text:
Talk:Furcadia

Furry? I think not.
Many of the people discussing this on the Article for deletion page made the assumption that Furcadia is specifically for furries. In my experience, this is definitely not the case. Most of the people I know on Furcadia are not part of the fur fandom. It's certainly attractive to some furries but to assume that it's a furry-only game is incorrect. Should this be mentioned in the article?--Teiladnam 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, considering since the avatars, port.. and the "Gods" (Primes) of the games are furry (anthropomorphic). The main drive of Furcadia is for the fun, and roleplay. For meeting people as well. I see plenty of people as humans as well. But Furry is a vital part of Furcadia. Yes, it isn't furry only, but it is a big, big part. Hence the Fur in Furcadia. I am sorry, but I am putting it back until it is further proven that it shouldn't be there. Note that the other categories it is in listed in roleplay as well. It should have some more categories as well. Disinclination 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * To be honest, its a moot question. A GAME is for anyone that enjoys playing it, not some sort of specific stereotype or subculture that has to be forced upon anyone. Its like saying,"baseball and football are for jocks!" Frankly, its an adolescent and juvenile point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.60.64 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 July 2007

 * Okay, I reread and thought about what you wrote, and after looking on Furcadia forums, I get what you're saying. I changed the category to anthropomorphism to be more specific. But in the article, it never talks about the "culture", for lack of a better word, of Furcadia. And I don't think it should, simply because it would create too many problems. Disinclination 06:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See also this discussion on the Furry Fandom template. User:kotra just added something to the article about how Furcadia relates to the fandom, although I'm not sure if it's relevant enough to stay in the article.--Teiladnam 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Added my own bit in there. In short, it's my opinion that Furacdia is a part of the furry fandom as much as any other game could be, because it has both meaning to and direct inspiration from the fandom. It's designed by furry fans, it has recognizably furry characters in it, it's been widely played by member of the furry fandom . . . if there was a poster child for "furry game", it'd be a strong candidate. It's not designed just for furry fans, nor are only furry fans welcome, nor is playing it a requirement of being a furry fan, but that's true of a lot of things that are generally regarded as "furry" as well.
 * As an aside regarding the commercial aspects: Most fursuit makers I know who are in it as an actual business don't just cater for the fandom either - they make "mascots" - but it's a significant part of their market and where a lot of their design ideas come from. Note that Dr. Cat was perfectly acceptable as a Guest of Honour at Further Confusion 2001 on the basis of his work, like WhiteyFawks, even though both probably make most of their money from people who are not members of the fandom. GreenReaper 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting Dreams from main article
The "Dreams" section seems to be a good candidate for splitting into its own article, as similar to DragonSpeak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yamake (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

 * I'm leaning towards disagreement here. The "Dreams" section isn't very long, and if it was made its own article, would be difficult to find sources and prove notability for. It would probably not withstand an Articles for Deletion nomination. I would extend this judgement to the DragonsSpeak article as well, to a lesser extent (Felorin has spoken at length about DragonSpeak in interviews, so sourcing may be possible there). However, complete articles on both subjects would definitely be appropriate on FurcadiaWiki. -kotra 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

primates?
are there no primates or reptiles? that's too bad.--Sonjaaa (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 * There are dragons (a pay avatar). Otherwise, no. -kotra (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Naga reptiles are to be added in the first month of Jan 2010, as part of the 'String' update. Also, reptile patches have been made that you may use in user-created maps or 'dreams' Shaki.moshrocker (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

GA failed
Sorry, not quite GA standard yet. Some notes for improvement; If you have questions/comments, leave a note on my talk page. If you found this review helpful, please consider reviewing another nominee. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Furcadia is the longest continuously running MMO." - needs an independant reliable source
 * Infobox image should be a welcome screen or something (if it isn't)
 * Gameplay section before development
 * "On 16 December 2006, Furcadia became the first-ever MMORPG to celebrate ten years of continual service" - standalone, merge to a paragraph
 * "Dreams" section unsourced
 * "Main maps" & "Other official maps" sections are listcruft
 * Is the "The Beekins" section needed?
 * "Business model" section = unsourced listcruft
 * "Awards" section could do with some prose

 * Thanks for the review, it's helpful. I predicted it would fail for many of these reasons (the unsourced sections and the amount of crufty information, particularly). For the "longest continuously running MMO" claim, I think the MPOGD reference is independent and reliable enough, though. Also, I think the Beekins section (trimmed down, perhaps) is notable due to the unique and extensive nature of Furcadia's volunteer program. Everything else I agree completely with. -kotra (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest MMORPG

 * It's worth noting that Guinness World Records, a far more reliable source, states UO as being the longest running MMORPG. Either they are wrong, Furcadia is wrong, or something technical got in the way (such as not counting Furcadia as an RPG). - 67.166.134.243 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Guinness probably just hadn't heard of Furcadia, because Furcadia is clearly older by nearly a year. On the other hand, Ultima Online is fully aware of Furcadia (Furcadia's creator was at one point going to make UO), so they either have a particularly limited definition of MMORPG, or they just conveniently ignore Furcadia for marketing reasons. Anyway, we could mention that Guinness considers UO the longest-running while others (and common sense, but we can't cite that) say Furcadia is the longest-running. -kotra (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not seeing where Furcadia is an RPG of any kind. It's a social environment. You can layer an RPG on top of Furcadia - and indeed that is a clear intent of the creators - but it's not an integral part of things, just as Second Life isn't an RPG, and Ethernet isn't a transport protocol. GreenReaper (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The creators didn't program in any mandatory structure for how to roleplay, if that's what you mean (though one of the creators did create a voluntary system). Furcadia is, however, still primarily a role-playing game, where players come to interact as a character (if even just as their normal selves with an anthropomorphic animal shell). Perhaps Second Life could also be considered an RPG, though as far as I know, Linden hasn't introduced any formal roleplaying structure like Talzhemir did. However, this definition of RPG (a game where you roleplay) has been largely discarded by the mainstream gaming community in favor of goal-oriented treadmill-like RPGs with tight structure and very little actual roleplaying. But some people are still valiantly fighting for the old, broader definition, like this recent article. -kotra (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the "if only as themselves" bit that gets me. At some point, it turns into a chat channel with glorified avatars. Perhaps I'm cynical (or just mistaken), but from what I've seen that's a fair description of the majority of activity on Furcadia — well, that plus looking for tail in FurN — and it's hard for me to see a chat full of furr[e|ie]s as a role-playing game. I think that's why text-only versions like FurryMUCK call themselves "chat kingdoms". GreenReaper (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is original research, but from what I know of Furcadia (admittedly not as much these days) at least half of the players at any one time are doing some form of roleplaying (even if it's just "looking for tail"). Your common misconception stems from the most public areas (main maps) being mostly just normal chat. However, a great deal of the players spend all their time in private dreams, often roleplaying. I don't have any statistics, but it's more than people usually think. Original research aside, Felorin and Emerald Flame call it a MMORPG, and there are probably other sources as well. But perhaps to avoid this whole discussion, they just call it a MMOG on furcadia.com. I wouldn't mind changing it to just MMOG (or MMO*) here as well. In fact, it may be better, since Furcadia is really part MMORPG and part MMOSG, and "MMOSG/MMORPG" is kind of unwieldy. -kotra (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting, the game GemStone has been a continuously running MMORPG since 1988. -Azureth (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be contentious, since the different "versions" of Gemstone (Gemstone, Gemstone II, etc) could either be considered separate sequels or the same game with just a different name (the truth is probably somewhere in between); also, the only source given for that claim is an 8-year-old interview from a director of the company that owns the game. However, it's not unlikely that other MMOGs like Gemstone are older than Furcadia, so I changed the wording. Thanks for bringing this up. -kotra (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention in a local paper
I thought this might be interesting to people. Furcadia was briefly mentioned in a college newspaper: Conner's chosen character is a snow leopard (an animal he has always felt close to) named Satoshi, which he developed from a furry role-playing game called Furcadia. Probably nothing of use there for citation purposes, but it's something. -kotra (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots
Hey, any chance you could upload the screenshots to commons so we could use them on Polish Wikipedia too? Plushy (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I believe anyone can re-upload sanctimonious's screenshots to Commons as long as the two licenses (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL) and the summary info all remain intact. I noticed though that the screenshot currently being used on the Polish article (Commons:Image:Furcshotee.JPG) does not have the correct license. Since it's a screenshot of a copyrighted game, it cannot be released into the public domain (except by the game's copyright holder, Dragon's Eye Productions). So I've nominated that screenshot for deletion, because such copyrighted works aren't allowed on Commons. For the Polish Furcadia article, I recommend using the other screenshot on Commons, Commons:Image:FurcShot2007.png, since it is licensed freely. Or another of sanctimonious's screenshots could be uploaded to Commons too.
 * Also, good work on having a Polish article! -kotra (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I guess thanks? And if anyone can re-upload do you by any chance know someone who could do it? I mean I'd do it but I'm not really sure how. Plushy (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This page explains how to move an image to the Commons. Basically though, all you need to do is just upload the image to the Commons and use the same licenses and description, and link back to the original image on the English Wikipedia. If you've uploaded images to the Commons before it should be pretty easy. -kotra (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Adult content
I've removed the section about erotic content again. There are currently no sources to indicate either that it's true or that it's significant. Furthermore, although this isn't exactly a biographic article, it does link to the game's creator's page and we have to be careful to source potentially controversial content. Risking an incomplete article is far better than risking a false one in such cases. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

