Jump to content

Talk:Football Manager 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Could we please alter the opening paragraph. I can see that this was relevant pre release (as it referes to demos etc), and before the patches were brought out but i can't help but feel that now the game is fully realease a new intro may be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.138.57 (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page (mainly the new features) is a bloody copy and paste job. Wikipedia are liable to get sued if this isn't removed soonGeorge bennett 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's pretty much the exact press release, so it's not copyrighted. But it certainly does need to be re-written, simply for encyclopedic and POV reasons. --Dreaded Walrus t c 16:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for where this article has come from

[edit]

http://fm08.footballmanager.net/en/article/101/1583.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George bennett (talk • contribs).

Yes, I know. Like I say, it's a press release. It's been recreated all over the net. Look here, for example: [1] (for the original press release), [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
Press releases are designed to be recreated elsewhere, it is what developers and publishers want, because they are generally very positive. Hence why, if possible, we need to rewrite that section. --Dreaded Walrus t c 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the copyright-infringing material as per WP:CSD G12. That's meant all the intervening edits have been removed - apologies for removing good-faith contributions but copyvios cannot be tolerated here. Qwghlm 15:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I realise about copyvios, but I didn't realise that press releases generally came under that banner. Still, I have no real objection, as the article was in pretty poor shape with that there anyway (not exactly NPOV). --Dreaded Walrus t c 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date??

[edit]

Is the release date the same worldwide or is it different from country to country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeymonstar (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah varies for different places. Not game enough to edit the wiki properly though - http://fm08.footballmanager.net/en/article/101/1686.html is the official site with the official release dates which just got released. Meszudo 15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've added it to the article. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

official?

[edit]

Play.com are releasing FM 2008 on 19/10/2007 here.

My question is: can this be used as the official release date? Magnus 10:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, SI have explicitly stated on the forums, when asked about certain retailers providing release dates, that none of them are official, and are rather just speculation on the part of the retailers (likely comparing it to the release date of Football Manager 2007). As such, we really shouldn't include it in the article. Currently, all SI have said with regards to a release date is "before Christmas". --Dreaded Walrus t c 15:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for examples, see here, in chronological order:[7] [8] [9] [10] --Dreaded Walrus t c 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could Play.com get sued for releasing before official release date. I know there was controversy with the Harry Potter books when small shops allowed sale before the national release. Magnus 08:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to get sued as it actually is the official release date now. Play.com might've been onto something... Meszudo 15:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demo

[edit]

Will there be a demo? If so, when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPattle (talk • contribs) 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a demo, but the developers haven't specified a time yet, other than it will be when the code is finished, i.e. when it is ready to go gold. When the code is finished, they will then work on a demo version, and release it. We don't have a specific time yet given. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gold demo is out. It's available in vanilla or strawberry. And aren't you a member of the SI forums Dreaded Walrus? Life is great...if you support Manchester United 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

And already a bit of vandalism. I edited the requirements part, removed "gay gay gay" after the minimum requirements listing... *sigh Keep an eye out for this kind of stupid behaviour "y'all"

International Competitions

[edit]

I believe that the end of the international competitions section should merge the entire following section 'Regional International Tournaments'. Especially since the last sentence in the I.C. section says that nothing has been announced while the first sentence in the R.I.T. section says that it's been announced, which are conflicting statements. sirgregmac 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see one of those regional compeitions which are even in FM2008, so not sure why they are even listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.229.213 (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It is known that some new international competitions will be in the new game but are likely to feature at a later date in an official patch". That's sentence is wrong as well - Basically the whole regional compeition section might be as well be removed. You could say where do I have proof it's wrong, but there's not any quote posted to backup that's it's right either? :) User:FMFan

anti-piracy measures

[edit]

