Talk:Travian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Freeware?

Could Travian be labeled as a Freeware game? --Asososocrates 07:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so - you don't download it, so it is not strictly software, which freeware genarally refers to. The Missing Piece 18:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Should be classified as kind of free-of-charge shareware that never requires you to register. --Deryck C. 18:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a browser-based game. It's not software, therefore it's not shareware, or any type of -ware for that matter. 88.107.206.253 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Would the mention of past server winners be pertinent? This article doesn't even explain the mechanics of the game. --MrBlonde 12:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Although you don't download it, it is still software, it's just that the software runs on Travian's servers, rather than the user's PC.Dansiman 10:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese vers

Chinese version of this article has a very comprehensive guide to the contents of the game. Should we incorporate those texts? --Deryck C. 09:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hangon

The following articles were proposed for deletion:

• Xenocide rpg
• histdiffWorlds of War II
• WEBoggle
• Visual Utopia
• Ultimatearcade.com
• Tribal Wars
• Travian
• The Last Knights
• Territory War
• TV Stocks Online
• Sunday League (game)
• Starships!
• SlaveHack
• Senior League Hockey
• Realspace 2
• Realms of Mayhem
• Race War Kingdoms
• Prophecy of Victo
• Planetia
• PimpNationals
• Need For Madness?
• MotherLoad
• Midnight Terror
• ManagerLeague
• The Lord Archmage
• Lands of Hope
• Inselkampf
• ITSAGOAL
• Horse Isle RPG
• GHO-Trader
• Freekick
• The Five Pillars (Online Game)
• Ferion
• Evolution (MMOG)
• Down town mafia
• Disposal project
• Dead Awaken

The speed at which these were proposed for SD suggests DarkSaber2k did not properly consider them, Travian, Ferion and Inselkampf as examples are long established articles and have large user bases.

DarkSaber2k is either misinterpreting criteria and guidance of web notability as straight rules. They must be flexible to protect articles of minority interest such as this category.

These requires the input of an administrator and a full discussion.

Bjrobinson 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Please see Bjroinsons talk page for my response to this. DarkSaber2k 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear user DarkSaber2k: first I must tell you that I am vivid player of Travian MMORTS, so I should reveal to you that Travian article is also made in other languages Wikipedias such as Català Dansk Español Français Galego Italiano Lëtzebuergesch Nederlands Polski Português Русский Suomi Svenska Türkçe 粵語 中文, -so dear user DarkSaber2k will you propose deletion also those other sites so that any mention of Travian is completely erased from Wikipedia and people worldwide are gratefuly saved from reading that insignificant articles? IMHO the discussion about deletion of some article should be placed on that articles discussion page and not on some users talk page. And by the way you as a notable deletionst should above all consider deletion parts of your own Wikipedia user page, because information that "The Internet - Where Men are Men...and so are most of the Women" has nothing to do with your activity as Wikipedia editor. --Bluewind 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it have to. WP:USER states that excessive use of a user page for non-wikipedia information is not allowed. One sentence is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. WP:USER also states: You might want to add quotations that you like, as acceptable, so I did. Next time you want to try and lecture somebody, it might be advisible to actually read up on the subject beforehand. DarkSaber2k 17:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear user DarkSaber2k additionaly I have thouroughly investigated the edit history of your own talk page User_talk:DarkSaber2k so that I have found out that you regularly deletete talk page entries so that other people can not see that numerous complaints about your problematic Wikipedia editing behavior which can be described as agressive and arrogant deletionism. At least by deleting those complaints you indicate that your actions are not fair so you need to hide them. Keep on mind that deletion is not answer but cowardice and turpitude. --Bluewind 08:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So your saying that cowardice and turpitude are the answer and not deletion? And incidently, I have nothing to hide, because hiding something implies guilt. Every user is entitled to remove information, including official warnings, from his or her talk page. Anyone with any experience at all on wikipedia knows that you can check the history of an article and read what was deleted. That's why I had no qualms about removing the discussions. I knew anyone truly desperate to try and cause trouble would go their immediately, so whether the disucussions were still visible or not was irrelevant. I have since restored all the 'hidden' discussion to my talk page. Let me know if I've missed any will you? DarkSaber2k 17:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to remove comments for archiving, but generally not due to the fact that you want to close the discussion. On the other hand, third-party web search results are only references to a subject's notability. It should not be used as a criterion for deletion. Not all software users will post software reviews. Instead, the popularity of the software should also be considered. Travian, being a software with millions of users, should be considered notable. --Deryck C. 11:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability

This article is in dire need of references. I've been bouncing from article to article finding references for articles that need them. I believe that there is a concerted effort to get rid of articles about MMORPGs, and one of the tools they use is to attack the notability of a game, because it's nototiously difficult to prove. Go to your libraries and bookstores and try to find references in printed books and magazines, don't just google. Many games like this have a huge amount of google hits. It's NOT ENOUGH. (For an example, see Starships, the only other game to survive the Great Whack). We need printed sources and independent (not user submitted) reviews. They are out there. Let's find them.Matt Brennen 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• The third party links section is not too bad now. I think an idependent review or two will do the trick. Matt Brennen 21:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• I read this after making my post about fansites. I think having a collection of fansites may add something to the notability of a game. I am not talking about ad or promotional sites. I am specifically talking about fansites that are run and maintained by its players. Cjordan79 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fan sites have already been ruled out in numerous other related discussions. They are not reliable or independent. DarkSaber2k 13:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well what if those Fan sites contribution FAQs, HOWTOs, and general tips for getting involved in the game? 71.7.145.123 14:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well , what of it? DarkSaber2k 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo

I also just added a logo. Does anyone have any screen shots? ...and do not forget to search notability, it's super important. Matt Brennen 01:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some screenshots at the website (Travian.com). You could use those. Snrabu (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Starships! up for deletion

I hope everyone listens closely. Look at the list above. Only Travian and Starships! remain. Now they have Starships up for deletion, if they get it, and they will if nobody helps, Travian will be the last one left. Take a look at Starships's sourcing. Read the Starships talk page and see what's planned for Travian. If you think I'm crazy, you are fooling yourself. There is an all-out attempt to remove every game in this category, and we need to wake-up and save these articles.Matt Brennen 02:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Stop treating this like this is a war where you have to rally troops. If there are multiple reliable sources, the article stays; if not, it goes. --Wafulz 02:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What category are you even talking about? --McGeddon 02:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought you said you weren't going to follow me to any more articles? This is Wikistalking. Matt Brennen 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. But I don't remember following you from anywhere, I'm just generally active in the MMORPG section of Wikipedia. --McGeddon 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt, this articles on my watchlist as well, does that mean I'm stalking you too? DarkSaber2k 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Browser-based games and/or Category:Massively multiplayer online games I would assume. --Wafulz 03:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason certain people think that the Browser-game category has been reduced to about 5 articles, all of which are on the verge of deletion. This is not the case, since at least a quarter of 51 articles that still remain are easily notable, another quarter just need a couple of sources ot back up their claims of notability, while the others are borderline and currently being reviewed. The list he means, however, is the one at the top of this talk page, which is not the entire browser game category. It's a list of the games from that category that totally failed to assert notability and were recently deleted. But that list is less than half of the total amount of articles that were in the browser game category.DarkSaber2k 08:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding links to fansites

I think it is highly appropriate to have a section that contains links to fansites for Travian. One of the things that this Wikipedia article does not convey about Travian is the size of its community. Having a list of fansites I think would be both useful to the average reading wanting to know more about the Travian community and perhaps for comparative purposes with other games with large communities. Anyhow, those are my thoughts about having lists of fansites. Cjordan79 12:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is frowned upon. Articles shouldn't be used as link farms. In all honesty though, I don't know if this article could ever have reliable sources, so it might not exist for long. --Wafulz 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Travian is the last one left. Sadly, these deletions will not stop until the mission to completely wipe out all MMORPG articles is complete. With Starships! gone, the door is now open to delete them all. Starships had ten times the sourcing of these remaining games, so I'm sure we can kiss them all goodbye. Matt Brennen 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Matt, even after the recent cull there still around 50 articles in the broswer game category, so your comment of 'last one left' is fallacy. It is only the last one left out of the articles I originally targetted with notability and sourcing issues. (See my comment from 5 days ago up above.) DarkSaber2k 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