 * If need be screenshots can be taken. Furcadia has a nasty underside that its creators conveniently don't mention. I can't imagine how many teenagers and children are corrupted and exposed to disgusting content by the nasty things that happen in the 'furrabian nights' area of the game. I understand, however, that unsourced content that is controversial in nature is dangerous. Hopefully sources can be found for this. I know hundreds or thousands can confirm the nature of furrabian nights. It is, by nature, an unadulterated haven for sexual immorality of all kinds that continues on without notice. This needs to be dealt with. 216.166.234.203 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia isn't the place to "deal with" such things. If the area contains adult content, this is something that we might note (especially if others do so in a reliable publication), but you are mistaken if you expect Wikipedia to pass judgment on the presence of such content, or on the opinions of those reporting on it. This is an encyclopedia, not the opinion page of a newspaper. GreenReaper (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I have been working with other editors on a possible revision of the "Adult content" section, at User:Twp/Furcadia. I think the text there is reasonably neutral and it is as well sourced as possible.  I am happy to have that draft incorporated into Furcadia if and when other editors agree that it is appropriate.  Tim Pierce (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks good so far. But can we attest the significance of The Yiffy High School and The Vore Club. There are many dreams in Furcadia, what makes these significant examples among others? RP9 (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with RP9. I'm sure we could find plenty of evidence that Windows Live Messenger is used for cybersex, but without indication of its significance compared to all the other activity that goes on, that wouldn't justify an 'Adult Content' section in its article. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * MSN Messenger is a program designed for communication via text, similar to Furcadia, yes. But that's where the similarity ends. Furcadia is a social video game, in which you enter a virtual world and do virtual things. The adult content in the game is not an offshoot of it's design, it is part of it's design. MSN was designed for communication. Furcadia was designed for roleplay, socializing, and entertainment. Whether it be a dream designed for children, or a dream designed for sexually promiscuous teenagers- it's part of the design of the game. It's my opinion that people need to know that this game supports a very vulgar and sexually explicit community- again if I found out the hard way that my child was delving into some virtual erotica section in this colorful and 'friendly' game, I'd be rather upset. Some sort of information (preferabley a lot more detailed than whatever rubbish warning the creators give) on this content needs to be mentioned. However I do agree that Wiki is an impersonal source of information- so if any adult content section is added, it should be presented in a purely FYI fashion.216.166.234.203 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * RP9 and Olaf: I have no opinion on whether the Yiffy High School or Vore Club are in any way representative of Furcadia's adult dreams or maps. However, the editor who has been trying very hard to add an "Adult content" section to the article seems insistent on including them.  My recommendation, as a neutral third party, is that you consider accepting a draft which mentions them as examples of adult-oriented Furcadia maps without suggesting that they are somehow typical of Furcadia activity.

 * Another editor has suggested adding a "Content" section to the article which discusses Furcadia activity and content more generally, and also includes a brief FYI mention of adult-themed maps. That may be a solution which feels less like giving the adult material undue weight. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I like the idea of "Content". The first reference (the 10th anniversary press release) has a specific statement of intent with regards to content - "everything else people do in life besides beating up monsters". It's perhaps not surprising that this includes vulgarity and sexuality, especially as children/teens are involved (let's not forget our own childhoods :-). GreenReaper (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry about my inactivity here for the past few days. As I suggested a few days ago, I'll see if I can come up with a draft "Content" section at User:Twp/Furcadia, and report back here when it's ready. Shouldn't take more than a few hours, maybe by tomorrow at the latest. -kotra (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * As much as I got involved with this article in the wake of (retracted)'s attempts to POV-push on it, I'm afraid all I can do to help with the "content" section is look over it for wording, tone, and the like. I don't play mumorpurgers at all, Furcadia included, so I wouldn't know even screamsheet knowledge. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 18:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Nor do I, but it is always helpful to have one more in a discussion. :) RP9 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * "which mentions them as examples of adult-oriented Furcadia maps without suggesting that they are somehow typical of Furcadia activity." Good luck with that, I think this is why we have the undue weight policy. :P I think adding a content section would be the best option. RP9 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia isn't your soapbox. We don't include things just because we think people need to know. Passing judgment on what the developers designed the game for is also not a good idea. I think Olaf Davis makes a good point. Cybersex is possible in any chat client and in any online game. Assuming that because the existence of it in any particular instance can be proven means that it must be significant is blatant original research. RP9 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Whether or not any given fact is significant enough to include in an article is purely a judgment call. It has nothing at all to do with original research. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Really? I was under the impression that in order to ensure a neutral point of view, the significance of statements had to be attested in reliable sources. How else would undue weight be dealt with? Perhaps I am not using the correct wording, I am using significance interchangeably with notability or prevalence. RP9 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I can see how that would get confusing. In English they are indeed very similar words, but "notability" has a very specific meaning here -- it's the standard by which we decide whether a subject needs to have its own entry in the encyclopedia.  However, whether or not a particular fact should be included in an article (what I mean here by "significance") doesn't have to pass a notability test.  The standard for significance is much lower -- roughly speaking, it tends to be something like "almost anything that an editor thinks people might be interested in knowing." Tim Pierce (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(←unindent) First draft, largely lifted from existing content in Furcadia and Twp's User:Twp/Furcadia section. The second paragraph is proving difficult to source, but I'm checking out this paper, which explores Furcadia in-depth. So far, it seems to be mostly about behavior, not content, but I'll keep reading.... -kotra (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks good. It avoids the undue weight problems with the other version, assuming DreamNova is a reliable source. The paper was very interesting! I read the whole thing but did not find much of anything about the types of dreams. RP9 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Concerning DreamNova, as a standalone source it probably wouldn't meet reliability criteria (since it doesn't have a reputation in mainstream sources), but as a supporting source, as it is used here, it should be fine. -kotra (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. Nice work. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks. The paper I linked doesn't really help for the Content section, so I've put it in a Further reading section for now. I'm not happy with the lack of citations or some of the wording in the second paragraph, so I'll keep tweaking it. -kotra (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Though there seems to be approval amongst us here, I haven't added the Content section to Furcadia yet because I'm not entirely satisfied with the sourcing. The second paragraph still is frustrating me for lack of sources, so I tried stripping it down. I'm a little worried about undue weight now, so if anyone else wants to take a crack at it, by all means go for it. Or, if you think it's good enough, feel free to add it. With my research method (mostly Google), I'm having a hard time getting it any better than this. -kotra (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Article quality dropped to Start, an assessment/some suggestions
Although an assessment hasn't been requested, I noticed in passing that this article was rated B-class despite a number of obvious issues, so I've dropped the rating to Start and hope some of these suggestions might prove helpful for anyone who wants a go at improving the article further:

 * The lead section should summarize the entire article in one or two paragraphs. It's difficult to do until the major aspects of the article are complete (which isn't the case here unfortunately), but really should be more representative before this could be called a B-class article.
 * Laundry lists kill quality dead, this article is full of them. They should be collapsed into paragraphs and examples should be given rather than all examples listed. Once the reader has been told they can create feline/canine avatars etc. they don't need to know every variant.
 * Following on from the above, sub-headings such as the vast number under the gameplay heading should be kept to an absolute minimum. They're messy, take up space and break the flow. Most game articles do not need any sub-headings at all within gameplay. Please see A Boy and His Blob (2009 video game) as an example of how the article should look and the kinds of information needed.
 * Readers aren't given any kind of handle about what the heck Furcadia is. The first paragraph of gameplay should give a general overview, with the different aspects following in subsequent paragraphs. The Dreams section seems fine, and 'dream standards' can be incorporated somewhere, but pretty much everything else needs to be written.
 * What's a Digo? This isn't explained until the Business Model section at the bottom of the article, long after the reader has had reams of the things shoved down their throats. The Business Model section is the kind of material needed, but again it could do with merging somewhere else rather than being isolated (aspects of it could go into gameplay and development).
 * The map lists need to go as well, that there are different areas with different functions can be explained without listing a dozen of them.
 * The Volunteer Program section could be integrated as well, the actual description is fine, it just needs a few examples (again) within a paragraph somewhere. External links should only be present in the external links section or as footnote references.
 * There is no reception section as such, just an awards section. This is non-neutral (positively slanted) since it doesn't cover commentators' opinions, a section similar to the one in A Boy and His Blob needs composing. There's a Softpedia review here and a GameSpy article already cited in the article which can be used as sources.
 * I would suggest the article remains at Start class at the very least till there are semi-complete gameplay and reception sections, written in paragraphs rather than lists. At that point it could be bumped up to C. I would suggest holding off rating the article B class until those sections (and development) are complete and well-cited.

