Talk:Ultima Online/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Weasel words

I added that tag because of the opinions stated: "overwhelmingly" "a few" etc. towards the end. Without numbers, those statements are meaningless and do not provide enough information. If nothing else, they seem to be original research. --Sydius 17:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not, however, disagree with them and think they are plausibly true, and so I left it to be cleaned up. --Sydius 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The new tag "as noted" could be called original research (since it is Wikipedia doing the noting), and it still does not address the other weasel words (a few, etc.). Until reviews start coming out, I do not think that anything in that paragraph can be completely legitimately placed here (at least as it is now). --Sydius 17:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeida is not a place for "original research", see WP:NOT, I do however think the section might at all might be valid and provide some facts. Wikipedia is not a cristal box, but Wikipedia can represent whats is going on right now. I reworded one sentence and cut one sentence out. --Jestix 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I just took a look at the official client section... it has some weasel words, too. "Many" "Some"... who? how many? when? what is their bias?  :-/ We need actual reviews of this stuff that we can cite. --Sydius 15:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that info should just be deleted, though -- we need to dig up some actual reviews, and cite them. --Sydius 15:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What's with the revert without leaving the weasel tag? --Sydius 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

MMOGchart.com

I fail to see the need for the inclusion of a long disclaimer about the accuracy of this source -- it is widely used and generally considered credible. --Sydius 15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I work within the MMORPG industry, and MMOGchart.com is frequently cited as a credible source, by many companies and analysts. Much of this information can be verified by an independent third party if they are willing to put the time into it. The author of these reports rates the accuracy and presents his case clearly - he states where he obtains his information and how he handles accuracy issues on his FAQ Uohistorian 00:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted

"It should be noted", "It is important to note", etc. are rather bad-style english especially for an encylcopedia. They contain no meaning and just an large sentence with nothing-ness words in 99% of cases the sentence make just the same sense without. --Jestix 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Sydius 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)