Talk:The Battle for Wesnoth

Free Software -><- Open Source Software

Being that there is a difference between these two concepts, wouldn't it be better, for the sake of clarity, to not state the game as being a "free, open source, turn based strategy game" if at the end of the first section it says that the game is "Released under the GNU General Public License" and therefore free software? Jjatria 06:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and reformulate it, I'd say. "Wesnoth is a free-software turn-based strategy game" would sound strange though. --Allefant 09:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's always the possibility of writing something like "Battle for Wesnoth is a free turn based strategy game for personal computers released under the GNU General Public License.", deleting of course the later reference to the GPL at the end of the first paragraph...

Sounds reasonable enough? Jjatria 11:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To me it does. --Allefant 09:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As of June 2014 the introduction presents Wesnoth as an "open source game" with no mention of it being free. Since the project describes itself as "Free" and not as open source, I'm changing the introduction to reflect that. Lowercasedefaultusername (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Accidental

Sorry, I accidentally clicked "permanent link", and I'm not sure how to undo this.

Don't worry, it seems that "pemanent link" simply gives you a "permanent link" which you can paste somewhere else (e.g. like this) - but does not actually modify anything :) --Allefant 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed a section

====Multiplayers====
Wesnoth have several multiplayer options such as join official server; join game, hotseat, and Human versus AI.

*Join official server: This takes you to the Wesnoth's official server where you find several players playing/watching/joining/waiting games. 
*Join game: It lets you join servers other than the official Wesnoth server.
*Host networked game: This option lets you host a server.
*Hot Seat: It is a multiplayer game on one computer where players take their turn at one computer.
*Human versus AI: It where you fight computers only.

Not much of a point in this section--it just describes the multiplayer menu.
The rest of the article needs a serious grammatical makeover. --Ardonik.talk()^* 22:13, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I can see for removing section. However, I don't see the point of removing the reference section. To make it features article, it must have reference. To achevie it better, we can have inline referncing. I am adding that section back. --Kiba 22:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the delta, for all interested parties. Frankly, that's the strangest edit I've seen all week. An external link to common knowledge on an official webpage does not a reference make; if we actually need a reference section (you know, for a real reference), one will be added later. --Ardonik.talk()^* 23:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Updates (Badly?) Needed

• the game is actualy in its 1.0.1 version (not much difference from 1.0, i know) and the title screen changed a lot (and beautifuly). --daniel duende October 31, 2005

Inspired by BI?

Was this game inspired by Battle Isle, as stated on List of open source games?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It was inspired by Master of Monsters, as described in detail by the original author [1]. The hex-tile movement is similar to early Battle Isle games though, just fighting is quite different (e.g. no ranged attacks). I guess, it's as similar to BI as each turn-based strategy game is to another, but I think Wesnoth clearly is the most popular free TBS currently, so the reference on List of open source games somehow makes sense. --Allefant 07:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright?

Why are the screenshots licensed as fair use when they have a free license as well? Borisblue 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Since all artwork and code of Wesnoth is GPL, screenshots taken of it also must be GPL, so I'd say the license can be changed to GPL for them. Whoever uploaded them probably did not care to check the license and just used fair use. --Allefant 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the GPL is compatible with Wikipedia's license, so fair use seems like the best bet, unless the artists can be persuaded to dual-license. The GPL is generally only compatible with itself (though other licenses may be compatible with it). Xtifr _tälk 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not everything need to be licensed under the GNU FDL.Kiba 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not, but it has to be under a license that's compatible with the FDL, which the GPL is not. Xtifr _tälk 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GPL specifically is allowed (as are all the ones listed here Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags). So could just replace the fair use tag with {{GPL}}. --Allefant 23:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That page quite specifically says "don't use GPL for new images". It's meant for things like icons copied from free software packages, not for screenshots of GPL software. In any case I seriously doubt anyone's going to be suing anyone over a Wesnoth screenshot; it's fine with fair use. Chris Cunningham 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it says:

{{GPL}} — GNU General Public License.
This tag is designed for GPL images licensed by others (usually as part of a software package).
Do not use it to tag images you created yourself. Use another free license, such as {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by-sa}}.

So it only says to not use it for new self-created images (but the screenshots here are taken from the website I assume and therefore already under GPL). But I agree, fair use is just as good - it would only be a problem e.g. on the German Wikipedia where fair-use cannot be used - and there the images are marked as GPL :) --Allefant 10:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Better refs needed

Need refs for release dates and the like. A single link to the philosophy page (on a wiki no less) isn't really enough. Chris Cunningham 09:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to the official homepage, from which most if not all of the info is taken. So I don't think we need separate references for each small information, unless it uses another source. Just my opinion though without knowing about any Wikipedia policies. --Allefant 10:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's always best to make a good effort to dig out sources. Links to front-page news sources, gaming sites which have mentioned it, that kind of thing. The majority of the article is single-sourced, true, but not all of it. Chris Cunningham 11:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, things such as the races and campaigns should be referenced. Currently, they're not. CarpeGuitarrem (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay features