Thanks to the editors who have worked on this article and built what's here today. If anyone wishes to discuss the article or its rating please leave me a note here or on my talk. Someoneanother 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 * These are good and constructive pointers. If I have an hour or two free sometime I might take a whack at making these changes, but I encourage others to as well. Thanks, Someone, for taking the time to review this article. By the way, concerning the awards, they were added in response to an unsuccessful AfD, to help establish notability. But notable reviews of any type (positive and negative) would be good to add. -kotra (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't in any way trying to imply that the awards were there to deliberately slant the article, just trying to highlight that it's something that will need filling out with more reception before the article can creep back up the ratings. Someoneanother 02:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the revision. There are a group of people that may be adding content, fixing things and such in the up-coming months, just as a heads up. Although I don't agree with advertising, there are still some citations that can be added as well as various other details to clarify without creating splinter articles or adding to the page length too badly. There was discussion of adding a separate Digomarket splinter page but I for one don't agree with this. I think the current method is sufficient. ʍɪ ₭Ꭵṯṭʏ  15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the heads up! Improvement to this article is certainly welcome. May I ask who this group of people are? If they are associated with DEP then they will want disclose that, and will probably find a better reception to their edits if they propose changes on this talk page, for others to make to the article itself. If the proposed changes are aren't self-serving, off-topic, or violate any of Wikipedia's policies (as I doubt would be the case), then they will be made to the article by another editor, such as myself. Sorry about this clumsy process, but it is an effective way to eliminate conflict of interest issues (perceived or otherwise), and is something we try to apply to all editors editing articles about themselves or their organizations. -kotra (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Nope, the people who are editing it are citizens who are just clearing up things that are otherwise vague or need citation. Brass and I are the main two, the others, I'm not quite sure. I doubt Furcadia staff have the time to mantain this wiki. It's a team effort. I myself usually only correct details or remove unnecessary elaboration or things that can be labled as self-promotion. Brass usually only plays in his sandbox though. ʍɪ  ₭Ꭵṯṭʏ  21:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Second Dreaming" Kickstarter
It might be a good idea to say something about the "Second Dreaming" funding drive that not only met its initial target, but ultimately raised over $100,000 for development. GreenReaper (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed. The funding has continued over to a Paypal fundraiser and is pushing $150k. I've been following the fundraiser closely since its inception, and I am happy to draft a subsection under Development. I'd like to discuss what to include before making any major changes. 0kitsuta0 (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Dragon's Eye Productions and DragonSpires
As discussed on WPVG Talk, our articles on Dragon's Eye Productions and DragonSpires are lacking reliable, non-trivial, independent references. (We've got reliable but not non-trivial, non-trivial but not independent, etc.) As it stands, both articles would likely fail an AfD as they don't meet WP:N.

That being said, I suggest that we partially merge content to this article, specifically into the Development section. The reliable-but-trivial sources we do have support some basic facts about Dragon's Eye Productions, DragonSpires, and the claim that production on DragonSpires was halted in order to focus on Furcadia, but not much more than that. (Like I said, the reliable sources are terrible.) This would beef up the Development section, plus it would reference a few uncited claims that are already being made in this article. Ideas? Woodroar (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why would you merge an unrelated game here? Both of those articles have references good enough to survive an AFD should anyone sincerely doubt they are notable and decide to start one.   D r e a m Focus  00:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dragon's Eye Productions currently has an unreliable ref (MPOGD) and two primary refs (both to Furcadia.com). DragonSpires has a reliable-but-trivial ref about DragonSpires but with no real information (Wired), reliable-but-trivial refs about Dragon's Eye Productions but (again) with no real information (IGN, GameSpy), some primary refs (MUD Dev, Gamedev.net, Sourceforge), and miscellaneous, probably unreliable refs with no real information (austingamedevs.org, ccon.org). Neither meet WP:N because we don't have multiple sources that are reliable and non-trivial and independent. I'd prefer a merge over outright deletion since these things obviously exist, but we simply don't have sufficient references to justify standalone articles. Woodroar (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an interview with a reliable source done about Dragon's Eye Productions.   D r e a m Focus  14:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interviews aren't reliable sources as they are, by definition, subjects talking about themselves. We need sources that involve actual research and fact-checking not only to justify the articles, but to give us content to write those articles as well. Of course, we can include material taken from interviews—as long as it's not overly self-serving—as long as the majority of the article is first based on reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The website is a reliable source. If a reliable source interviews or otherwise writes an article about someone, that indicates notability.  If you don't believe me, send this to the AFD, and let others explain it to you.   D r e a m Focus  17:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interviews are no different from autobiographies or press releases, no matter where they're published. They're still the subject discussing itself. I haven't looked into the source extensively, but the "write for us" link is typically the sign of poor quality. The author of the interview is claimed to have written several books; if so, he's probably reliable, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's the subject discussing itself. And I've seen plenty of interviews dismissed in AfD discussions, which is likewise why I'm dismissing it now. Woodroar (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interviews like this have always been considered proof to notability. Every AFD I've ever been here has verified this.  If a reliable source believes someone or something is notable enough to publish an article about, or interview someone about, then it clearly meets WP:GNG as "significant coverage".   D r e a m Focus  12:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interviews are considered primary sources, with all that implies; in particular, they cannot be used for unattributed factual claims about third-parties, while claims about the subject of the interview should be evaluated. Notability-wise, I'd say they have some weight, at least if published by a reputable source, since they generally don't bother to interview random people. An interview might back any or all of the subject's own notability, that of an organization they represent, or a more general topic, depending on what is discussed (and especially what the interviewer chooses to ask about). GreenReaper (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Favor It's extremely obvious that these articles should be merged at the least, but when you interact in any way with articles relating to Dragon's Eye Productions, you are interacting exclusively with biased furries and shills. None of these people can be reasoned with. The articles (which are all purely self-promotion) remain and regularly revert to biased form because they aren't notable enough for anyone to notice or be bothered to clean or delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.223 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather rude of you to be making personal attacks like that. I am neither furry nor shill, having never even played these games, only finding my way here because of the Dr. Cat article.   D r e a m Focus  20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but the fact is you are shilling. There's simply no other explanation for why you would think a game developer that hasn't released a game since 1994 and whose only release was developed by 2 or 3 people and was played by almost nobody, deserves an article separate from their only remotely notable outcome which is Furcadia, which hasn't even been finished yet and is sourced almost exclusively by the subject itself in a blatantly self-promotional manner. Your work on Dr. Cat's article makes no sense either. It's got some of the thinnest sources I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The guy is about as notable as a grain of sand on a beach, but any time someone tries to clean it up, there you are restoring horrible references and unsourced information. What's your relationship to Dr. Cat, if you don't mind me asking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.223 (talk • contribs)
 * You don't believe someone who has worked on that many notable games in his career is notable?  D r e a m Focus  21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you or I believe is notable, all that matters is how much notability can be demonstrated by references. For Dr. Cat and Dragon's Eye Productions, the only thing that's somewhat demonstrably notable is their relationship to Furcadia. That's why the articles should be merged. Even Furcadia is poorly sourced though - almost every reference is Furcadia talking about itself. Until today the article was at least 25% self-promotion with links to the shopping carts of their online store. That's one of the most blatant disregards for reliability and rules governing self-promotion imaginable, and its been sitting there for months or years right in front of all of you and nobody's bothered to correct it. That's the kind of thing that makes it seem to me like all the material relating to this company on Wikipedia is mostly influenced by shills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.223 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When you call an editor a shill, you are effectively claiming that they have a conflict of interest; specifically, that they have been paid to edit Wikipedia in a certain way. This is a serious assertion that should be backed up with evidence. If you don't have it, please don't make such accusations. Merely being a fan of a game or a developer and editing on that basis is not shilling (just as good-faith editing can never be vandalism), although it may still lead to less-than-ideal decisions. GreenReaper (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose It's my personal opinion that Woodroar in simply intent on removing the DragonSpires page and isn't following the spirit of this resource. He is instead pursuing deletion or other such nullification of the article at all costs to protect his initial move to erase much of its content. 4.153.252.0 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Development Changes
The Development section is sorely out of date in terms of the staff working on Furcadia. Not least of the updates needed is the death of former staff member Ryhn. Many new staff have also been added recently. Updating the new staff is easy, but I'm unsure if the death of/memorial to Ryhn is notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