German Wiki

It looks like this has been deleted on the German Wikipedia many, many times. See deletion log. --Wafulz 15:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

VG Assessment

This is in regards to the request at the VG Assessment page. I'm rating this article as Stub-class, No-importance. Here are a few tips to improve it!

Right, so, it's stub class because literally half the article is external links to third party tools and various websites. What's left (aka the actual article) is a stub. As for suggestions, look at the article. There is a (short) lead, and there is a gameplay section. You desperately need a reception section, and a development section wouldn't be amiss. Honestly though, you know what this article's biggest problem is. DarkSaber2k might be aggressive, but he is completely right. There is absolutely nothing in this article saying why Travian is important or notable to anybody. You don't even do the first step, which isn't even enough by itself, of saying how many players there are. You need to find, somewhere on the web, somebody(s) who is a reliable source saying something about Travian. Nice things, bad things, indifferent things, whatever. Do something to prove that this meets WP:WEB, and do it fast. I don't like writing assessments that are going to be deleted, and it's looking like this one will. --PresN 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be correct to take all the servers the game is currently being played on, and sum the number of players on each one? Of course this would only be an approximation, but given that the number would be in the millions, an approximation is really all you need. 222.152.31.198 08:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Travianwiki?!

Maybe someone could somehow link this to the article: [1] or simply mention it. Gimbrinel 15:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Perhaps that link once went to something of value, but it appears to be a spam site now. I've deleted the link from the article. Someone more wikipedia savvy can determine if it's appropriate to even have it on this talk page. -anon

Versions?

What I really miss in the page about travian is the history of versions.. the game itself is also very confusing about this.

What's the difference between version 2 and 3? Since when is there a version 3? In various FAQ's about the game there is also a mentioning about version 3.1 ? Since when is that version? What were the changes? Is there a newer version in development? There are signs in techtrees about a non-implemented brewery?

Could anyone shed some light on this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.243.237 (talk • contribs)

If even the FAQs don't explain this, there's no reason for Wikipedia to. --McGeddon (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

"Also travian is very fun to play, try it!"

Many other lines are written like this, most have been edited or removed to preserve NPOV. Jafet 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Would the mention of past server winners be pertinent? It sounds incomplete.--MrBlonde 12:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it would be really a fun game if it wasn't for all of those players who had months to build an army and are harassing newbies who had 2 days to do so... – Alensha ^talk 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Or those Romans who use fire catapults to destroy all of my buildings and resource fields :( Chenhsi (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

new framework

I've changed the format of the article a bit. Feel free to fill it out a bit if you feel it needs it; It's still far from finished but has a clearer structure now. The reference to GamesDynamite is from the the German wikipedia, and I still need to find a reference to that. thanks. The Missing Piece (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Make Over

I did a major makeover of the page. Listing all the details here would be too time consuming, please view the page to assess them. Major changes include the tools section, more citations, changing Travian from an MMOG to an MMORTS. Let me know if anything stands out. - Zahubu April 25 2007

I added a picture, not the best; may add a new one. I also added a info box on the side, as well added a few things about the new Travian shop, and end game. ** ko2007 ** 04:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Diagram

I have a Travian Buildings Diagram: File:Travian Buildings Diagram.JPG.

Should I add it to the article?

KevinJi9 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Revenue links

We need to watch for people posting referral links that earn them in game gold. I have removed two in last few days Jasonfward (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just deleted another 4 paid for referral links and I know I'm not alone in deleting them, oh well. Jasonfward (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ko2007, please stop adding referral links. Chenhsi (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone else has been adding "Register to play now" links with theirs in them...

I simply reverted back to an older copy and saved it on Wordpad and am copying and pasting when they do this, I apologize if there is a referral link.

