amulet are referred to as DA-holders. Unlike non-paying players, DA-holders can create six characters instead of three, and also have the opportunity to make their character a DragonLord with full control of the character's dragon and its customization. Dragon Amulets can be purchased from the DragonFable website or using an upgrade card which can be purchased in Target stores located in the US.^[4] The Dragon Amulet has the same functionality as the Guardian upgrade in AdventureQuest and the Star Captain upgrade in MechQuest.

By the way, I suggest you use Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, and MapleStory as models for the Gameplay section as they are RPGs. Halo 3 doesn't really match. Also I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines before making major changes. I just went through and cleaned out the Gameplay section to better comply with the article guidelines recently. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestion on using those RPG's!

OK, here's another attempt at a compromise, but first I will list my disagreements.

• Some parenthetical comments are good, but those that can be removed should be, so I have left one of them and am consenting to remove the others.
• I don't think it is really possible to over-Wiki-link. If someone doesn't want to know the definition of a word, then he doesn't have to click on it. The point of having Wiki-links is clarification without changing topics.
• I like your rewording of the comment "Artix Entertainment offers a wide variety of in-game incentives for players to upgrade their accounts by purchasing (with real-world money) a 'Dragon Amulet'," but the point I was trying to make is that AE is constantly tempting free players to purchase a DA. I think this point should be made somewhere in the article. Why not in the actual DA section? Maybe its more appropriate within the Complaints section... What do you think?
• I still think some kind of link to the DF forums is both useful and appropriate.
• To me, it makes sense to separate the benefits discussion from the purchase discussion by making them into two paragraphs. With that being said, I have placed the upgrade comparison comment, though slightly redone, into the first paragraph. By the way, these upgrades do not offer the same functionality exactly but similar functionality. That is why I am using the word "similar".
• I just simply like my wording of the Target upgrade cards section better, =} and I feel that the parenthetical comment, that they are similar to gift cards, is both helpful and appropriate.

Anyhow, here's the reword (My updates, from yours, are bolded.):

Though DragonFable may be played without any form of payment, players may purchase a "Dragon Amulet" with real-world money. A Dragon Amulet, also referred to as a "DA", grants users access to special areas, quests, skills, weapons, and other items which are not accessible to non-paying players. Players who have purchased a DA are referred to as "DA-holders". Unlike non-paying players, DA-holders may create up to six characters, instead of three, and also have the opportunity to upgrade their character(s) to the status of DragonLord, with full control of each character's dragon and its customization. A comprehensive list of in-game features offered solely to DA-holders is maintained within the DragonFable forums.^[5] The DA upgrade is similar to Artix Entertainment's Guardian upgrade in AdventureQuest and Star Captain upgrade in MechQuest.

Dragon Amulets may be purchased from the DragonFable website. Upgrade cards (similar to gift cards) are also available at participating Target stores within the US.^[6]

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to over wikilink ^_^, but I agree with your changes - I think I've been a little too stubborn about my opinions, sorry about that. I think it should be stated more clearly that AE is always tempting (or perhaps annoying is a better word? ^_^) free players to buy a DA. Probably the best place to put that is the complaints section though. I like the way you worded the sentence about DAs in the DF forums. There's only three things I'd see changed: first - and least important - is writing out that lone "DA" as "Dragon Amulet" - not a big deal, it just sounds funny to me when I read "Players who have purchased a DA...". Second, the link on "gift cards" should be [[Scrip#Gift certificates|gift cards]] to avoid using the redirect. Last of all, I don't want to associate "upgrade" and "status" with "DragonLord" as it's a class. I think it would be better to reword it to something like this: "...and also have the opportunity to upgrade their character(s) to the status of DragonLord, with full control of each character's dragon and its customization." → "...and also have access to the DragonLord class, which allows full control of the character's dragon and its customization." What do you think? --Eruhildo (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of your latest suggestions (including your rather humorous example of over-wiki-linking!). I will now officially update the article. Don't worry about being stubborn, as you have been very helpful, and though the process was a bit long and tedious, it was also quite beneficial. :) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Just a note though - there is no need for double spaces between sentences as they will be displayed as single spaces anyway. I'll get around to altering the AQ article to match either later today or tomorrow (or if someone else feels like doing it, have at it). If you think this was a long discussion, check out this discussion on the Spice and Wolf article - that's a long discussion. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints Section

I understand that we need to have a section for (quite valid) complaints about the game. However, this section is poorly worded, repetitive, and way too big. If we could possibly condense it, I think it would be a lot better. Maybe keep it down to a few key points:

• Not all quests/items/cutscenes available to free players
• Farming (speaking of which, why does the article call it grinding? Isn't it usually just called farming?)
• (maybe) Bag space

And whatever else seems very important. Most of it is just unnecessary. Any ideas? Alinnisawest (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the only section I haven't gone over yet, so it's still the original text. I agree with everything you said. I want to cut out anything we can't cite. I'd also like to have refs to websites other than the DF forums. I'm not too good at that sort of thing though, has anyone else seen mention of this stuff? --Eruhildo (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Something else to consider... Shouldn't only citable complaints be listed? The Complaints section should not be treated as a free-for-all whining section, which is typically what Complaints/Controversies sections become when citation is not being given. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! I think renaming it to "Reception" might help it not look like just a compilation of complaints. Check out WP:VG/GL#Critical content. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eruhildo! "Reception" is a good one, but is there another word we can use to replace "Complaints"? Captain | contribs 02:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The only other thing that comes to mind is "Criticism". Unfortunately, people often associate negativity with that word. --Eruhildo (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Critical Reception"? I saw it in the MapleStory article. It sounds, well, less negative than just "Criticism". Alinnisawest (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That could work too. It doesn't really matter to me which one we use though. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A good choice! Any other possible words? Even a dictionary (an old one) can't give me a synonym! Captain | contribs 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Feedback" or "Critical Feedback"? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I like that even better! Feedback sounds much better. It's much more neutral. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion to the project talk page as it applies to AQ and MQ as well. Please continue the discussion there. The link is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artix Entertainment#Complaints section name. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK!! Captain | contribs 07:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just created a page in my userspace so I can work on this section. It's at User:Alinnisawest/Critical Feedback. Please feel free to offer suggestions/advice on the talk page. I'm hoping to work on it over the next couple days and get something better worked out by, oh, Thursday. Or even tomorrow, if I get a move on. Alinnisawest (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, after an age, I'm back on. If you want to look at the page, I think I have the section relatively in order... comments are very much appreciated! If there's no issues, I can replace the current section sometime this week. Alinnisawest (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Although most reviews of the game are favorable, some criticism of it includes complaints about the existence of game content restricted to paid players, lack of inventory space, and the amount of farming that must be done to gain gold or experience.

How does this sound? "While the majority of DragonFable is available to free players, some quests and other game content are only accessible to paid players. This content includes titan fights, where the player's dragon becomes a full-sized dragon for battles against other large monsters, the ability to save starting items, and the special DragonLord armor. Some fights important to the storyline are also only available to Dragon Amulet holders with their Titan dragons. However, free players can usually still watch the cutscenes leading up to them." Alinnisawest (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Section added. Alinnisawest (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moonridge/Mooncrest

OK, let me explain the situation. The name of the new town was originally Moonridge. However, in a DN and on the newsletter, it was called Mooncrest. So, which is it? I'm a little confused about which way to go- it *did* say on the newsletter that it is Mooncrest, but they *did* say in the beginning that it was Moonridge. I'm going to go on the game again and see if it says ingame, but any advice on this? I really don't know whether to change it in the article or leave it as is. Alinnisawest (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Go with whatever the game calls it. I think I remember it being called Moonridge. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw something in the travel button. the places you can go to include "moonridge". Captain | contribs 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, on the news screen after you log in it says Moonridge. Probably they were deciding between Mooncrest and Moonridge, so someone accidentally put the wrong name in. On side note, is it possible to have a particular section of a page blocked for editing from IP users? They are driving me crazy with putting in paladin and necromancer and everything. Grr. I see that 29.something IP address in the history and I just shudder, because we have to fix it AGAIN. Alinnisawest (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can block just one section of an article. Also, it hasn't occurred frequently enough yet to justify a block in my opinion. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DF wiki articles

Do you see those boxes on the very bottom of this article? Well, I see a box that looks the same as the one down there in the middle of a DF wiki article (in this case, the Unlucky Shadow Reaper of Doom). Is it just me or it's really there? Captain | contribs 02:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Powered by MediaWiki" icon? That's the symbol of the software MediaWiki that both wikis use. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

NO. I meant the whole box. It includes the date it was last modified, how many times it was accessed, and of course the MediaWiki icon. It keeps on appearing where it is not supposed to be. Captain | contribs 12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's appearing at the very bottom for me, which I think is where it's always been. They may have changed it up recently (it looks a little taller to me), 'cause I've been noticing other changes they've made to the software over the last week or so. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It may have been they were editing the site at the same exact time you loaded it.