Additionally, although it looks like it's been removed, a subheading (or simply a short paragraph) for the Beekin volunteer program should be appropriate here - depending on their roles, volunteers can serve as in-game technical support, access and update the game's website, or create art for the game itself (e.g., paid avatars sold by DEP). Most current staff members are former volunteers.

Finally, the iOS client is not currently available in the App market due to conflicts with Apple's TOS. This may be worth mentioning in case anyone tries to find it. 0kitsuta0 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am Kashi Commodore, one of the Dev Team for Furcadia. I would suggest that you do indeed correct the staff mentions listed in this article. I can confirm that Fox/Sanct no longer works directly for Furcadia, and the credits page is indeed up-to-date. However, I would say I don't feel mentioning every staff member is notable enough for this entry and would advise merely mentioning those who add to the value of this article. Indeed, a mention of the volunteer system is probably far more relevant than the staff, as the use and structure of the Beekins is somewhat unique and one of the first examples of such a programme in the industry. If you mention the iOS client, you may wish to note that the client will be re-released (after some redevelopment) as part of the fundraiser goals. I do not know if that counts as encyclopedic.

I have not (and won't) edit the article myself but thought my input here may be of some value. Shaki.moshrocker (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Furcadia and the furry fandom
Simply put, this section is unnecessary, written defensively, and has no citation for the demographic claims. DEP and Infire have conducted optional demographic surveys of players in the past, but the results do not seem to have been published. All relevant, cited information can be pushed into Development.

If a point needs to be made about the developers' intentions for the game, a sentence can be added referring to its stated reason for using animal avatars in the iOS FAQ. Thoughts? 0kitsuta0 (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I interviewed Felorin/Dr. Cat at the time of the Kickstarter. His comments both there and in a prior forum post may be of use:

"I think we brought a large number of new people into the Furry Fandom in the 1990s, and nobody realizes that. [...] We had a lot of our regulars come to our table and our room parties and tell us their Furcadia names. Some people found Furcadia through the fandom, but a LOT found the fandom through Furcadia too." "We knew that the furry fandom was too small a market to make a living from. All our previous games were aimed at a larger audience, so this one was too. We also knew that a significant percentage of our players would come from the furry fandom, and that's fine too - we enjoy furry conventions, furry websites etc. ourselves. But we don't want people to think it's only for that fandom, or that furry fandom's what it's all about."
 * I think "is this intended as a furry game?" and "are Furcadians furries?" are common and valid questions that the article should attempt to answer (among many others). It may be more appropriate to do so in the section related to the history of development, though. GreenReaper (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Furcadia. 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/20100211234136/http://mpogd.com/news/?ID=2279 to http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=2279

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Furcadia. 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/20141102053007/http://www.furcadia.com/update/species/ to http://www.furcadia.com/update/species/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111012626/http://www.furcadia.com/update/animating.html to http://www.furcadia.com/update/animating.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Can this even be considered a game?
Before making edits to this article, I'd like to find some consensus here on the Talk page. Can Furcadia really be considered a MMORPG? I don't think it qualifies as such. It has no game mechanics of its own, let alone RPG mechanics.

It seems more like a platform, where social games can be interacted with, rather than an actual game in its own right.

I find it fits this category much more accurately:

 * Visual Chat Room

and if you want to push the "gaming" aspect of it, then this one:

 * Social-network game

Please give me your thoughts and reasons as to why (or why not) should the article perpetuate the idea this is a MMORPG.

Thank you Raven-14 (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Furcadia


text:
Category:Ice hockey coaches

This is a category categorizing articles pertaining to coaches in ice hockey.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Ice hockey coaches


text:
Sound art

Sound art is an artistic activity in which sound is utilized as a primary medium or material. Like many genres of contemporary art, sound art may be interdisciplinary in nature, or be used in hybrid forms. According to Brandon LaBelle, sound art as a practice "harnesses, describes, analyzes, performs, and interrogates the condition of sound and the process by which it operates."

In Western art, early examples include Luigi Russolo's Intonarumori or noise intoners (1913), and subsequent experiments by dadaists, surrealists, the Situationist International, and in Fluxus events and other Happenings. Because of the diversity of sound art, there is often debate about whether sound art falls within the domains of visual art or experimental music, or both. Other artistic lineages from which sound art emerges are conceptual art, minimalism, site-specific art, sound poetry, electro-acoustic music, spoken word, avant-garde poetry, sound scenography, and experimental theatre.

Origin of term
According to Bernhard Gál's research, the first published use of the term was found in Something Else Press on the cover of their 1974 Yearbook. The first use as the title of an exhibition at a major museum was 1979's "Sound Art" at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (MoMA), featuring Maggi Payne, Connie Beckley, and Julia Heyward. The curator, Barbara London defined sound art as, "more closely allied to art than to music, and are usually presented in the museum, gallery, or alternative space."

Commenting on an exhibition called "Sound/Art" at The Sculpture Center in New York City in 1984 art historian Don Goddard noted: "It may be that sound art adheres to curator Hellermann's perception that 'hearing is another form of seeing,' that sound has meaning only when its connection with an image is understood...The conjunction of sound and image insists on the engagement of the viewer, forcing participation in real space and concrete, responsive thought, rather than illusionary space and thought."

Sound installation
Sound installation is an intermedia and time-based art form. It is an expansion of an art installation in the sense that it includes the sound element and therefore the time element. The main difference with a sound sculpture is that a sound installation has a three-dimensional space and the axes with which the different sound objects are being organized are not exclusively internal to the work, but also external. A work of art is an installation only if it makes a dialog with the surrounding space. A sound installation is usually site-specific, but sometimes it can be readapted to other spaces. It can be made either in closed or open spaces, and context is fundamental in determining how a sound installation will be aesthetically perceived. The difference between a regular art installation and a sound installation is that the latter contains a time element, which gives the visiting public the option to stay longer to explore the development of the sound over time. This temporal factor also gives the audience an incentive to explore the space more thoroughly and investigate the disposition of the different sounds in space.

Sound installations sometimes use interactive art technology (computers, sensors, mechanical and kinetic devices, etc.), but they can also simply use sound sources placed at different points in space (such as speakers), or acoustic instrument materials such as piano strings played by a performer or by the public (see Paul Panhuysen). In the context of museums, this combination of interactive technology and multi-channel speaker distribution is sometimes referred to as sound scenography.

Sound structure in sound installations

 * 1) The simplest sound form is a repeating sound loop. This is mostly used in Ambient music-like art, and in this case the sound is not the determinant factor of the art work.
 * 2) The most used sound structure is the open form, since the public can decide to experience a sound installation for just a few minutes or for a longer period of time. This obliges the artist to construct a sound organization that is capable of working well in both cases.
 * 3) There is also the possibility to have a linear sound structure, where sound develops in the same way as in a musical composition. This type of structure can be seen in interactive sound installations like "The Zone," created by the collaborative group Volumetric Units, which explores the phenomenological experience of hyperreal cyberspace

Sound sculpture
Sound sculpture is an intermedia and time-based art form in which sculpture or any kind of art object produces sound, or the reverse (in the sense that sound is manipulated in such a way as to create a sculptural as opposed to temporal form or mass). Most often sound sculpture artists were primarily either visual artists or composers, not having started out directly making sound sculpture.