** ko2007 ** 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone is determined to post referral links, even undoing undo's to restore the links. Jasonfward (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ko2007, STOP ADDING REFERRAL LINKS. You are adding referral links and saying you are adding a period. STOP IT. Even if you are just reverting to an older copy, dont you notice when the only thing you are changing is adding referral links? Chenhsi (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat Ko2007, STOP ADDING REFERRAL LINKS, I personally no longer believe you are acting in good faith, and if I knew how to get you banned I would be doing so. Jasonfward (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

stfu ** ko2007 ** 19:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Swearing now? At least with your comments on my talk page you confirm you are trying to personally profit from this article Jasonfward (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are honestly the smartest person I know. It would have taken many others much longer to figure that out.

I helped make it better, why should I not profit.

** ko2007 ** 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Earning money from something this article highlights puts you with a conflict of interest problem, which whilst I have no idea how to look up or quote the policy, I do know means you should not be editing the article at all. Jasonfward (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mean I should not edit it, just that I should not put the links in. I know Wikipedia, I am breaking the rules, I am am an Editor gone bad. I still do some good work, I plan on editing this article some more soon, adding good things to it. Other than that, I still say stfu. :p ** ko2007 ** 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You swear at people and by your own admission act disingenuously, not someone I can say I like editing anything for public consumption. Jasonfward (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we request to block him? Chenhsi (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so, I tried reading up on this last night, Ko2007 actions may not yet constitute reason for banning/blocking, but I am unsure, just as I am unsure how to go about asking, but yes. Jasonfward (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is vandalizing, refusing to stop, and he has admitted that he is doing this for personal profit. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the place to ask to block someone. Chenhsi (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I could not find an administrators notice board, so I have asked for the help of an administrator I know of from my edits on Doctor Who articles. Hopefully he can assist. Jasonfward (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor, poor Wikipedia noob.** ko2007 ** 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just removed someone else's. :p ** ko2007 ** 23:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you think we should request semi-protection on this article? It would stop anonymous users from editting the article, which should remove most of the vandalism? Users with accounts would not want to vandalize it in case they get blocked. Or, do you think that there is not a lot of vandalism recently and that you can take care of it? Chenhsi (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i think so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.39.28 (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it at the moment it is more from people with logins who insist on breaking the rules even after being warned, plus a semi-protection will expire at some point, don't get me wrong I really do want to stop these vandals and Im certainly not against semi-protection, just not certain how useful it will be Jasonfward (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The user Ko2007 is still placing his revenue links. Spamming revenue links is not only forbidden on Wikipedia but also on Travian. If we email to Travian we could get his account banned. For now I just reverted his edits. 85.223.108.141 (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you cannot get my account banned you ignorant moron. Shut the fuck up. Go play cop you little bitch.

My parents told me not to swear. I emailed the Travian Multihunters and they will ban his account. It's a sad story because this user turned evil. :( 85.223.108.141 (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Should probably get him/her banned from here too, Ko2007 has been warned already about this and told one more offense will lead to a ban. I believe swearing at people is also grounds for being banned. Jasonfward (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

At first I thought User:Ko2007 should be pretty much banned from everything but there is a story behind it. Click the link to his UserPage to read it. 85.223.108.141 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing that would vindicate or justify Ko2007 actions, but I have to say the information you appear to have added to Ko2007 user page is making this very personal and I strongly suggest you remove it. Jasonfward (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse you are right; its gone. 85.223.108.141 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Links to fansites

Why do these keep getting deleted, as almost any player of Travian will tell you many of the "fan sites" are essential for playing the game well, I see no reason why these shouldnt be referenced and linked to. Jasonfward (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well unless someone replies I will add back some of the leading travian analyzers sites in the next few days, please comment here if you think that is a wrong move. Jasonfward (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL. We are not here to teach people or help them play the game better. One link to the official site is sufficient. More than that and it begins to look like you are using Wikipedia to promote the game. See WP:SPAM. Happy editing.TheRingess (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While I personally agree with you regarding "helping people play the game better," TheRingess, I don't actually see anything in WP:EL that would specifically counterindicate these links, and at least one item that supports their inclusion, specifically "3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail...." I don't think it would be against policy so long as the quantity is kept fairly low, say, two or three links that have the greatest number of functions, or are the most broadly useful, e.g. a site that provides statistical information about all the troop types, the buildings at each level, and rate of return on resource field upgrades, or a utility that gives world-map-level information for any server. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