ɫ§Veonyx§ɫ ^{~Talk to Me~}_{~My Acts~} 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just really me. on this laptop though, it appears as a square box on the left side of the page. Then again, maybe it's me. Captain | contribs 02:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What operating system and internet browser are you using? --Eruhildo (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My computer uses IE 5 and is Windows XP Professional. Captain | contribs 03:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WOAH IE 5! Are you kidding! Sorry, but download IE 7, much better. Then again, laptops don't have much memory and IE 7 is 19 MB which isn't a lot on a normal computer but on some laptops... Anyway I'm kinda not helping, hehe... It is most likely your IE.

ɫ§Veonyx§ɫ ^{~Talk to Me~}_{~My Acts~} 00:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

IE7 stinks in my opinion, get Firefox ^_^. But on a more helpful note, I have no idea why it would be screwy other than the fact that your browser is ancient (are you sure it's not IE6?) and probably doesn't support some of the code Wikipedia uses. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is. Well, my Internet browser's at least 4 years old, including the times when my computer malfunctioned. The computer I'm using has broken down many times, maybe I just accidentally hit the CPU. Anyway, let's get back on track. The box with the Media Wiki icon always appears under the "toolbox", no matter how long the page is. Captain | contribs 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

PS:Oh damn, I thought my Internet brower is version 5, why do I keep thinking my browser's version 5? Mine's version 6. Sorry. Captain | contribs 04:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, us Google Chrome. Much easier then Explorer and Firefox combined, but it is still in Beta I think. (121.72.237.224 (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Bank Added and Class List

I hope I did it right but I added the bank system notes to the critical feedback about where the inventory is too small because I thought it might fit there. By the way, do you think we should make a graph like in Wikipedia (Adventurequest) or just plain delete the class list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Den5328954 (talk • contribs) 20:53, May 6, 2008

Thanks for adding the bank, when I wrote up the Critical Feedback section, it wasn't in the game yet and I was too lazy to add it afterwards! Also, good idea about the graph- I'm not sure if it's really necessary, though. There aren't too many classes in DF yet. Alinnisawest (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about doing something wrong - being bold and making edits like that one is important. I'd say the classes are fine for now. Hey, if you plan to edit AE related articles somewhat regularly, why don't you join our project? --Eruhildo (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I also knew about the bank (playing since May 4), but I forgot to include it because I was busy playing DragonFable. Anyway, it's good that there's another person contributing to this project. I agree with Eruhildo. Why don't you join us? Captain | contribs 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ballyhoo's back!

I just went to dfwiki awhile ago, and got the news that Ballyhoo has returned! She gives 50 Gold, but has a limit on how many time you can get gold in a day! YAHOO!!Captain | contribs 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she has an ad for Avatar: Volume 3 (yay, yay, Avatar+DF = amazing!!). Alinnisawest (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder to please stay focused and only use this talk page to discuss improving the article and to not discuss the subject itself per WP:TALK. Thanks! --Eruhildo (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes sir mister Eruhildo sir... do we need to put her in the article? She's not really as significant (if I can put it that way) as she is in AQ and MQ, where she has weapons (lifesaver for lower levels) and a movie theater. Alinnisawest (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think we have to put her there. She is a recurring character, and provided players their first taste of the DeathKnight Armor. I don't know if she's popular though. Captain | contribs 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Popularity dosen't really matter here, though I do think she may be significant enough to mention. I've been thinking for a while that we should have an article for the common elements in AE games (Ballyhoo, moglins, etc.), but I don't know - maybe it would be better to just include that stuff in the articles we already have. Any thoughts? (By the way, good job moving the conversation to the article, Alinnisawest ^_^). --Eruhildo (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I say put her. She does appear in all games, just as some moglins do. Captain | contribs 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Smooth, wasn't it? :) Yeah, we should probably throw her in there. Dunno what section though... I'll go have a look. Alinnisawest (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I've had a look through the references and this game does not currently appear to satisfy WP:N guidelines. Can any of the regular contributors work on, say, a "critical reception" section and highlight some reviews it may have receieved? (Of the professional variety; no reader reviews like at [3].)