surely these measures are highly relevant and should not be removed?--JETM 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say so - we aren't able to make judgements about what is relevant, and notable in these situations, other than by third-party coverage. Many games have anti-piracy measures, many of them don't work properly. I'd say if it is reported widely by third-party reliable sources, then it could well be notable enough. As it is, though, it doesn't appear to be something widely reported. I won't remove it just yet, though. I did, however, remove the second-to-last sentence, which is not backed up by the citation that followed, and the final citation, which isn't relevant. The first sentence will certainly need rewording, too, if we can find reliable sources for it. I'll give it a day or so for reliable sources to appear. --Dreaded Walrus t c 23:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


it's created a bit of a PR own-goal on their official board, which is very unusual because of their strict rules. definitely something that should stay on this page, at least in abbreviated form. it's affecting a lot of legal purchasers who are trying to continue their demo saved game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.24.109 (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is happening, and I am a member of the forum, too (under this same username), but unless something is notable and reported in third-party publications, we cannot include it. Just look at our page on BioShock, for example. There was a lot of criticism of that game, but most of it cannot be included because it was not picked up on by reputable, reliable sources. If you look at what we do include there, we have 15 different citations for that section alone, the vast majority of which are not forums. Forums do not count as reliable sources. --Dreaded Walrus t c 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are direct quotes from SI employees so of course they should be included, doesn't matter whether they are made on Sky News or on an internet forum (which is the official SI forum for heavens sake which makes your point even more absurd).London1982 09:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never once claimed that he didn't make the post. Jacobson has made thousands of posts on the official forums over the years, as have the other employees. Should all those quotes be included? Of course not. Seriously, look through a few of our policies, and you will see that criticism needs to be reliably sourced. Yes, he said that about some criticism. But before we can include that criticism, we need proof that it is notable. And we do that by citing third-party sources. Do you see? --Dreaded Walrus t c 09:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per your own advice, please see Verifiability: Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. It notes very clearly that the articles in question are indeed acceptable as sources. Lars Holm 15:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only forum posts from the section that would qualify as "self-published" would be the two that were linked. These two posts are good enough to act as citations that the game has anti-piracy measures. But everything else in that section is unreferenced, and we should always be very careful about having unreferenced criticism in articles. I stated, at multiple times, that if reliable sources could be found for the rest of the information in that section, then it could stay, but none were provided. So, the only cited sentence there was Sports Interactive PR guru Miles Jacobson announced that the game included mechanisms to "[screw] over" pirates of the game and to prevent such "scum [from stealing] food from our tables.", which would have needed rewording to "Sports Interactive's Miles Jacobson announced that the game contains anti-piracy measures", or something of the like, if it had stayed. But then, the series has contained anti-piracy measures for many iterations now, and the vast majority of games contain anti-piracy measures of some variety. So the mere fact that the game has anti-piracy measures is not important enough for inclusion in this article, and the rest of the sentence was unreferenced, and no sources were found three days after I made a request here on the talk page. --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course almost every game released today has anti-piracy measures, however that's not the point. The point is what kind of measures these are. In this case, SI has intentionally put "bugs" in the game, and at least some of these bugs are also showing up in legitimately purchased copies of the game. Important enough to include? Take a look in their forum, there are a few hundred posts on this, in my opinion, embarrassing mess. Lars Holm 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that we have no mention, from reliable sources, that this is a big issue. I am, as I have mentioned before, a member of the forum, and I have seen that this has affected a lot of people, but forum posts are not reliable sources, apart from if it is a post specifically by SI, in which case it sidesteps the issue, as made clear above.
If this is/becomes a massive issue, then it should surely be reported in reliable sources, as was the case with BioShock's controversies. As I pointed out above, our controversy section on that article contains 16 references, which shows that those particular issues were reported in lots of reliable sources, whereas a quick Google search for "football manager 2008" + "anti-piracy", in an attempt by me to find reliable sources mentioning it, reveals nothing but a bunch of forum posts and sites attempting/offering cracks and workarounds for actual pirated versions. --Dreaded Walrus t c 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premeir League

[edit]

Why is there no player photos or logos from the English Premier Legue in the game?

Is it a licencing issue?