Do we need to include more information on certain aspects of the game, such as abilities, traits, weapon effects etc.? I would like to see it mentioned in the article if possible. Theodorel 04:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, or at least not much. That sort of thing is really not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Enough details to let the reader get the flavor of the game is really all that's needed. What the article really needs, IMO, is more information on how the game has been received by the public. The Wesnoth Wiki has a great list of reviews that would make a great resource for expanding the article, IMO. Especially those that obviously meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Also, I notice that there seem to be some effort to keep this up-to-date, i.e. to document the latest and greatest version. I think it should have more information about how the game has developed over time; that's historically interesting information. Wesnoth has its own wiki for game-guide information. Let's try to make this an encyclopedia article, 'k? Xtifr _tälk 11:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I please have a link to Wesnoth's wiki? thanks. floodbud

Try this: http://wesnoth.org :) (Yes, it's a wiki, but you can only edit certain pages, e.g. when you click on "Play" or "Create") --Allefant 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

David white is my hero! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floodbud (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is a suggestion that "defense" is entirely predicated in Wesnoth on territory where a unit sits; because units actually "punch back" when attacked, defense versus offense is rather more complicated than the article currently suggests. A better indication would be that, while in a particular combat, the defensive element of the combat calculation is entirely determined by the terrain, that is not the sum total of the concept of "defense" as the game is played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50n0m4 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the statement A unit's defense is based solely on the type of terrain it stands on, ... is not quite true, as defense is a lot more than just base chance to hit (which is what the terrain determines). Maybe it should be changed to The type of terrain a unit stands on determines how hard it is to even get hit, ...? --Allefant 10:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Allefant, that's getting closer to it. The real choices you have in combat are when (nighttime, dawn/dusk, or daytime), what type of weapon, and what terrain you'll attack from. However, I would also note that the current article does get at the "Self-described" way that Wesnoth does it (that explanation is sort of in accordance with what the creators of the games say). So it's kind of a toss-up. 50n0m4 23:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What is there to do on this page to improve its rating?

Hey, I just newly registered with Wikipedia so I'm not totally sure bout all the rules and regs around here, but I'd like to upgrade this page's rating. What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozrael (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just improve the article! Ran4 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, one area completely missing right now is critical reception. It shouldn't be hard to find reviews (http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesnothReviews has some, but blogs/forums should not be used) and summarize them. --Allefant (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at some of the more complete articles about such topics. For example, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Age of Empires (video game), Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings, and Age of Empires III. Gameplay, reception, and development seem like plausible sections; units, music, networking/multiplayer are also useful additions. Mindmatrix 04:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sources are linked directly to wesnoth.org, which usually isn't proper. Try to find some good third party sources to use as references. --Banime (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from 212.238.155.158, 2 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The third paragraph says: "The current stable version of the game is 1.8, released on April 1, 2009." However, this release was made on April 1, 2010. 212.238.155.158 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs a reliable source to verify.  fetchcomms☛ 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No; the existing source does verify it was released 2010; I think the person who added it just made a mistake. I've changed it.  Chzz  ►  00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Ah, apologies. Seem to be unable to read after the April Fools' nonsense.  fetchcomms☛ 00:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry folks, it was my typo. I wonder why do we even have that date duplicated in 3 different places? Once in the infobox, once in summary and once in releases. MagV (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why Locked For Anonymous Edits

Why is the article locked for anonymous edits? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Because an IP editor previously was trying to add their random gripes to the article without any demonstration that they belonged there, and because they edit warred over including their gripes, the article had to be temporarily protected to stop them from continuing to edit war. It's unfortunate that this happened just before the release of 1.8, because there is obviously a great deal of positive interest in the article now, partly because of that release, and partly because that editor's griping on the Wesnoth forums led people to realize that the article could use some love.

I'm going to ask the administrator who protected this article (at my request) if they will remove the protection at my request, but it's not likely to happen immediately. Hopefully, the article will be open to IP edits soon, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Date of Gametunnel Review

In the Reception section, where the rating of Gametunnel is mentioned, it should mention the review was from April 2006. A lot has been changed since then, the review is clearly outdated. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Zarel (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Translations and Languages

Somebody knows in which languages the game is? And the portuguese version has several bits of dialogue untranslated. How I contribute to the Project? It has a files with the dialogues to be translated? I really wants to contribute, but my programming capacity is very low... --Thegoergen (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have solved this problem by now, but for reference, you can find it here. --Kranix (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Requirements?

?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterbister (talk • contribs) 12:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Palm OS

The game was just released for Palm OS yesterday. It costs $4.99. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.191.243 (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Screen shots

This article has good screen shots, but with one major flaw - none of them depicts gameplay. We have character art, main menu, cutscene, map editor... but no actual gameplay situation. Could someone provide one? I might do it myself as well, if I can get this system o' mine to work. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some fairly decent screenshots on the Wesnoth site, although the only one of 1.8.6 is the cutscene you mention. There are several others form the 1.8 branch there, though. Alternatively, I could take one if the current version is preferred. gz³³ (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Main Link broken?

The "Official website" link for http://www.wesnoth.org/ seems to be giving me a 404 error. Is anyone else having a similiar problem? Reddashz (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reddashz

Trimming list of campaigns

I am going to remove the list of campaigns, as it is borderline WP:GAMEGUIDE material. I will instead focus on a few select campaigns (such as HTTT, DID, and UTBS). This article could use more information about the game's history, development, and reception, and not merely be an FAQ for the game. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I can connect to the server anymore, is there something wrong with it or with my cpu--149.241.151.50 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)