At least one reference is also from a forum. This needs replacing or removing, per WP:Reliable sources. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we know it's lacking good sources right now. I've been meaning to work on it myself, but I've been too busy with school lately. --Eruhildo (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Eruhildo, why don't you give any good sources you know to the other editors? At least, you'd give some work to us. Captain | contribs 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really know any. ^_^;; Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources - that's where I plan to start from anyway. It's got a list of reliable sources; some of them might mention DF. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, just as a question... I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia, but couldn't something be considered notable (in the dictionary sense of the word) even if it hasn't received significant media coverage? There are many articles on topics that have not received significant media coverage, so is that really a criterion for the "notability" of a topic? The AE games have millions of accounts- sounds fairly notable to me. Of course, if you just mean that we need more references, I understand perfectly, but WP:N appears to imply that if it doesn't have significant media coverage, it shouldn't be on here. Alinnisawest (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to ignore WP:N and use my head on cases like this one. That doesn't mean I don't try to find refs though. But if I can't find refs right away, I don't panic about it and try to delete the article 'cause it doesn't meet WP:N. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, looks like this is reference day for me! Artix and Cy have mentioned some different reviews in the DNs... I'll see what I can dig up.

• internet-games.suite101.com/article.cfm/adventure_quest_online_rpg_review - AQ review, talks mostly about Guardianship (This site is blacklisted, but there's nothing wrong in the interview.)
• general interview by Artix - talks about all of AE, but mostly DF

I'll look for more later. I know there's several interviews/reviews out there, it's just hard to find them. Alinnisawest (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You want interviews? I've got interviews. ^_^ Yours is new though - great work! Too bad suite101 is blacklisted. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Review on Jay Is Games.
• Review on about.com.
• Review on Mac Observer. Someoneanother 02:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks so much for that! --Eruhildo (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DF updates...

I just made some updates on the article regarding the Necromancer and DeathKnight armors. I'll just add that Ninja and Pirate Inns are now open. Captain | contribs 11:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I apoligise for butting in, but I really don't think that you should say outright, "The Pirate/Ninja inn is now open." After all, you didn't do that for the Oasis Inn in the Sandsea when it came out late. Kentr Wrolfsong (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Swiftstar

Good point, removed that part. Sorry Enterprise. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I just forgot to go here when the Oasis Inn opened. Captain | contribs 04:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Houses

OK, houses just got released. I'll put in a section on them, but under what heading? At the top, with Levels and Stats and so on? Down by Setting? Or whatever? Alinnisawest (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess under Gameplay as a level 3 header. Probably after stats. I haven't played in a while, so I'm not certain, but I did read the design notes on it. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreleased Classes/Special Classes

OK, I really think we should not put unreleased classes (in this case, the dragonslayer armor) in the article. We can presume things about them, but it's all OR. So I don't think we should have them there.

What about Chickencowlord and Pumpkinwhatever? I vote for not having them in the article- they really aren't important. At all.- or at least merging them into the existing sections more neatly. Comments? --Alinnisawest(talk) 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Class Skill Access

Recently I attempted to put up what I thought was relevant information about the skills for class armors. It was to point out that Dragon Amulet players get full access to all skills, while free players have partial access. Someone else reverted my edit, which I have since reworded and put back. He claimed it was a Assume Good Faith edit and just trivia. I believe that information is notable and is something that most people who read the article would like to know. Should we allow this info to stay, or can someone explain why it is just trivia and not something important? Netavifromhell (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm split on this issue... on one hand, you could argue that it is a piece of trivia about the armors, but on the other, you could argue it's a valid piece of information about benefits for Dragon Amulet holders. I suppose if forced to say one way or another, I'd lean towards leaving it in there, provided it isn't too wordy. It's significant because it affects almost all of the armors in the game. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 13:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sections for Archknight?

Now that Archknight has been added, Dragonfable has essentially split into two games. I believe we should create a spot in the Plot section specifically for Archknight. It will probably become a larger feature in the game as it progresses. Another area could be placed in the gameplay section to outline how Archknight is accessed and how getting to it is different from the main game. Thoughts? Netavifromhell (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well... instead of adding it to two sections, why not simply give it a section of its own to cover everything? It'll undoubtedly become even more important as the game progresses. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Righto. Working on it now. Netavifromhell (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Finished. Now, hunting for vandalism and typos is my strong point, not major additions, so it probably needs some condensing. Feel free to examine. Netavifromhell (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't have much time at the moment, but I'll take a look at it tonight and see what I can do. Thanks a lot! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article

First up: "Critical feedback" - It's not Wikipedia's job to post unverified speculative criticism from unknown sources. What is needed is a "critical reception" that deals with criticism/praise from NOTABLE sources, E.g: Gamespot, 1up, or other such sites. Unless anyone objects, I'm gonna remove the critical feedback section for good and replace it with "Critical reception". Eik Corell (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Next up, the Dragon Amulet section: That was a swing and miss on my part; it shouldn't have been removed, but it should be cut down. Example:

"A comprehensive list of in-game features offered solely to DA-holders is maintained within the DragonFable forums.", it then points to where the players can see this list. This particular part is gameguide material; the article should deal with concept of these amulets, not where you can find lists of them and so on. Eik Corell (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree somewhat on the Critical Feedback section, but rather than removing it, I think what it really needs is expansion. Player response/criticism is a valid factor in feedback of a game, but reviews from notable sources are also necessary. So yes, I do object- rather than removing it, I believe it should be cut down severely and cited where possible and then have notable reviews also added in. I think both sides (player criticism/professional criticism) are necessary to accurately describe feedback/reception.