Cymatics and kinetic art have influenced sound sculpture. Sound sculpture is sometimes site-specific. Bill Fontana's research on urban sound sculpture delves into the concept of shifting ambient noises within cityscapes to produce distinct auditory encounters. Through this approach, he modifies the surrounding soundscape, impacting how listeners perceive their environment while highlighting both the auditory and visual elements of a particular space.

Sound Artist and Professor of Art at Claremont Graduate University Michael Brewster described his own works as "Acoustic Sculptures" as early as 1970. Grayson described sound sculpture in 1975 as "the integration of visual form and beauty with magical, musical sounds through participatory experience."

Notable sound sculptures

 * Blackpool High Tide Organ
 * Gesundheit Radio
 * Sea organ
 * Singing Ringing Tree (Panopticons)
 * A Sound Garden
 * Golden Gate Bridge
 * Cloud harp

title: Sound art


text:
User talk:Gareon

(Sorry, I guess nobody ever gave you the standard welcome message, so here it is:)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prime Ministers
Hey Gareon! I just wanted to ask if you can confirm the info in the Prime Minister of the Philippines article. Sources are hard to come by. Thanks. --Noypi380 09:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Order of Sikatuna
Ang galing galing mo pare! Very impressive work!--Jondel 08:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Written by an expert...excellent work! A suggested improvement: a list of notable persons who have been awarded the Order of Sikatuna...that would be an nice touch to the article. --- Tito Pao 12:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Manuel L. Quezon
Hi, thanks for your contributions to Manuel L. Quezon, but a lot of it seems to be copied directly from internet sources such as this. Copyright violations have to be removed from Wikipedia. Please revise your edits to remove copyrighted content... thanks. :) Coffee 05:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. The additions were with the approval of Jonathan and Ed Malaya, but if there's any problem, let me know.

GareonGareon

 * Ah, that's great then. No problem. :) Coffee 08:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Reread Wikipedia stuff, I guess it's too complicated to use published work. So reverted to an older version, will rewrite it more thoroughly so as to adhere more conscientiously to Wiki policies! GareonGareon

Quezon Service Award
Please becareful about copying and pasting. These are serious violations in wikipedia and journalism.--Jondel 02:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Copying and pasting what? Also, it's Quezon Service Cross, to use the term "award" for a decoration is wrong. Also, I noticed you removed "benefaction" etc, but that's in the official criteria, should we perhaps put it in quotes so it's not viewed as POV? Thanks. Am eager to learn, so please let me know what you think should be changed/improved. Gareon

Garreon, your contributions are higly appreciated.

1) Please state your sources. Believe me, when you don't its like honey for bee-like copyright checkers.

2) If you did copy state at the bottom with something like courtesy of  or this material is a copy of.

3) Ideas can't be copyrighted so rewrite. Read, then write from memory without looking at the original.

4) I think the Quezon Service Cross came from here . Second paragraph down at the ninoy material. There are maaaany people who copy and paste and it takes too much time to rewrite. They really are very strict here .  Please be careful. Please understand.

I am trying to rewrite it so that it does not appear copied. --Jondel 10:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Garreon please read the following and rewrite, if not , I or another administrator may have to go through your contributions and post a violation for copied articles since I don't have the time to rewrite. This is a standard in journalism. Please do not copy and paste.--Jondel 11:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Copyright problems
 * Spotting possible copyright violations

Jondel, both the press statement and the article on Wikipedia quoted the law, here is the actual provision: (EO 236, actual text):

"SECTION 5. Honors Conferred. I.	Quezon Service Cross (Krus ng Serbisyo ni Quezon) –

Created by Joint Resolution No. 4 dated October 21, 1946 of the First Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, the Quezon Service Cross is a Decoration conferred by the President of the Philippines with the concurrence of the Congress of the Philippines on Filipino citizens for exemplary service to the nation in such a manner and such a degree as to add great prestige to the Republic of the Philippines, or as to contribute to the lasting benefit of its people.

Nominations for the Quezon Service Cross shall state the services meriting the award and shall be made only in cases where the service performed or contribution made can be measured on the scale established by the national benefaction of the late President Manuel L. Quezon."

The EO terms were lifted, in term, almost verbatim from Joint Resolution No. 4:

"[JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4]

JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE THE QUEZON SERVICE CROSS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO THE NATION IN MEMORY OF THE LATE PRESIDENT MANUEL L. QUEZON.

WHEREAS, the life of Manuel L. Quezon is and should be a shining inspiration to the people of the Philippines now and in the future; WHEREAS, the values and ideals exemplified in the resplendent public service of the late President Manuel L. Quezon constitute a standard by which other contributions to the people's welfare can be compared and evaluated; WHEREAS, the unselfish devotion to the public good and the supreme sacrifice of life in the cause of his country made of Manuel L. Quezon one of the great heroes of all time; WHEREAS, the memory of the late and beloved President will be cherished by his people through the generations to come, in company with the other immortals of our nation; and WHEREAS, it is proper and desirable in commemoration of his name that the model of his life and achievements be used as a standard of recognition for all great and lasting contributions to the welfare of the people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

To establish, as there is hereby established, an award to be known as the Quezon Service Cross, to be granted by the President of the Philippines, with the concurrence in each case of the Congress of the Philippines, for exemplary service to the nation in such a manner and such a degree as to add great prestige to the Republic of the Philippines, or as to contribute to the lasting benefit of its people. Nominations for this award shall be accomplished by a statement of the services meriting the award and shall be made only in cases where the service performed or contribution made can be measured on the scale established by the national benefaction of the late President Manuel L. Quezon. That the President be authorized to provide for the design and conformation of suitable medal and ribbon accompanying the award, and to issue necessary rules and regulations governing the precedence and privileges of the award and of its recipients: Provided, that Congress may in the future establish such further benefits for the recipients of this award as may be found desirable.

Approved, October 21, 1946."

Hope this is ok? Gareon

Garreon, could you give me the source link for the above ? I would appreciate a link for the 'Library of the Philippine Constitution' for the section that you placed above. in the statement below.

''This article incorporates public domain text from the [Library of the Philippine Constitution]."

Please feel free to place the statement at the bottom.

Government sources are public domain but even then it would be good to place the above or similar statements.

Thanks,--Jondel 00:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Jondel, the documents are in my possession, one is from an old copy of the Official Gazette, the other from a xerox copy of the actual E.O. how do we do that? Gareon 08:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Things are OK
Gareon, things are OK. Let me insert this statements instead:This article incorporates public domain text from the library of the Philippine Congress.

Baka gusto mong tumambay => Tambayan Philippines.

Keep up the good work!.--Jondel 01:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! It's a pleasure to be learning on the fly! Gareon 08:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Gar!
Dude, Gar .. nag-eedit ka pala rito! :-D --Chris S. 05:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, hehehe Gareon 08:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, need your advice again. Can you check the Talk:2005 Philippine electoral crisis. Thanks. --Noypi380 08:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Signature
Hey again. I was just curious if you need help with the signature feature of wikipedia. For example, like this "--Noypi380 16:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)". If you are not familiar, I can help. During editing, one would find 11 buttons on top of the editing box. Press the second button from the right, after you finish writing you're text. Symbols will appear, which will eventually become your signature, after you press "save page". It will render your username, date and time. :) --Noypi380 16:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's four tildes ~ . But I think Gar knows how to use it - I see that he has used it above. --Chris S. 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie then, though I use --~, which works too. Happy editing, :) --Noypi380 09:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I never remember how many tildes. Sorry about that. Gareon 14:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Presidential Study
Hi Gareon, I'm just amazed about the info that you shared on the "Presidential Study", maybe we can start an article about that if you have mo infos to share, we can do an article patterned like the Oval Office as The Presidential Study, the official office of the President of the Philippines. But we also need refrences on those too. Thanks. --Glenncando 07:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Glenncando. All that information is accessible in "Malacanan Palace: The Official Illustrated History" which is a bit expensive, but if you're in Powerbooks or Fully Booked, you can browse the book. Gareon 09:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me. PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Veep of the Philippines (list)
Hey Gar! I think that the current List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines is inaccurate. Would you agree, or I got something wrong. Why would Tejeros Convention be equated to "the Philippines"? --Noypi380 14:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Noypi. Unfortunately, we're stuck on the point that the Office of the Vice-President Website carries information on Trias being a VP and so, that information has to be reproduced in Wikipedia. As I've repeatedly argued, we must strive for a certain level of consistency. If Malolos was the First Republic, than any regime that came before was not a government in the full sense of the word. But every time I bring this up the OVP website is mentioned... Gareon 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. According to the verifiable content policy, as long as the OVP source is labeled the "official" source, and it is unchallenged by a credible third party source: Then the OVP roster is the basis of the wikipedia roster. So I guess that is the end of it, unfortunately. --Noypi380 17:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to use indents in talk pages.
If you'll reply to a post in a talk page, prefix it first with ":" so that the poster everyone will know to whom is your reply. Thanks. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

