Talk:Asheron's Call 2: Difference between revisions
imported>An Adventurer mNo edit summary |
imported>Tlosk |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
--[[User:An Adventurer|An Adventurer]] 16:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:An Adventurer|An Adventurer]] 16:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
}} | |||
{{Post | |||
| Indent = :: | |||
| Text = I'd disagree pretty strongly and think the disclaimer saying this should be the only AC2 page should be removed. Primarily for the same reason that AC2 is a dead game, this is an active site and can provide safe haven to any information contributors are able to collect regarding AC2. I'm [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism inclusionist] by temperament and think that broadening the information available increases the utility of the wiki. As AC2 is no longer in operation there isn't an AC2 community to speak of, which makes it difficult to maintain or build stores of AC2 information. While not of interest to everyone in the AC1 community, AC2 information is of interest to quite a of few in the AC1 community and so I think it's more than appropriate to provide information about it here where possible. Not that I think it is necessarily a goal that deserves lots of resources or needs to be encouraged while important sections of AC1 content still need attention, but to the extent that contributors add AC2 content I think they should be allowed to do so. --[[User:Tlosk|Tlosk]] 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 14:03, 10 August 2009
Single/Multiple pages
I created this page, along with the disclaimer at the top, because some contributor had created individual articles archiving some AC2 lore (teasers or something similar). I did not want this to turn into an archive for a dead game that would not be useful for most viewers and waste unnecessary space, so I created the disclaimer stating that this is to be the only page dedicated to AC2.
However, I have been considering the idea of creating a few pages. Specifically, I was thinking about creating a page titled Asheron's Call 2 Lore that would go into the lore in more depth. What got me thinking about this was the fact that we can embed youtube videos here, and that I found the youtube account of ACGuy31 who has most/all of the Vault lore videos, the episode videos, and many other vidoes from AC2 (and AC1).
I never played AC2, but I still find the story interesting, even though it is not considered to be canon these days. I am sure others would be interested in the story of the game as well, and in more detail than a simple summary of the game's background story that I intended to be placed in Asheron's_Call_2#Lore_Summary.
There could be a few other articles as well that would go deeper than the main AC2 page. For example there could be a development page, a mechanics/gameplay page, and an expansion pack page. I still do not want to archive AC's patch lore, or any in-game information. This is an AC1 wiki. However, I think we could expand our coverage of the sequel beyond 1 page.--An Adventurer 16:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd disagree pretty strongly and think the disclaimer saying this should be the only AC2 page should be removed. Primarily for the same reason that AC2 is a dead game, this is an active site and can provide safe haven to any information contributors are able to collect regarding AC2. I'm inclusionist by temperament and think that broadening the information available increases the utility of the wiki. As AC2 is no longer in operation there isn't an AC2 community to speak of, which makes it difficult to maintain or build stores of AC2 information. While not of interest to everyone in the AC1 community, AC2 information is of interest to quite a of few in the AC1 community and so I think it's more than appropriate to provide information about it here where possible. Not that I think it is necessarily a goal that deserves lots of resources or needs to be encouraged while important sections of AC1 content still need attention, but to the extent that contributors add AC2 content I think they should be allowed to do so. --Tlosk 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)