Talk:Addventure

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Electronic literature

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic literature 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.Electronic literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic literatureTemplate:WikiProject Electronic literatureElectronic literature articles

Categorization

Is Addventure really suitable for Role-playing game category? That would tend to be stretching the term Role-playing game to include almost any game that involves any characters. GRuban 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check of what RPG usually means shows that your point is correct, so the RPG category has been removed. In addition, checking the Collaboration category gives similar results in terms of "not belonging there", so that one's removed too. KLSymph 03:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lots42?

I just saw Lots42 was an editor in the history section of this page. Anyone know if thats the /real/ Lots42? The guy who wrote thousands of pages on Addventure itself back in the day? 24.131.21.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it's him. JH (talk page) 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm infamous! Lots42 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic term?

Is "Addventure" a generic term for this sort of thing? At the time I was active in it (which was, granted, 6-7 years ago) I was under the impression that "Addventure" referred only to the ones at addventure.com, and possible the ones using the addventure.com source code. Even today, it's only the addventure.com derivatives using the name. (At least, I think the "Anime Addventure" is using a heavily-modified version of the addventure.com source code; it looks the same, which doesn't say much, but...) Beinsane 08:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know if there really is a generic term for this, besides the all-encompasing collaborative fiction, which refers to far more than these type of sites. Interactive story isn't quite right, either. But if you mention "Addventure" to anybody who's into this sort of thing, they'll know what you're talking about. --MisterHand 14:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Maximum Addventure

The Maximum Addventure is a valid addventure link.

Infinite Story

Surely you guys can't have any objection to the link being here considering all the rest of the ones that are currently listed. And the site MORE than fits the category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.89 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Links Gone?

What happened to most of the links to the games?

Lots42 01:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody removed them, commenting on their edit: "Re-add other well known ones, but beforehand there was just too many. We don't need a list of every addventure you can find." I wonder if a separate article called "List of addventures" would be a good idea? JH (talk page) 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it sounds good on the other hand, there's some really low quality addventures out there. Of course, one could argue I am biased, seeing as how much material I've contibuted to addventure-style games over the years. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a link to an outside page detailing all known addventures, just as long as the adult ones are in a seperate section. Lots42 07:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Characters is Useless

I don't think this section is useful to the article. There are more and more 'addventure' sites now and I would even call "addventure" a medium of storytelling. In an article about movies you don't list "common characters" etc. I realize that there is an internet culture around addventure so they are more connected than films are, but if we keep this section we're limiting the growth that addventure can have and as an introduction for people new to addventure that section can be quite alienating. Is there any objection to the removal of the section? 139.168.34.166 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that gives the impression that people new to Addventure games are limited TO these characters? Because then I would object, that is not the impression that section should give. Lots42 (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Advocate; some of these characters have been around for ten years or -more- over a multitude of websites. Just sayin'. Lots42 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Removing sources then claiming the article has no sources is very confusing. I re-added the sources and removed the no-source tag. Lots42 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source problems

Hi. The reason the sources get removed is because there are problems with them. The Phelps source ("Pixillating the Storyteller") is a self-published essay on a private website, and therefore does not qualify as a reliable source (see WP:RS). "Internet World" is an old hardcopy periodical of no obvious notability; you'd have to AT LEAST provide the publisher and country of publication to use it, and providing the relevant quotes from it would be helpful to those unable to trawl international libraries for it. WIRED Magazine is clearly a reliable source, but you'll need to provide the name of the article within it that you're using as reference, the author of the article, and, again, a quote would be helpful. The remaining links, being published by or for the purpose of Addventure, are not independent and probably not reliable. I should add that without the WIRED and Internet World sources, the topic also fails the general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG) and would be a candidate for deletion, so you should probably focus on fixing those as a first priority. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find the Wired article on the magazine's own online archive site, and have provided a link to the article there and some additional details. You don't mention citation [1], which I would have thought was a fairly good one? JH (talk page) 09:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation [1] is "the Phelps source"; it's a self-published essay on a private website, and hence not reliable. Thanks for improving the WIRED citation. My concern with that now is that the WIRED reference isn't "significant coverage", which leaves the whole article still in danger of not passing WP:N's requirement for "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". I'm not going to nominate it for AfD or anything but it would be great if you could find more support for the article to get it more clearly over that hurdle. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly irrelevant external link

Is there a reason for the third External Link on the page, the one to Ursula LeGuin's essay on plausibility in fantasy? It's a nice essay and all, but as far as I can see it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the article's topic. Maybe there's some connection I'm missing, but if no one replies here within the next week or so to explain the a reason for its inclusion I guess I'll go ahead and be bold and delete it... --Smeazel (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been a month and nobody's replied, so done. --Smeazel (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]