 * My apologies. Thanks for the correction!Gareon 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello...
Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I think I saw the user name "Gareon" somewhere in the Internet (on LJ, I think). Are you the same person? --- Tito Pao 12:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Yup, that's me.Gareon 13:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa...I'm not worthy! =D --- Tito Pao 14:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Order of Sikatuna
Hi! In case you do not know, there is an article Sandugo and Sandugo Festival that talks about it being symbolized in the Order of Sikatuna. FYI. --Pinay06(Talk•Email) 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, in the article, Pacto de Sangre links to the metal band of the same name, not the actual ritual made between Sikatuna and Miguel Lopez de Legazpi. IMHO, it is best to link it to Sandugo. I did not edit without letting you know first. --Pinay06(Talk•Email) 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also a stub on Blood compact which encompasses all others, including Sandugo and the one made between Magellan and Lapulapu. --Pinay06(Talk•Email) 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to Sandugo. Let me point out again that the current link to Pacto de Sangre still links to the metal band (as opposed to the El pacto de sangre painting of Juan Luna) which, if I'm not wrong, has absolutely nothing to do at all with the article. Maybe remove the wiki link and change to italics to denote Spanish translation of blood compact, i.e., instead of Pacto de Sangre, Pacto de sangre.  Once again, in deference and respect to you User:Gareon, I inhibit myself from making the edit myself. --Pinay06  (Talk•Email) 08:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Order of Sikatuna is based on historical fallacy
In the talk page, I discuss the historical fallacy that underpins the creation of the Order. The Sikatuna-Legazpi blood compact was not a treaty, it was not the first recorded blood compact, and Sikatuna was not the only datu who participated in the blood letting. The first blood compact, named casi casi by Ferdinand Magellan, took place at the island-port of Mazaua on Holy Thursday, March 28, 1521, 44 years before the event immortalized in Juan Luna’s painting, which was the inspiration for the Executive Order creating the Order of Sikatuna. The first treaty was called Peace Treaty by Magellan. It occurred on Tuesday, April 9, 1521 in Cebu and was entered into by raia Humabon, king of Cebu, binding his kingdom, and Magellan, for and in behalf of the Spanish Crown. For precision's sake, it was not a treaty between the Philippines and Spain, two sovereign nations. The idea of a nation did not come into the Filipino's consciousness not until the 19th century. I might add that "precision" is only another name for truth.

If we then follow the logic behind the Executive Order creating the Order of Sikatuna, the decoration should be renamed Order of Raias Siaiu and Humabon, combining the ideas of blood brotherhood and treaty of peace.

The Philippine government should move swiftly to correct this lapse in historical precision. A similar Order, the Order of Kalantiaw, has been removed once it was established beyond doubt that Kalantiaw was a hoax. But it took eighteen (18) years after the hoax had been exposed by historian William Henry Scott. Those who received the decoration, usually retired Chief Justices of the Philippine Supreme Court and in rare cases Associate Justices, are now holding dubious distinctions if not indeed worthless awards.

The same will happen with the Order of Sikatuna award except that this leaves the Republic of the Philippines open to the charge of incompetence in establishing historical fact and truth. Better to solve the problem now than to keep on living with a fraud. Indeed, a hoax. The embarrassment is of global proportion because awardees have come from all points of the world. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms image
I apologize for what I have done, and I am in the process of fixing the image. You're also welcome to email me (you can press "E-mail this user" or go to my userpage and find out). I just need to do the eagle and it should be finished either tonight or tomorrow. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * zach, no need to apologize, i just don't see the point in reinventing the wheel. the official image already being used is as definitive as an image can get.Gareon 07:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What I am probably going to do is this: I almost finished the SVG drawing. I need to draw the olive branch and it will be complete. I am going to rename the other file and hopefully, that should be a solution that everyone could live with. I will also write to Philippines Gov't offices in the US and see if I can get a better scan of the arms. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Merry Christmas!!! The real meaning of Christmas is thisand this... I also want you to enjoy this and this --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 04:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Philippine WikiCon
You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. --Exec8 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

title: User talk:Gareon


text: Template:Canadian passenger rail systems


text: Category:Transport in Northumberland

title: Category:Transport in Northumberland


text:
Talk:Anna Massey

Birthplace
According to List_of_civil_parishes_in_West_Sussex, there's a Thakeham there. Are there two of them? ---Isaac R 03:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the maps there is only a Thakeham in West Sussex, not in Surrey. It's been listed here as being in Surrey since the first version of this article. I think that's just a mistake that nobody has bothered to correct. -- SteveCrook 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tube Announcements
Could someone please tell me if it is Anna Massey who is reading the "Please stand clear of the doors" recorded announcement at Belsize Park tube station in London? Cjcooper (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Anna Massey 2.jpg

title: Talk:Anna Massey


text:
Talk:Bungie

New Bungie game series?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20529785?ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

where does this go on the bungie page, it is quite confusing as there is no 'games' section only history (Fdsdh1 (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

Needs updating
Under the "halo and buyout" section it says: Halo's success led to Bungie creating two sequels. Halo 2 was released on November 9, 2004, making more than $125 million on release day and setting a record in the entertainment industry.[20] Halo 3, the final installment in the Halo trilogy, was released on September 25, 2007 and surpassed Halo 2's records, making $170 million in its first twenty-four hours of release[21] and becoming the most pre-ordered game in history.

No mention of reach? I would have done it myself but the page is protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.62.42 (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image
Since this will just continue unproductively: there is no reason to replace a raster and definitely low-resolution image with a homemade, derivative SVG which may or may not meet WP:NFCC policy. 'Nuff said. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had posted here on the talk page that you might present your argument, Connor, rather than reverting me... -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does comply with WP:NFCC. You should know your stuff by now. Connormah (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * NFCC criterion 3b: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." Can you tell me how you are justified in using a much higher quality SVG that can be scaled to whatever resolution is wished, when we already have raster PNGs of sufficient resolution and quality? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know there was no consensus over the dispute. There are many non-free vector images on Wikipedia. --Connormah (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really answering my question, but since nobody at ANI actually cared enough to keep the discussion going, are you willing to actually participate in an RfC? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will, if it is absolutely necessary. Can we just settle it here? How about I render a PNG of my vector? Will that be okay? Connormah (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A raster copy of the image would be perfectly acceptable, that's what I've been gunning for the entire time. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll render one, but, I still think our behavior through this whole dispute has been unacceptable. I may start a RfC on your conduct. Connormah (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Bungie Leaving?
Somewhere when I was at my business at Microsoft, I heard a wild rumor that Bungie was leaving...I posted this here to confirm this. Can anyone have available sources to agree/disagree with this? If so, please tell me. Thank you very much.--Rollersox (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bungie is leaving... what? Bungie has already broken with Microsoft, and they have said that Halo: Reach will be their last Halo game. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk )
 * There is an error on the current article, Bungie is no longer part of Microsoft. By tagging Microsoft as parent - i think it is incorrect. Chirag (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It has dates "(2000-2007)" so it's clear that that is past, not present. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

