Talk:New World Computing

Thanks

I just wanted to thank everyone for making this a great article in my opinion. I must say, when I first did this article (probably one of my first edits), there was almost no substance. I did make an edit that added substance and history. But, everyone else who edited this turned not only my work, but added their own work also and created what was a barely readable article into an article that an average person can be intrigued in. Thank you all.

P.S. Sorry if this sounded a little bit like self advertising. Fableheroesguild 04:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

fyi- there's a version of might & magic viii: day of the destroyer for the japanese playstation 2. the game is fundamentally the same as the pc version, but adds a tutorial dungeon and support for a peripheral called popegg, which was/is a printer that allowed players to take pictures during gameplay.

here's the list of all console & pc might and magic games if you's like to expand this one day...

http://www.gamefaqs.com/search/index.html?game=might+%26+magic&searchplatform=All+Platforms

Other games

missed Hummer of the Gods, which is very similar to Heroes

Fair use rationale for Image:New World Computing (Nuclear War) .png

Image:New World Computing (Nuclear War) .png 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 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New World Computing (Nuclear War) .png

Image:New World Computing (Nuclear War) .png 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 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed questionable claim

I fact-tagged and then removed this text from the Might & Magic section:

With Might and Magic IV: Clouds of Xeen and Might and Magic V: Darkside of Xeen, released for the IBM PC in 1992 and 1993 respectively, New World Computing did something that hadn't been done successfully before (or since). If one had both games installed together on the same hard drive, one could move between the two worlds, and in fact could access new content not individually available in either title. A previous series, Alternate Reality, attempted this same feat a number of years earlier, but was ultimately unsuccessful due in part to the floppy-based nature of the systems at the time.

This claim is doubtful and needs a citation. What about Wizardry 1 and 2 on the Apple II, or Eamon Adventures? In any case the claim (and the awkward mentioning of and defense of Alternate Reality) isn't cited, so I removed it. Tempshill (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Clouds of Xeen and Darkside of Xeen worked as indicated above. At the time New World Computing allowed you to mail in your disk based set of the game and exchange it for the CD version, because the CD version wasn't ready when the original game went to press. You were able to cross into 1 game from the other exactly as indicated above, however.

Furthermore, M&M 2 was available for the Commodore 64 & Amiga computers. Tripleh13 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripleh13 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

adding former homepage?

Hello, there is the discussion if a offline webpage for an dead company is a information for the infobox or not, in this specific case www.nwcomputing.com. I would argue that even if this page is not reachable anymore it should be still added in the infbox, (maybe not as link, just as noninteractive text), when it existed some time ago. First, a web-representation was significant a part of the companie's profile and practically might be still a valueable information for someone doing research in the context of this company, for example doing a http://www.google.de/search?q=links%3Awww.nwcomputing.com search with google or in archives like http://liveweb.waybackmachine.org/http://www.nwcomputing.com (not in here, robots.txt is set) for which the knowledge of the webpage-url is required. cheers Shaddim (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A link would be totally misleading because the site is simply not there anymore. However, I don't see any disadvantage of the text-only version. --Berntie (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

But do you see any advantage to it? IMO the potential for misuse, advertising, or confusion is enough of a disadvantage when we get absolutely nothing for it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just like Shaddim said above: It might very well be helpful when doing research and IMO the former internet domain of the company is also an interesting piece of information per se. --Berntie (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is true for any piece of information, to someone. In this case, the URL is most useful to a domain squatter, very unlikely to be useful for a researcher, and useless or counterproductive for the average visitor. Do you disagree with this assessment? Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything that someone would find using the URL while doing research that they would not find just by searching for the company's name. I really don't see anything useful or historical about it. The company's games & works are important. What they had as their web address? There's not really any use to it, its trivia more than anything else.Caidh (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't tell if it is likely or unlikely that it might be helpful for a researcher, I can only say that it is possible. And I also don't know enough about our "average visitor"s to tell whether they'd copy+paste the URL in their browser and go there. And that's the core issue here: if they don't do it, it is certainly not helpful for a domain squatter and also not counterproductive for the reader. Is it useful for them? Also don't know. If I see that information, I think "Ah, nice to know that". --Berntie (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A wayback machine or archive link is not needed, but I wouldn't be opposed to it if a copy of the site as it was previously could be found. A link (even if you mark it as offline) to the former site should not be added though. The link currently goes to a cybersquatter and by having the link on a prominent site like Wikipedia, it is benefiting someone who has nothing to do with the original New World Computing company.Caidh (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of having the website in the infobox is so that people can quickly go there for more information. A dead, or unlinked URL is pointless. It tells the reader nothing about the company nor a place to get more information; it is trivia, a mere fact of no utility. We should not list the website just for the sake of doing so, for the same reason that we do not list company addresses or phone numbers -- because this is not a practical means to get more information about the company from Wikipedia's medium, the internet. If there is no useful link to be had, the URL by itself is equally worthless. A person doing their own research can use Google like everyone else to find specific pieces of archaic data that they are looking for. Archive sites can be added in the external link section, but not in the infobox. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello thank you for feedback, the purpose of the infobox is giving the people hard, concentrated key-facts, the webpage of a company is one of them. URLs (like webpage urls) are used for referencing someone/something (unlike telephon numbers), therefore multiple use-cases are exisiting. You brought one popular (maybe the most popular) up and I introduced 2 further... there are for sure many more. I agree with Cybersquatter argument, a text version should prevent this and should introduce, as Berntie stated, no disadvantages. greetings Shaddim (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