External links should be the icing on the cake. 85.223.108.141 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Practice of using IP Masks

I have removed that, as I know that most do not do this, they just use the same IP, something can be added about IP masks. However, it is far from "practice" of all players. ** ko2007 ** 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

External link

Please do not the link I have just removed: [2] because what it links to violates Travian rules like the other IP stated. There is no reason that that link should be included. See Wikipedia:El#Restrictions on linking --Squids'n'Chips 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean restore. There is no reason in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:El#Restrictions_on_linking to support your claim to not link there. This does not violate any known copyrights as we speak. Travian rules are not Wikipedia's rules. The reason for linking there is that its the icing on the cake for this article and it contains almost all known 3rdparty tools and related info for Travian. 85.223.108.141 (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong link. Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. It adds nothing to the article because its not useful to anyone outside of Travian players and is not notable in and of itself. --Squids'n'Chips 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Squids, This is a community project. Please reread the external links section of the Wiki rules and the content of the linked site. External links should be the icing on the cake (the article). 85.223.108.141 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well - yes & no. This is a community project so we need to have the users happy with articles. Your link placement is making us unhappy. Equally external links are not teh icing on the cake - they are largely unnecessary. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going on on nl:Travian too. Dear 85.223.108.141, please accept that this link is not relevant to wikipedia-articles, both Dutch, English or whatever other language. EdBever (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Link is actually blacklisted on Meta now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok; this is getting silly. EdBever and Squids clearly think they are helping; but they are not IMHO. I have no intention to start this discussion all over again; but I will say this: "Please fight spam, not contributions". Many thanks in advance. 85.223.108.141 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

@Herby: I am an user. You make me unhappy. It doesn't matter though cause only edbever, squids and me know the real story behind this. Its not what you think it is. 85.223.108.141 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New Worlds

I am suggesting that we get a list of all new worlds for the main used travians (for exapmple US). So this list would have the "Open Date" and the 300th day mark (or 100th in the speed servers). So? Stealth (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Im not against that idea per se, but Im not sure its what should be in encyclopedia, lists of things like that have been deleted before by editors who thought that they were totally inappropriate, I'm inclined to keep this article uncontroversial ala wiki guidelines Jasonfward (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Open Source? Open Information? Open Censorship? Seems for someone who doesn't have an opinion you have a strong idea of what is and is not acceptable.

Trappernicus (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The most used server is the international one. The US server is travian.us. Travian.de is the second most used. Joshua Issac (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wider Travian Community

I would have thought that the wider communitity and ecosystem that has formed around travian would be essantial to the article, illustrating it's growth beyond proprietry borders, and the adaptations that modify game play which will generalise much further than only Travian. Only time will tell whether Travian is the ultimate catalyst for this or a dead end in game MMOG evolution, but the existence, context, content and timeline of the greater travian community and game enhancement is definately appropriate for an encyclopedia. I imagine that a section on "Wider Travian Community" - to describe the existence and substance of it - would be the correct way to proceed and references from that would be a natural addition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.116.142 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge as expressed in the real world should be seen not only in the simplest form. But should also reflect the way in which it has impacted on society as a whole. A case in example would be the current article on the game World of War Craft. Or for those initiated in this, WoW. The article covers not just the aspects of the games functionality. But also the way it has impacted on society for both good and bad. The article is balanced and shows a good sense of open rationality.

Sadly I have mentioned that there are some who would like to censor articles that they feel are somehow c\sacred and above or beyond contempt. These people are not Administration. But have taken on the personification of such. Perhaps from a lack of a real life outside of Wikipedia? Sorry if that sounds rude. But I find Fanatics and Fascist a strange and unfriendly lot.