PNG VS SVG
I have nominated the PNG for deletion and replaced it with the vector, as with the other million of articles that contain SVG logos. If you have objections or prefer the earlier logo, raise your concerns in the Ffd. Please refrain from reverting and cause a 3RR violation... again. This ain't logo land and we need to decide now which we are going to keep. Perhaps listing one of the images in Ffd might help bring this issue to a solution.  Zoo Fari  04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * David once again reverts the edit. Normally, I would revert one more time before I get into 3RR trouble, but since I respect everyone's opinion, including David's, then I didn't bother. David seems to lack that type of respect.  Zoo Fari  14:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I don't respect shills. Connor or David should have nominated the file instead of getting a proxy. Take it to the FfD. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Ffd is just about getting an image deleted. Here we are trying to decide whether or not to use the png or svg, so shunting us off to the Ffd is a bad choice. There are three people here that would like to use the SVG, but your overruling and 3RRs don't allow the SVG to touch this article. Now that I mentioned Ffd, you now decide to push us over there. Now tell me, why didn't you nominate the SVG for deletion since this became such an issue all of a sudden?  Zoo Fari  14:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It hasn't become an issue all of a sudden. I object to editors who know jack about a subject and who have contributed jack to a subject deciding on the styling of that page. Would you like it if I started changing the infobox image of Caribbean hermit crab from File:Caribbean hermit crab.JPG to File:Coenobita clypeatus.jpg over everyone else? I'm sorry I don't have a legion of other editors to support my version—this is a comparatively low-traffic article and most of the original authors are no longer actively editing—but it's the principle of the thing. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So this is about you keeping your work among the others? Even so David, that's not the proper way of dealing with this sort of thing. You've been here long enough to know that. I wouldn't mind the crab image changed but if I really objected, I would go to the talk page and talk about it in a civil way. You did none of that and started an edit war. If the community wants the SVG, just let it go regardless of the policies.  Zoo Fari  15:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's "my" work? The image isn't my upload; Connor is the one pushing his traced SVGs onto article pages. My point is the community has not decided they "want" the SVG. I've only seen two or three scattered discussions on WP:IUP or similar about nonfree SVGs, but there's never been a significant discussion that involved a good portion of the community besides the usual suspects. I find Levy's assertion at the moment entirely unfounded. If the community had, then someone should have amended NFCC. Also: edit warring is a two-way street. Damning me for reverting to the accepted version before Connor showed up is bull, considering that he did not go to the talk page to discuss (WP:BRD). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your example about my crab image makes it look like you have a problem with us replacing an image you made significant contributions to. What is it, the edit you made to it? And FYI, no one decided to use the PNG either but you. You simply revert on us almost ten times (something you assert it isn't 3RR) and then you start being uncivil. I'm not saying you're doing the wrong thing, it's just that you as an admin could do better, instead of creating such argument. And you just admitted yourself: There has never been a significant discussion or guideline about SVG logos, so I remain puzzled on your continous argument.  Zoo  Fari  20:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be such a big deal? It is representing the same as the PNG, just in SVG format. As mentioned numerous times, SVGs do not violate WP:NFCC as of now, and there is no reason why it should not be used, other than to satisfy your personal opinion on the non-free SVG issue. You have continued with uncivilty towards myself, and have reverted every single replacement with the SVG. Connormah (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bungie Trademarks Marathon
shouldnt it be mentioned that Bungie has now trademarked the Marathon IP, leading many to speculate a reboot of the series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.112.4 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bungie vs. Bungie LLC
Im pretty sure Marty said that Bungie was just bungie now and not Bungie LLC in his podcast a while back, can someone confirm this? ⊕ Assasin Joe talk 14:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs updating
halo reach and halo odst already came out. could somebody update it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.106.217 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is already a page for Halo: Reach but no mention of it in this article. This article is out of date.
 * Clokey2k (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bungie Aerospace?
Bungie's new project they are working on is speculated to be Bungie Aerospace, as this website shows here, but with no content yet as of post: http://bungieaerospace.com/ The general consensus around the gaming community and gaming sites is that Aerospace is a   game engine that Bungie plans to license in the same way Epic licenses Unreal Engine. This is not proven obviously but that is what the buzz is.--JMFJMF (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's yet to be any reliable sources with hard evidence on the project, so until something gets announced we leave it out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 11:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bungie, Inc.!
"That's right, Bungie, LLC is now known as Bungie, Inc., a corporation owned and operated by its employees. The nuts, dear friends, are now running this here nuthouse." -- http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=30267

Fix!

PHNX22 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jakeysuave, 25 April 2011
Under the "Bungie.net" section, the screenshot taken of Bungie.net needs to be updated. The initial website has been significantly updated since that date and time. I can leave that picture there, but also add in a new one and write some more on Bungie.net

Thank you, Jake

Jakeysuave (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to upload one. C T J F 8 3  11:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Page Needs Updated As of 6/29/2011.
This page needs updated because it still talks about Halo Reach as if in the future and it states that Halo Reach will not be the last Halo game for Bungie. As of August 1, 2011 Bungie is no longer part of Halo in any way, shape, or form. Also Halo 4 is being made by Microsoft 343 studios not Bungie.Hadn69 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Louie Neumeyer (see www.bungie.net)

Bungie Foundation
Should their chairty foundation be listed?

Or even their 20th annivereasry activites? They did indirectly cause amazon to crash, and i'd assume that's notable. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What's an IP within this context ?
twice the article mentions the fact that bungie is working on (a) new "IP(s)": "The company is known for its informal and dedicated workplace culture, and is currently working on multiple projects and an unknown new IP." and "On April 29, 2010, Bungie announced that it was entering into a 10-year publishing agreement with publisher Activision Blizzard to bring a few new IPs to multiple platforms, and steamroll out the sequels."

i have no idea what "IP" means within this context, nor does the article seem to provide any explanation or link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.116.26.209 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

IP meaning intellectual property LOL-117 (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "IPs" generally means several different pieces of intellectual property. In this context, it usually means new copyrighted works. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bungie.net
You guys (I'm looking at you, Davey) were actively monitoring and editing this article months after a major website update without changing the Bungie.net section. Nearly all of the information in the section was completely outdated.

I'm not interested in a edit war but is there a reason for the removing of my content? If the section originally contained info on the "news" section of the site, or the mentioning of the "Bungie Weekly Updates", both very outdated pieces of material, what did it matter if I replaced them with the sites current "news" section and the sites current version of weekly updates, "Mail Sacks"?

If you guys never go onto the site and know nothing about what you are editing then, as hard as it may be to see content that is not yours, leave it up to somebody who actively participates in the community. Instead of replacing content with one single sentence because you aren't familiar with it and you didn't write it keep it there for the benefit of the doubt since you know nothing of the site. Also, any justification of the reversion? You should check up on the help section in regards of reverting bro. Was that vandalism to you? Also, no abbreviations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.154.69 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bungie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080218054840/http://www.bungie.net:80/inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime to http://www.bungie.net/Inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Bungie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101019092914/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/media/halo3.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/halo3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080226221010/http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/8/5/d85ce76f-0cb2-41df-aaae-a8c96790332b/Bungie_Podcast_092007.mp3 to http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/8/5/d85ce76f-0cb2-41df-aaae-a8c96790332b/Bungie_Podcast_092007.mp3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080411183316/http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/8/5/d85ce76f-0cb2-41df-aaae-a8c96790332b/Bungie_Podcast_020408.mp3 to http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/8/5/d85ce76f-0cb2-41df-aaae-a8c96790332b/Bungie_Podcast_020408.mp3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071222193911/http://blogs.mercurynews.com:80/aei/2006/09/developer_focus.html to http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/09/developer_focus.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Buyout details
Article incorrectly states that the Myth II recall debacle happened around the same time as the Microsoft purchase. In fact it happened two years earlier during Myth II's release, and did not affect only Asian versions of the game but all Windows uninstallers under the wrong circumstances. The cost of the recall led in large part to Bungie selling a ~20% share of themselves to Take Two, which is subsequently the reason why Take Two got Myth and Oni when Microsoft bought the rest of Bungie. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like the timeframe got garbled with later additions, so I've cut the temporal line to make it a bit clearer. The Take Two sale isn't specifically mentioned, although it probably should be considering the aftermath is discussed. Will have to look for a link elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the Oni community's wiki has a fairly extensive treatment of the Take Two and MS deals (I know because I wrote it!). Feel free to borrow any sources or text from it if you want to add to this Wikipedia article. --Iritscen (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Bungie. 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/20120527132156/http://www.gamesradar.com/the-history-of-halo/ to http://www.gamesradar.com/the-history-of-halo/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/monsters-in-a-box/Content?oid=901762
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613140507/http://www.gamespot.com/ to http://www.gamespot.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120123232647/http://www.gamespot.com:80/news/halo-reach-arrives-2010-6210617 to http://www.gamespot.com/news/halo-reach-arrives-2010-6210617
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028012949/http://uk.gamespy.com:80/articles/117/1179928p1.html to http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/117/1179928p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106212523/http://www.gamespot.com/news/halo-2-headset-price-cut-for-charity-6153681 to http://www.gamespot.com/news/halo-2-headset-price-cut-for-charity-6153681

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

20 3 of coins did not work
hey guy so I play destiny and I am light level 335 since today but I used 20 3 of coins and I got nothing I would like you guys to help me I play on PS3 my account name is Poppabear3769 please send message back or something please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:7E07:6300:D85A:25DE:6:DB58 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