I think there should be some mention of it as there is mention of the German and Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.75.178 (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

referring to germany and japan, Those are only the national teams that aren't licensed 86.135.248.139 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

patch

[edit]

a beta patch is released, is this good info for the article? Folo4 07:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I'd personally say we wait until the proper patch is released, and then mention it, that way we can link to the changelist and stuff, as one doesn't really exist online for the beta version. --Dreaded Walrus t c 08:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm reacting to a part in the article here: "This initial patch has received some quite positive feedback already and should hopefully appease those who were very critical of Sports Interactive and the game testers."

Why should it be claimed on wikipedia that this patch should "hopefully" appease everyone? Does Wikipedia sincerely hope that this patch will fix everything that made people critisize FM 2008 per se? If not, I suggest someone fix this and try to formulate it a little more objective and not imply that Wikipedia thinks that this patch will fix everything and be the end all.

Also I noted quite a few spelling mistakes when looking over it. Perhaps time for a cleanup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.211.125 (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That was added here, and is not only unencyclopedic, but incorrect at parts, too (Since when does alpha come after beta in the development cycle?). I would have a go at rewording it, but I wouldn't say information on a beta patch should really be included. The proper patch should definitely be mentioned, however. --Dreaded Walrus t c 04:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fm08boxart.jpg

[edit]

Image:Fm08boxart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Vandalism

[edit]

I have removed "Flag of Wankers" where the Austrian flag is meant to be. ANy chance this user can be banned? Random Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements

[edit]

The articles states that xp/vista is required but probably 2000 is supported too, given that those three operative systems share the same architecture but i'm not sure though, just asking for confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.67.207 (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White space in IE

[edit]

Is this wiki-page supposed to show up with a huge gap between paragraphs 2 and 3, spanning most of the infobox? 121.208.21.18 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

How exactly does removing a link to a regularly updated directory of fansites in favour of linking to two specific fansites in favour of the 100+ other fansites out there undoing spam? The directory is a better resource for users than favouring specific sites, if anything having those two specific sites there is spam. Did you even look at the site linked to or the links already in place and compare their worth?

I've put it back now, you can respond using this discussion rather than blindly acting as previous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.193.129 (talk • contribs)

My reasoning has not changed since you last made these edits in August. See the discussion here (which you never did respond to) for why it is spam. As it happens, I don't care to have any of the unofficial links there currently, so per WP:EL, I will remove them. Dreaded Walrus t c 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatko Kartal

[edit]

The article Zlatko Kartal will likely be deleted shortly, so I just thought I would paste the content here. If anyone thinks this deserves a mention in this article, be my guest. For a citation, see http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5732091743/m/3932086743/p/5 (qualifies as a reliable source per WP:SELFQUEST).

Zlatko Kartal is a Bosnian born Scot, who managed to convince Football Manager 2008 creators SI Games that he played for Celtic. Kartal features in the game as a Goalkeeper and is eligible for Bosnia. In real life he plays for amateur side Great Rosehill and Weirs and works full time as an auto-mechanic. A Celtic fan in real life, Kartal has become something of a cult figure among the Celtic online community due to his stunt. Kartal was born in Bosanski Petrovac, Bosnia-Herzegovina (then Yugoslavia) and moved to Glasgow when he was three years old.

cheers. xenocidic (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's important enough for inclusion even in this article. He convinced one of the volunteer researchers (rather than Sports Interactive, or one of their employees), and was removed soon after. Researchers can make mistakes such as this quite easily, there's nothing too notable about this one. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ah, so they're not even employees? gotcha. 'tis why I brought it here. thanks, xenocidic (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they're volunteers, much like most of us here at WP are volunteers, and look how many mistakes we make! :)
Usually the mistakes are things like players not having the right wages, or typos in the names (West Brom youngster Joss Labadie was called Joss Labide, for example). I mean, they have an entire subforum dedicated to data errors, so it's not a big deal at all. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I'll add link to your comments in the WP:AN discussion. xenocidic (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Football Manager 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Football_Manager_2008&oldid=1207262737"