Trappernicus (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

-Midorihana- (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (jasonfward)

I believe the criticism section is badly written, original research and firmly opinion based (for instance I disagree about some of the points raised believing that the stated opinion comes from lack of understanding the game) but regardless of who's opinion is correct, as clear OR and with a total lack of suitable references should be excluded from the article Jasonfward (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (KoshVorlon)

As this is not referenced at all, it appears to be original research. In it's current form I personally would remove it. (Don't worry - I won't ! )

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Trappernicus)

The concept of providing information totally free of personal views is pragmatically impossible. As even when or if one is able to find a quote or attributed comment from someone else; it will invariably only be those that align with your views. Thus negating any concept of independent input.

The inclusion of a “Criticism” in the article is important. So as to provide a balanced explanation of the topic under discussion. If the wording is in need of clarification; then by all means clean it up. But to relentlessly delete the point of view as being of no importance or not verifiable based on your personal opinions smacks of censorship on a Fascist level.

There is another Criticism of the game I have not included as so far I have only had limited response and information. That is the use of multiple players on individual accounts. A factor that from everything I have seen so far in the rules is not acceptable practice. But as mentioned I would need more feed back before adding it.

In closing if you really want to be a Fascist and keep deleting what someone has posted; then you can only expect Wikipedia to lose more and more credibility.

Trappernicus (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Third (fourth, actually) opinion by -Midorihana-

Please refrain from personal attacks, thank you.

I agree that having a criticism section is important, but only if it is sourced. From what I see, the content of the criticism section as it is now is original research (as it has no sources).

I think right now a good thing to do would be to work on the criticism section, so that it does have the sources it needs, instead of just removing it. This game does have criticism from some people (such as from here and here).

Hopefully this helps, if you want me to elaborate more, feel free to contact me.

Thanks, Midorihana みどりはな 02:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Interesting concept. Banter is a better expression of verbalising frustration at what seems to be going on. But if you see it as Personal Attacks, then you have an apology.

The two links are external to Wikipedia and as such are not realistically part of the article. Though if as you say the section on Criticism needs reference with collaborative information such as the links you provide; then by all means lets replace what I have stated with referenced links and critiques that validate the information you provided.

To just delete what you don’t think (based on your personal position) is relevant becomes nothing more then just another form of censorship.

Trappernicus (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, having a criticism section should be fine as long as you source the section so it contains no original research. Midorihana みどりはな 06:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Joshua Issac)

I have added a reference to the third point in the Criticism section. I have also edited it slightly. If the number of "multies" is high enough to impact the average player's experience, then surely the administrators would notice and ban the offenders. Since Wikipedia is not a place for unverified claims even if they are true, sources must be provided for the points to be kept. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Multihunter

New to the game I sent a message to 'Multihunter' complaining about the lack of fare play. And the fact an alliance known as the 'CWL' were being ruthless and rude. Deliberatly going around destroying peoples games. Not so muchg for advantage. But just because they decided they didn't like there person for no particular reason.

Now I find I have been 'Locked Out' of the game by the Multihunter. Seems he either has a vested interest in the 'CWL'. Such as an account he plays. Or he has friends and paying to play people he wants to support. What a sham really. If this is true the game has ended up supporting mostly Multi's and Greefers.

Has anyone else suffered being treated rudely just for asking questions or making coimments abouyt the game?

Trappernicus (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a war game. That's the way it's played. You wouldn't complain if you got beaten in a game of Age of Empires or similar? The Multihunter isn't there to stop weaker players getting beaten, the multi's are there to prevent/catch cheating.

Red Star Hardkore (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Those kinds of complaints are levelled at Travian all the time, some it would seem without true cause, others we very true cause, I personally always found the Multihunters fair and they even gave me some good advice when I knew there was an alliance out to get me banned (I was number 1 on S2UK at the time). However my girl freind got a huge amount of grief from the self same multihunters, banned without cause and after having complained to the game admins eventually got the multihunter concerned chucked.

