Talk:Age of Empires (video game)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A-Class

Is this article good enough to be A-Class standard? My aim is to get this article up to FA status one day, and I know it's gonna take a lot of work, but I was wondering if A-Class isn't too far up the line for this article. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the article's improved since my November copyedit; I'd say that A-Class works. Also, I noticed a new request for copyediting at WP:GOCE; have their been enough changes since the previous one that a second full copyedit is needed? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am hoping for it to be promoted to FA one day, but perhaps not enough changes yet. I certainly can't seem to think of anything else to say about this game, without using unreliable sources and such. But I do think A-Class is suitable for this article at present. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate it for a FA and see what the peer review says? I will be willing to help improve it if there are problems. --Glubbdrubb (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that would be best.--EclipseSSD (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'm going to remove it from the GOCE requests list, although be sure to mention it again if anyone mentions a copyediting is needed! Good luck with the FAC. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

FA

I would appreciate as much help as possible in sorting out the issues raised in the current FA nomination. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I can help. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Much appreciated. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob, though if I disappear for a time, it means that (a) RL got hectic or (b) the FAC for Alaska-class cruiser got hectic. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Off to work I go... Though I wont go near the referencing and citation. Not my strong point. --Glubbdrubb (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, that's that. No big deal. It's been fun. --EclipseSSD (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

One of the issues raised at the current FAC page is that a couple of images need to be removed. I think we need to determine which images stay and which ones go. Any suggestions? --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, I think that the wonders and the two armies facing off image should definitely be kept, as they demonstrate integral parts of the game (how do you understand any game w/o seeing its units?). The others should be able to go w/o any loss of understanding, especially the Champa one - what does that demonstrate about the game? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

This article was listed at the copyright problems board, here, with a suspected source of [1]. Since only a portion relevant to this subject is visible, I am having difficulty investigating these concerns. Google books will not allow me to do a text string search, which is sometimes helpful in determining this. Is anyone here able to help shed any light on this? I see that the section was greatly altered in this edit. Is this where the potentially problematic text was introduced? If necessary, I can try to dig up an admin who has that book or put out an appeal for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's odd. Google books allows me to do a text string search on that book. Try this link, which should take you to the relevant text on which the third paragraph of the Development section is based. The diff you gave looks to be correct. BuddingJournalist 15:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I've outworn my welcome. :) The message I'm getting says, "You have reached your viewing limit for this book." The direct link you give me says, "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." Strange, since I had never viewed this book (to my knowledge) prior to investigating this listing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems I've hit the wall in copyright investigation via googlebooks. I'll have to get an admin who does less of this to help out. :/ (I've tested with other books and am getting similar issues.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Clear your history, cache etc. That does the trick for me normally... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I will cross my fingers and give it a go! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. :/ I've asked User:Dcoetzee to help out here, as he sometimes does work with me on copyright issues. Meanwhile, I suppose I'll have to ask google if this limit reached judgment will expire. (Or perhaps I'll need to use a new google account.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're logged into a Google account, log out and try to view it (or if you're logged out, log in). That usually does the trick for me. BuddingJournalist 16:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Logging out and back in worked. Yay. Thanks. :) Now I can look at the actual issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted a suggestion on how to resolve this here. What was added from that edit forward should probably just be deleted. Gary King (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That was the edit I was wondering about. Now that I can see the book, I can certainly verify infringement as an uninvolved admin. I'll do a selective deletion to restore it to that prior point, but first I'll see if there are non-GFDL infringing improvements (cats and whatnot) to be added. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

←I have restored previous clean and incorporated non-GFDL infringing improvements. Apologies to contributors of original content that may have been lost as a result. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for help in resolving the google books issue. It was a dark moment, thinking my usage of google books was done. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://books.google.com/books?id=tQVJEpgoiIwC&pg=PT141&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1#PPT136,M1. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)