The Universal on Wikipedia

zaroba · Post by **zaroba** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:30 am

maybe not.

but this would be:

lucifer1101 · Post by **lucifer1101** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:54 am

haha lol what an article. HA!!!

Martinito · Post by **Martinito** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:23 pm

Actuall I found TU via the following wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_MMORPGs

Most, if not all, of the other mentioned games in this list have their own wikipedia article, so I don't see a reason why TU should not have one. Each time they delete the TU wikipedia page they create a broken link in their own pedia. Is this what they want ?

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:43 pm

They've removed the link or I can't find it.Is there some way to get back on Wikipedia?do we have enough documentation?

theseer · Post by **theseer** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:54 am

Martinito wrote:Most, if not all, of the other mentioned games in this list have their own wikipedia article, so I don't see a reason why TU should not have one. Each time they delete the TU wikipedia page they create a broken link in their own pedia. Is this what they want ?

The reason they have a listing there is because they have an article (if you look at the source they say don't add links unless it has an article). Additionally even with RS the game isn't notable, not even by MMO standards. Browser based games have more notability than TU. Not to mention that it may hurt the community because if they see an unpolished game, word of mouth e.t.c Better to let any "advertisement" happen when the development team decides the game is as polished, stable and user-friendly as it should be for a released game (of which I believe Mit would have some experience in).

onionguy92 · Post by **onionguy92** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:01 pm

I believe the wikipedia page has been deleted, as I could not find it when I searched for it. However, the RuneScape page receives good attention. RuneScape is another popular online game similar to TU but of much lower quality, gameplay-wise and graphics-wise. The RuneScape page cites nearly no impartial third-party resources that are not fansites, as over 30 sources listed are from the owner of the game or the official site itself, as well as many other sources that are small fansites. I believe that an article is judged not just on how good an article is, but also on how many hits it gets and therefore how much money Wikipedia makes off of advertisements on that page.

VDZ · Post by **VDZ** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:50 pm

onionguy92 wrote:I believe the wikipedia page has been deleted, as I could not find it when I searched for it. However, the RuneScape page receives good attention. RuneScape is another popular online game similar to TU but of much lower quality, gameplay-wise and graphics-wise. The RuneScape page cites nearly no impartial third-party resources that are not fansites, as over 30 sources listed are from the owner of the game or the official site itself, as well as many other sources that are small fansites. I believe that an article is judged not just on how good an article is, but also on how many hits it gets and therefore how much money Wikipedia makes off of advertisements on that page.

Wikipedia has no advertisements.
RuneScape is considered 'notable' because when you say 'RuneScape', 49 out of 50 people will know what you're talking about.
The Universal is not considered 'notable', because few people have ever heard of it, and except for the magazine Zaroba posted, no gaming magazine or site has played it and made a report/review/preview/whatever of it.