if no new arguments will arise I will add an plain text version, thank you. cheers Shaddim (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I still don't think its needed, but more importantly - what precedent is there? Are there other defunct companies that have their website listed (especially in the infobox as proposed)? I've looked at several game companies that are no longer in business (but did have websites) and I can't find any.Caidh (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are not indiscriminate collections of facts. You have not given any compelling argument for the claimed uses that a dead URL would have. Merely claiming that it is so does not make it true. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, there are articles WP with notes on URLs of former webpages, often later then substituted with an webarchive link, which was possible because someone saved the URL information before. Also, I see an strong similarity to the location info in the infobox, which gives as a hint what is intended/accepted for the infobox. Ham Pastrami, lets make it more real... if someone, a journalist, is doing research for the history of New World Computing, he might be intressted in the content of the original homepage. As the company is down, and the domain was settled by cybersquatter, www.nwcomputing.com is very low ranked in google and therfore a search for New World Computing might no NOT leading to nwcomputing.com anymore (information lost). If he knows about the backups of the web in Webachives, he might be wanting searching there for informations. Also, a google search enriched with links:www.nwcomputing.com could als lead to well-founded articles and reviews from former times, for both use-cases the knowlegde of the URL is required. Your main argument against this information is an potential support of cybersquatters, if the the webpage information would be additional obfusicated with some code or comment tags? cheers Shaddim (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, looks like this discussion needs for a concensus more participants... maybe we should forward this topic to the portal video games Portal_talk:Video_games Shaddim (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea Shaddim. I could be completely wrong as to how this should (and has been) handled in the past but it is probably best to solicit more opinions. Would you like to go ahead and make the request or should I?Caidh (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to do it, thank you very much. :) Shaddim (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and again, these are purely hypothetical scenarios that have no basis in reality. Who is this "researcher" you speak of? What exactly is he looking for at the company's old web site, and why does he have to find the URL at Wikipedia? Yes, some things will be lost to time and irrelevance. It is not Wikipedia's goal to preserve every piece of trivia. Including the URL, without discussion or context, and de-linking it specifically to circumvent linking policies, for which this website would fail, is not a tenable position based solely on the desire to preserve the data. Note that archived websites are linked to because they contain actual content from the old website; but this website, as you note, does not have any actual archives and therefore no useful information to present. If there were an archive, we wouldn't need to have this discussion, and that's not what the discussion is about. Conversely, if the archived websites did not exist for those other topics, merely providing old defunct urls would not be acceptable in those articles either. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

ham pastrami, let's wait for other participants which introduce new points of view. But the homepage info is not trivia (becuase it's accepted part of the infobox... on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_company also nothing is mentioned about that this homepgae must be active). In your argumentation also geographical address should be removed for dead companies because it's just trivia, no one can find them there anymore. Also, there could be web-archives we don't know about or which are not available at the moment. And to your question about the researchers... gaming-journalists, sociologist, Historians ...etc. Shaddim (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

what a pity no one answered or contributed to this question, maybe we should forward this topic to a more populated discussion place? cheers Shaddim (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Heroes of Might and Magic section outdated

The section says Subsequent games in the Heroes of Might and Magic series were developed by Nival Interactive... The current instalment (Might and Magic Heroes VI) was developed by Black Hole Entertainment. 58.167.42.65 (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)LogiC

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New World Computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.beststuff.com/fromthewire/3do-ships-might-and-magic-ix.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New World Computing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116093638/http://www.gaming-age.com/reviews/archive/old_reviews/pc/MM7/ to http://www.gaming-age.com/reviews/archive/old_reviews/pc/MM7/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626161639/http://games.ign.com/articles/639/639760p1.html to http://games.ign.com/articles/639/639760p1.html

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) 06:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)