I myself had a huge problems with the forum moderator in the UK, who continuously edited and deleted my posts as he was a member of an alliance I was beating in the game. As I deleted he really took the biscuit and accused me of all sorts of things from cheating in the game through to things about my personal life. Obviously as the forum mod he was able to curtail my ability to respond.

These aspects are unfortunate, leave a bad taste in the mouth, but are perhaps to be expected when nearly all the admin work on the servers in done by players themselves. Travian would need to find more ways to squeeze money from people if all the posts were to be covered by paid staff. Jasonfward (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jason, well a solution to that would be to imitate the system in Tribal Wars. The mods and staff of a world (or server in the case of travian) are not allowed to play that particular world. That way they have no reason to abuse their power. Anyway, I suppose this is not really where solutions with Travian should be debated to be solved. I just thought I'd add my 2c about your gripe!

Red Star Hardkore (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In theory the same rules apply on Travian, but in practice, freinds, cross server alliances etc etc make the process too easily corruptable and the lack of audit and control on the multi's themselves means they can get away with it. Jasonfward (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't flying_fortress sort it out? I once messaged Multihunter reporting something, and I got a message back, asking me to tell Multihunter instead. Turned out it was flying_fortress who was on. Does that not happen anymore? In 2006, the only "multihunter" who played was the inactive "Shadow Pheniox" or something on server 3. Now on server 3, Multihunter has a population of 335. And where's flying_fortress? --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not notable

Can anybody that thinks Travian is not noteable please specify what they think is missing? I belive Travian to be notable and I belive the article makes this clear Jasonfward (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Noteability guidlines say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." and then goes on to explain what that means. Travian as by the definitions laid out has " received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" it is therefor "presumed to be notable."

Please remember "significant coverage" is defined as "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The coverage only needs to provide enough information to write a short, verifiable article." It does not mean is referenced millions of times all over the internet. Jasonfward (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting what you state in this post. “and no original research is needed to extract the content.” This means that “original” research is not required as the article stands on its’ own merits? And not to say that people are prevented from posting “original” research. Maybe you need to take time to read the criteria again? Perhaps in a language that is best suited for you? As English may not be your primary language? Questions only you can answer with candor and honesty.

Trappernicus (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure who's right here, but I just wanted to note how ironic it is for someone to be asking another person whether English is their primary language, when writing in grammar that is barely understandable. Chenhsi (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Contraversies

I think we need this section to have fair description of game. --Gvorl (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

They hardly count as controversial In my opinion Arthulian (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway they clearly are contr-official (not from the side of Traviangames GMBH) and at least in this case, actually documented. Some time ago I heard some similar stories from my friends playng in German and US servers, but there were no possibilities to verify are those cases true or not. --Gvorl (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of Controversies section

I think I have it just about up to snuff, but I'm leaving the cleanup notice for now because I don't know what the following sentence is supposed to mean: After 12 hours the bug was corrected and almost all plans got players who had no involvement in prior attacks. If anyone else has ideas here, please clarify this and remove the cleanup notice. TJSwoboda (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand, the bug disabled possibility to get World Wonder plans - those are needed to build World Wonder, which is the objective of the game. And only few players who were able to steal those plans from Natarians at all, have lost their armies in attacks. And after that plans got players who do not attacked Natarians. And this broke all the strategy, because it is impossible to steal plans from those players. So, staff corrected bug technically, but game was hardly changed. --Gvorl (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the players who had no involvement in the attacks somehow obtained the plans, while the attackers did not? --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It seems that in blogs they discuss exactly such a situation. --Gvorl (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Versions

Could someone who plays the game confirm whether the Classic server (3) runs Travian 2.5 or 3.x? The website has some information about the different versions. I feel the section should be added back with sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Classic is called Version 2.5 as it incorporates parts of the older 2.0 release, however, code wise it is based on 3.x - it merely has certain features disabled/changed. (84.128.73.21 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

