Talk:Year Zero (game)

In-game websites

I think that part is quite useless. All the websites can be listed in other sections, and the links to them are posted below. Goldenglove 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was intending on adding stuff, not just have the links. I did a bit of it just a second ago.Drewcifer3000 09:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's loads better now, but it sort of conflicts with "Fictional Characters & Organizations", 'cos it's quite logical to Include "Consolidated Mail Systems", "Another Version of the Truth" and The Mailstrom there. Goldenglove 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you somewhat, in some circumstances. I suppose the dileniation might be whether or not, in-game, the organization exists outside of a website, or if the website is clearly the only manifistation of said group or character. For instance, The Church of Plano would be better suited for the character/organization section, since, even though it has a website, it's an actual entity outside of the website, and in fact the website is about the group. In such a circumstances (as well as the Judson Orgram facility) a mention of the website might be worthwhile, but only under the character/organization section. I would put the consolidated mail systems, another version of the truth, and the Mailstrom in the websites section, since although it does represent the efforts of a real organization, they only exist as websites. Does that make sense?Drewcifer3000 08:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it does. Sorry for the trouble(if there was any). Goldenglove 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

here's another one: http://www.redhorsevector.net/ (Found through the great destroyer) Goldenglove 18:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"expected to go on for another 3 years"?

whoever wrote that needs to check their math skills. the source it cites says 18 months, which is 1 and a half years. im going to change it to eighteen months.

My bad. Math never was my strong suite, but that's a little ridiculous! Drewcifer3000 05:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Too long for its own good

{{Year Zero alternate reality game}}

Jmlk17 recently added a length tag to the article, and I couldn't agree more. It's already over 61 kilobytes long, and imagine how much more enormous it will get as the game continues for the next year or so. So, I think the best solution will be to split it all up into a number of smaller articles rather than just deleting content. So, after a little research about similarly large fiction topics (Harry Potter for instance), I've come up with the proposed template you see to the right. Implied in the template are the various pages I propose the article be split up into. So, please feel free to discuss and let me know what you think or how it might be improoved, preferably on the template's discussion page. Drewcifer3000 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a brilliant template. I guess we should leave just small headers in this article, with links to the full content. I can do it(tomorrow maybe), if there is no one opposing. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I guess it'll be better to merge Characters & Organizations into one article. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed some links on it. I've also added a category onto it. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep WP:FICT in mind. –Pomte 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the work on splitting is done, but there are still a few internal page links that don't work any more. And by the way, what is "Referenced Media"? Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 12:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, the Referenced Media section I'm not too sure about. Every page has some text hidden in the background. Supposedly these are texts that have been banned in the world of Year Zero. Also there's alot of Bible references throughout. I'm not sure if it's really important enough to include though. Drewcifer3000 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and took it off. If anyone gets the urge to start the page feel free. Drewcifer3000 03:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Year Zero Phenomena

Now that we have a separate page for in-game websites, can't we do away with the Year Zero Phenomena section? It's large, unkempt, and incomplete. Warhorus 18:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a listing of the websites is appropriate. A listing of each page within the sites isn't though. I also added similar sections in some of the other articles, but only the relevant pages. But, it's not completely up to me. Anyone else? Drewcifer3000 18:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Warhorus, I agree. I was never very pleased with that section's organization, and it always bordered on seemed more like current events, rather than encyclopedic material. As you suggested, now that we have coverage elsewhere, I think it would be nice to ditch the section's content and link to the game-site article. Do we need to put it to a vote, or does this sound ok? --–m.f ^{(t • c)} 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, though it will become awfully small for the main article of an article series. It needs summaries of the subarticles. –Pomte 04:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it can go. As for more content, I think the premise section could be expanded a bunch. And as for summaries, the article previously had summaries of the sub articles (look back a few edits), but they were basically the exact same thing as the introductory paragraphs of the main articles, so they were kind of redundant. And I don't really know what else could be said that wasn't there already. Drewcifer3000 06:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so much a suggestion as it is me thinking out loud, but maybe a little redundancy wouldn't be a bad thing? I would think that most likely anyone looking to learn about the subject matter might find it useful to have a brief summary of all the sub-articles instead of having to pick through each page in an effort to get a comprehensive overview of the subject. It need not be anything big, a summary of the summaries maybe? Warhorus 16:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say there should be about a one line summary for each website. There are already full summaries of each site and phone number at the Nine Inch Nails Wiki. What do you think of making a recent changes section in the main article. Lyoko is Cool 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you noticed this, but there's a Websites/Phone Numbers page already. Did you mean a one line summary for all the sites/phone numbers on the main article as a sort of summary for the main page? Also, what do you mean by "recent changes section?" As for Nin wiki, when I first started making all these pages I kind of modeled stuff after it, but honestly I think we can do (and are doing in my opinion) much better. Drewcifer3000 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Referenced media

As far as I know, there isn't any reliable source proving the ref.'d media listed on NinWiki. Is it O.K. with that? (I think the article should be done) Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 16:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The lack of any references makes me wary, but then again a certain degree of original research is neccessary in article. You don't need a reference to say the sky is blue, so you shouldn't need a reference to say that such and such words are hidden in the background of a website, and that these words come from a specific text. Right? Drewcifer3000 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

literary references

The article has had references to some well-known dystopian texts for a while now. While I definitely think the Year Zero ARG owes a lot to, say, the propaganda and monitoring of thought crime from 1984, it seems it borrows much, much more directly from the Philip K. Dick story. (Basic premise: government official in paranoid military state sees the Emperor as he is when a small quasi-resistance group slips him anti-hallucinogens. Ultimately sees the Emperor-thing face to face and concludes it is God.) Faith of our Fathers borrows from earlier dystopian literature, and Year Zero, in turn, seems to borrow from Faith of our Fathers. I'm not sure if adding the PKD reference renders some of the more classic ones redundant, or if there's a better way to word its addition, but I am convinced it is influential to the ARG's concept.

Professional daydreamer 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks fine the way it is,with the PKD reference as well as the more classic ones. Drewcifer3000 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Info on the game?

This is a great article, really interesting but it gives absolutely no information about the game itself. Is it a computer game? if so, is it an RPG, 1st Person shooter etc? Is it under production or finished and released? So far it just sounds like a story to me (a pretty cool story, especially being a fan of huxley, pkd and orwell) Somebody please shed some light on this. Dark_Wounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark wounds (talk • contribs) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead says its an alternate reality game, which is linked, but I suppose anyone unfamiliar with the topic or ARGs wouldn't know what that means. Maybe a super quick explanation would be in order? Thanks for the comment, I'll see what I can do. Drewcifer (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interview with 42 Entertainment execs Susan Bonds and Alex Lieu

http://www.straight.com/article-145642/digital-stars-converge-city-vidfest - some discussion regarding year zero arg. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length / quantity

As mentioned a full year and a half ago on this discussion page, this article is quite long considering that it details a relatively short-lived phenomenon and has not been regularly updated for many months, as a result of which it is also out of date. What is more, there are at least half a dozen other articles whose sole purpose is to give still more details. These articles, collectively, strike me as less like an encyclopaedia and more like an indiscriminate collection of information. Compare, for example, Runescape, surely a larger and longer-lived game, which has only one article (though I seem to recall it originally had many). 129.31.71.26 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The above comments are mine; I thought I was logged in. Robin S (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)