Talk:Epic (game)

system17 link

Does anyone other than KTG (the site's owner) feel that the link to system17.com is appropriate for this article? If not, I'll remove it again sometime tomorrow. Cheers --Pak21 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you actually look at the site and the three different Epic sections and you tell us? Can you justify how NetEpic is linked here, yet it isn't even a GW game??? You are a hypocrite Pak21. Leave the link alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KTG (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not much more than a personal review of the game and lack the extras of boardgamegeek. GraemeLeggett 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: I have no interest in computer games and am not involved in this dispute (which goes back at least as far as May 2006) but learned of it on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

KTG's activity has consisted almost exclusively of adding external links to KTG's website (see the 20 or more edits in Special:Contributions/KTG). Like name-calling (see Wikipedia:Civility) this is contrary to Wikipedia policy, causes widespread annoyance and, when it isn't stopped voluntarily, usually ends up being brought to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Athænara ✉ 12:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I keep asking but can't get straight answers from anyone. How do you justify keeping the Boardgame Geek link and others and not mine? Whatever criteria is used to try an explain why system17 shouldn't be here is ignored with every other one. And you wonder why I think this who process is hypocritical. As a matter of fact, here's some quotes from your policies:

"Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)."

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

Which in my case listing System17 does both. How do you justify keeping a link to Boardgame Geek which is essentially doing the same thing as System17, yet Boardgame Geek stays? ~KTG —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTG (talk • contribs) 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability. BoardGameGeek is a large, international community with over one hundred thousand users. Æ. ✉ 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

dates

no mention of dates for the various incarnations. it would be useful to have these to put things in ahistoric perspective. GraemeLeggett 11:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)