Talk:The Chronicles of Spellborn

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Video games Low‑importance

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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Carlton Wilborn (2 participants)
Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants)
Rat Race (video game) (7 participants)
Red Barrels (3 participants)
The Campaign Trail (Web Game) (25 participants)
TheoTown (11 participants; relisted)
Old Grandma Hardcore (6 participants; relisted)
WePlay AniMajor (2 participants; relisted)
Zero Hour (video game) (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled

This "article" is inserted as part of a Wikipedia advertising campaign on the part of User:Langeweile, an account created specifically to create "articles" advertising this unreleased game: see Special:Contributions/Langeweile--Wetman (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article made use of many external, 3rd party sources to provide both noteability as well as crediteability. You might, for example, want to check the mentioned MMORPG.com page - one of the biggest portals for MMORPGs - where Spellborn constantly ranks high in most anticipated games.

I also advise on checking other "advertisement" articles on similar games, which long since exist:

If you feel unreleased games should not be covered on Wikipedia, that is a legimate plead - but then discuss that general issue at apropriate places and don't just selectively attack certain games.

Langeweile (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming bad faith with regard to the original author of this article. Whatever his/her motivations, the subject of this article is still in line with Wiki policy. Joshdboz (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of a Wikipedia policy on "coming attractions". I was assuming absolutely nothing, I merely drew attention to the appearances: that this "article" is inserted as part of a Wikipedia advertising campaign on the part of User:Langeweile, an account created specifically to create "articles" advertising this unreleased game. Perfectly straightforward. The User's edit history speaks for itself. User:Langeweile does not appear to be an authentic "newbie", merely a new account: what you people would call a "sockpuppet". The following section was simply moved verbatim from my Talkpage, where "save your snark" [sic] is wholly inappropriate and uncalled-for. The snarky remark below about any imagined criticism of its username is delusional. My job here, simply flagging this effort, is done. Wikipedians will decide whether or not the article is deleted or re-edited: it's not my call. Over and out. --Wetman (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following exchange I have copied from my User talk Wetman (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article does sound like an add. Maybe it should be rewritten with more direct comparisons to other games in its genre to seem less add like. (76.165.207.2 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Removal of Spellborn from the Chronicles disambigation page

Why, please, is it inapropriate to add a full fledged Wikipedia article to the disambiguation page ? Just because that certain game isn't released, yet, doesn't invalidate the article.

You might challange the article itself, but I can't see a reason why the article should exist, yet the connected disambiguation not. Mind that many other not-yet-released games equally have lengthy articels, etc...

Langeweile (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the use to the Wikipedia reader of a "disambiguating" link at Chronicle (disambiguation) to a non-existent article— "Spellborn Chronicle"— concerning a supposed forthcoming game, one that "Langeweile" has been logged-in entirely to push? Special:Contributions/Langeweile make the motivation perfectly plain. No reader entering "Chronicle" is expecting to see "Langeweile"'s advertisement for this unrelated product. Clear enough for you? --Wetman (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save your snark.

Just because you're longer on Wikipedia (for whatever reason) doesn't let you inherently carry more rights than a new user. Nor is my prefered nickname in any way your issue to criticise.
There was no link into the void, but one to a lengthy article: The Chronicles of Spellborn
If you still feel I'm pushing or something, go and challenge that article. Good luck...

Langeweile (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not be following the outcome of this commercial advertisement any further than this. Note, however that the anonymous IP User:130.89.236.99 is in fact User:Langeweile; their edit histories reveal that they are editing at Wikipedia solely to advertise this upcoming product.--Wetman (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date in the UK is incorrect.

The Chronicles of Spellborn is not actually released in the UK as the information claims. Multiple versions of the clients are in production, which are used by different suppliers. Some of Europe has access to the game and can play, but only if you live in a country not listed under Acclaim's domain. Since the UK is under Acclaim's domain in respect to the release of TCOS, and Acclaim has not yet released it's version of the game, you can download an EU client, but UK internet users cannot log in as your IP is blocked. Acclaim's version is currently in Beta, so will be out relatively soon, but i get the feeling that people (like myself) are seeing the "released in the UK" on wiki, going to the TCOS page, downloading the EU client, and then not being able to play after downloading 3Gb of files, which when Acclaim release their version, won't work with Acclaim servers. If you try to log in on the TCOS site, and you are in an Acclaim domain, then you are automatically directed to the Acclaim version of the site, which states the game is only Coming Soon, not released. Just wish I had tried that first, but I already had an Acclaim username so didn't bother to try and log in without the game installed.

Just a little FYI. I would edit it myself and add in all the references etc, but I've not done so before, and I have way to much work to do to faf about editing wiki pages.

212.139.84.53 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing

I'm really confused about the pricing for this game. Would someone who understands it be so kind as to add the information to the main article? I'd do it myself but I just don't understand it. --170.28.222.3 (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be relevant information for the article. Currently due to the lack of detail or comparisons of the combat system the article seems more like an add then anything else. But information on the unique payment system would be worth noting.(76.165.207.2 (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Frogster Interactive

Well for one, the Frogster website has no information whatsoever about Chronicles of Spellborn. Please change this. Ever since before Runes of Magic, I have not seen any mention of Spellborn, yet. 71.87.114.211 (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]