On DAs... yeah, that line about seeing more on the forums did need to be removed, and yeah, the section does need rewriting. I'll see about getting to it in the next few days (unless you'd like to rewrite it), although it may be delayed as I'm going to a wedding and family reunion this weekend/early next week. But just as a word of warning in the future, if a section has been around for a while, chances are no one has much of a problem with it. So instead of just removing it, try rewriting it or merging it into another section first. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The critical feedback section should be totally removed: And it could all theoretically just be someone having fun with the article because none of it can be verified. Criticism by players is for forums, not for Encyclopedic articles, because once again: None of it is verfiable. Also, be careful with the argument of a section having been there for a long time; it can also mean that noone cares for the article enough to do anything about it. Nearly all video articles suffer from this problem in one way or another. I'll have a look at the Dragon Amulet section, and I'll remove the Critical Feedback section because it's all speculation and none of it is verifiable. Eik Corell (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, while the critical feedback section may be unverifiable, it stil€l provides important information about the game- namely, what players think of it. I'm going to look for some references such as blog posts, etc. for that section, so please hold off removing it for a couple of days. If I don't come up with anything, you're free to rewrite it to focus on professional reviews rather than player feedback, although a couple of things (inventory slots, for example) are actually referenced properly (the inventory slots one was addressed in a DN when they first started offering them for purchase with DCs). So if a proper reference can be found (a staff notice about it in, for example, the DNs, a published article, etc.), it should stay.

On the argument of it being there a long time... yeah, I know. It is a pretty bad argument, especially when something is obviously bad. In this case, however, I can forgive you for thinking no one pays attention to the DF article- after all, you haven't really been involved in editing it for a long time. It underwent a substantial rewrite several months ago, and that section managed to make the cut, although it was uncited. I'd like to keep it if possible, however, because I really think player feedback is an important part of game articles, and if there isn't a precedent, perhaps we should start one. (The reason no one else does it, of course, is because it's so hard to verify. In this case, any long-term player of DF could verify all of the arguments, but that doesn't count as a verifiable reference, does it...) --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 02:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see you've removed the section completely again. Oh well. If I do find some verifiable references, I'll add it back, remove the uncited sections, and reference the rest. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 02:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions, and is not a publisher of original thought and that's unfortunately what player feedback is; unverifiable personal opinions. As for your question about sources, opinions from players of a game fail the requirements of being a reliable source and indeed not notable, as they're not established experts. Honestly, I think efforts would be better concentrated elsewhere, because even if you found a reference for it, you would still be breaking WP:NOTFANSITE, also which category would it be added under? Wikipedia does not have any recommended categories for such stuff, because it's generally discouraged. Eik Corell (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You do have a good point about it being more personal opinions than anything else... and in looking at potential references for this, I would have to say there is very little out there that would actually count as a verifiable reference. Meh, the problem is that the AE games don't have much news coverage... no one has been able to complain about it in a verifiable resource yet! I disagree with it breaking WP:NOTFANSITE, which actually has to do with personal essays, original research, discussion, that sort of thing. However, especially without references, its notability is pretty questionable.

So... even though I wish we could keep the section, after thinking about it, I do think it is impossible for us to reference it with verifiable references, and without those, there's not a chance it's actually notable. I'd suggest actually adding something to the "Reception" section, though, rather than just leaving it blank. (By the way, I'll be out of town and without access to the Internet for the next three or four days, so if I don't reply to something, it's not because I'm ignoring you!) --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question about "meh"

In Wikipedia's meh article, it was recently added that the word 'meh' has gained use from DragonFable by a character named Zorbak. Are any of you able to confirm this claim (or at least source that the character uses this word)? If you can help, please discuss this here. Tressif (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian has removed the unsourced claims from the page. Tressif (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DragonFable Wiki to cite references?

Is it possible to use the DragonFable Wiki to cite references for this article, or is it not allowed to use other wikis for citations? --Jackowaco 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)