List platforms that Bungie games were ported to?
Earlier this month, one editor removed from the "Developed games" section any platforms that Bungie games were ported to by other studios, in this edit. Someone just added back the ported platforms for the original Halo, but not for the other games that were ported to platforms by third parties. I reverted the edit simply because I thought we should be consistent. What is the consensus on this? Do we want to list all the platforms that each game runs on, or just the platforms that Bungie developed the game for? I don't see a prior discussion on this in the talk page archives. --Iritscen (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Operating under the assumption that no replies to the above signifies agreement, I've removed and touched up the platforms listed in the "Games developed" section again. Lots of third-party port platforms were getting added. --Iritscen (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 * I hadn't seen your message since I've only attached to the page a couple weeks ago. We usually handle ports by also listing them in developer's infoboxes as all the sweat and tears they put into those projets alto presists in ports, since another company only put effort on top of it and did not replace the old game. This is contrary to derivative games (e.g. Game Boy titles developed alongside console games by another company), which we do not include. Lordtobi  ( ✉ ) 08:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 * I see. I can restore the ported platforms then. I thought it would be confusing for the reader since there are a lot of additional platforms that Bungie games have been ported to. 1994's Marathon is the most extreme example, having been open-sourced and "freewared" by Bungie around 2000, and then fan-ported to iOS, Windows, Linux, and macOS 10. Should we not mark the ports in some way as having been done later by third parties? I looked around a bit and could not find a similar situation on another developer's page to use as a reference. --Iritscen (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 * We should only list official ports released by the rightsholder (Bungie in this case?) and contracted publishers. I.e., those listed on the Wikipedia article for the game that were strsight ports. Lordtobi  ( ✉ ) 10:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 * And I guess you would include ports that were done years later? The official port of Marathon 2 to Xbox 360 by Freeverse Software in 2007? The ports of Halo 1-4 to Xbox One in the Master Chief Collection in 2014? I'll go ahead and add those in too. --Iritscen (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 * As long as they are not backwards-compatible platforms or emulations, yeah. Though consider putting collections into their own slots. Lordtobi  ( ✉ ) 12:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, the only collection I'm aware of is the Master Chief one, and the problem with listing it separately is that Bungie didn't have any part in making it. It was done by 343 Industries in league with a bunch of subcontractor studios. --Iritscen (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Owner
Hi, sorry the bother, there is a problem going on here with the "owner" thing. During this edit change on BioWare, you told that "Owner" parameter is for investeors who bought minor stakes in the company. So I tought that since Bungie sold a minority stake of the company to Chinese company NetEase for over $100 million, I could put NetEase under "Owner" parameter. Is that right? I mean NetEase bought minor stakes in the company. User David Fuchs doesn't agree with me as he said "that's not how corporate ownership works, otherwise every infobox could have major shareholders listed". Lone Internaut (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for this, of course! Since this is a private company, the owner field should be used for exactly that. Even better would be if you can provide the percentage NetEase now own in Bungie, otherwise say "(minority stake)". It is only somewhat tighter for public companies since everyone can just go to the nearest stock market and snag a few shares for themselves, there we insert owners of long-term strategic investors (e.g. Tencent in Ubisoft). Lordtobi  ( ✉ ) 16:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is number 53, cited in the page text, section "Independent company" - On June 2018, Bungie sold a minority stake of the company to Chinese company NetEase for over $100 million.[53]
 * Unfortunately percentage is not said, so I will put "(minority stake)". Thank you, very much! Lone Internaut (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of sources regarding Gnop's branding
I was recently reverted with the claim of "original research" for adding that Gnop referred to itself as a Bungie game in its own About Box, with a screenshot of said game as a source. What more reliable source than a screenshot from the game itself can be supplied about what the game itself says about itself? I have Gnop myself, off the Marathon Trilogy Box Set CD. It's freeware, so I can share that with the other editors here if they want to get an old Mac emulator running and take a look themselves, but I don't see how that's going to be any more reliable than me looking at it myself. (I did not in fact take that screenshot myself, because I thought that would be less reliable than one already hosted elsewhere). I also provided a citation to an actual print publication (the Marathon Scrapbook, published by Bungie themselves in 1997) for the claim that Bungie themselves called it their first game, in materials much closer to the event than the present ones that disavow it. I doubt anyone here is going to go out and find a copy of the Scrapbook, so I can handily provide a photo from my copy. You can also find scans of the Scrapbook elsewhere on the internet, or buy a copy off of eBay if you really want, if you're so paranoid that you think I'd doctor a photo or screenshot. This is not original research, this is verifiable historical fact -- you can look at the product itself to confirm what it says about itself, if you care to actually put in the effort -- and I don't understand the weird crusade to erase that from history in the contemporary Bungie fandom. I'm restoring the addition. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight—your source for the fact that Gnop shipped as a Bungie game is ex post facto release from the Marathon Trilogy? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the explanation, but it still fails to address that re-releases could have been changed post-release. As David Fuchs points out correctly, you are justifying your changes being correcting by pointing to your own copy of a re-release. The source provided in the article is not reliable, and the image can have been shopped, even if it does not have to be. Not reliable- shouldn't use. Before re-insertion, per WP:BRD, it should be discussed first. Lordtobi  ( ✉ ) 17:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I happened to have stumbled over a reliable source that states this and added it to the article. Removed the unreliable source. Lordtobi  ( ✉ ) 17:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. While you were doing that I also realized that the Gnop section of the article was out of place, apparently having been inserted between the previous and next sections when the previously separate Gnop article was merged here (which section already had the information I was adding, anyway), which broke the narrative flow of the article (made Marathon be called the next project after Gnop). So I've merged that Gnop section into the previous section, and kept your changes along the way. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft and Sony
Since bungie was part of Microsoft from 2000-2007 it should be listed as parent from that time and independent from 2007-2022 and then it should have Sony interactive as parent 2022-Present. I have no idea why this keeps going back and forth in the edits. I Am Hunted (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bungie deal hasn't been finalized yet so I'm not sure having Sony as the parent company makes any sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

We could put that the sale is pending. I’ve also seen that the page has been edited to include Microsoft game studios being the parent with a edit also saying that bungie shouldn’t be classified as it’s parent. Should we add in a footnote about bungie being independent from 2007-2022 then? I Am Hunted (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 * No, because, the template guidelines clearly state to include "The name(s) of the current and former parent companies and the time-span(s) in which they owned the subject. Do not add "independent" as the parent company to designate times without a parent company". Until the acquisition with Sony is completeted, only Microsoft should be included in the field no one else. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

claim re: rocket jumping
The article claims Marathon "introduced the rocket jumping mechanic to gamers". The secret exit for E3M6 in Doom(1993) already *required* rocket jumping. So the game mechanic was both known and established enough the year before to be part of level design.

Can the claim be modified to "popularised" or something similar? IMHO the current wording doesn't reflect the facts. Jwilkes (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed it entirely. I didn't see Marathon described in the article at all to support the claim. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023
Add Bungie Amsterdam into the Subsidiaries category on the infobox, Sources: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/bungie-opening-amsterdam-publishing-office https://investinholland.com/news/bungie-announces-first-international-office-in-amsterdam/ DeMarq0 (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is no subsidiaries parameter in the infobox. Lightoil (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Racism
In 2023 Bungie used a racist term against Latin American people on their Twitter/X account. See https://afkgaming.com/gaming/bungie-faces-backlash-over-latinx-post-on-twitter --Conspiration 23:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bungie


text: Category:History of Northumberland

title: Category:History of Northumberland


text:
Off-the-shelf

Off-the-shelf may refer to:

 * Commercial off-the-shelf, a phrase in computing and industrial supply terminology
 * Government off-the-shelf, software and hardware government products that are ready to use and which were created and are owned by a government agency
 * Ready-to-wear, mass produced clothing sold in finished condition in standardized sizes instead of being tailored to a particular person's frame
 * Shelf corporation, a registered company purposefully with no activity, for various reasons
 * Off the Shelf Festival, a festival of writing and reading which takes place each year in Sheffield, United Kingdom
 * A product recall (the product is "taken off the shelf")

title: Off-the-shelf


text:
Talk:Neo Metal

hmm, neo-metal? so, basically, power metal is now known as "neo-metal"?

i don't get it...

I guess so. Definately not neo-classical metal though.

title: Talk:Neo Metal