OK, thanks. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A reference would be http://forum.travian.de/showthread.php?t=23416 (in German) were a Team Member states that "It is T3 but feels more like T2" (Es ist zwar T3, spielt sich aber mehr wie T2.) (84.128.127.60 (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

The / Versions / section could be added back soon. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it just was..... Stealth (talk)

T3.5 will start in February, also announcement on the .org-forum http://forum.travian.org/showthread.php?t=39965 141.41.97.215 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WPVG Assessment

I am only bringing this article up to Start-Class, no-importance. The only difference from a stub is that there is significantly more content than a stub would normally have. Otherwise, it needs extensive cleanup before going any further. Most importantly, you need to establish via verifiable sources independent of the topic that this game is notable; otherwise, this article may be headed for deletion if not addressed. Article also needs to be referenced using reliable secondary sources. FAQs or primary sources do not count as reliable sources. The tone also needs to be cleaned up, as it reads like a game guide. I would suggest reading the manual of style for video game articles and try to follow those guidelines when cleaning up the article. Hope this helps, MuZemike (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

After much effort, I have managed to find sources for the award. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the Controversies section

Please do not remove sourced content from the article without discussing it on the talk page. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

While I am not the person who removed the controversies section, I myself believe that it is unneeded. Those have not really garnered the attention of the press, and the so-called "sources" are blogs. Blogs are not reliable third-party sources making it not notable by Wikipedian standards. It is really only a legend that only the Lithuanian players might care about (and could probably hear more from the older players on the forums if they so wished) and would not be something that a reader who wanted to know what Travian is. If you say that it provides an example of the poor management of Travian, this is an isolated incident pertaining purely to the Lithuanian servers, meaning that at most you could accuse the Lithuanian staff of corruption, etc, but it really has nothing to do with Travian in general.--ruby.red.roses 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is unneeded, and it is already removed in Lithuanian Wikipedia. --Žmogus (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section. Both sources are blogs and there seems to be no third-party coverage of the incident. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What is 'third party coverage' exactly? I'm just curious if all blogs are unacceptable, or if there are rare cases that are acceptable (like, if backed up with third-party coverage)? But unsure what that is, exactly. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Third-party coverage is where an independent party, like a newspaper or a reliable news website, covers the incident. Not all blogs are unacceptable. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) and Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite note-4 for more. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I noticed you removed a source that I moved from Travians to Travian because it was in the wrong article. However, since it seems to not meet the article's standards I can see why it was removed. I was more specifically on the lookout for edits like this one that add "spam," by definition, to the article. But thanks for clearing up the confusion! Tycoon24 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

I propose adding the Travian wikis (2 and 3) to the External links section as they are one of the largest sources of information on Travian and this article would not contain all that information if it became a featured article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

tribal wars

Why do people keep on removing text about tribal wars? Travian and Tribal wars are nearly identical in many (but not all) ways, and this is certainly worth mentioning. Xeos (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A moderator (on the Travian forum) once implied that Travian copied buldings from Tribal Wars during a discussion started by someone who thought Tribal Wars copied Travian. Of course, we will need reliable sources if we want to mention it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

End game section clarification

I'm just wondering about a detail in the following sentence: "With every five levels that the Wonder is built, the Natars attack the villages with wonders until level 95..."
Does that mean:
1) the Natars attack only the villages which are building a Wonder?
or does it mean
2) the Natars attack using wonders (and wonders are some kind of weapon)?
Thanks. (I'm curious as both a Wikipedian & as a new Travian player.) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's 1.). --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Joshua! --Tyranny Sue (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is probably worth re-wording the end game section, as i also found the part about the natars hard to understand with how it was written. Tommo89 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed criticism

I removed the criticism section. Articles on that site obviously fail WP:V. They're all self-published. Anyone can post anything they want on there, and there is no established and respected editorial oversight on the articles from what I read. Its a glorified blog. The author's bio does nothing to establish him as a published and recognized expert in the field.--Crossmr (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

End game extra stuff

I have removed again the extra end game stuff in the article recently added. Please read the comments here on unsourced texts, and lets talk about how and why you think the content needs adding. From what I've seen here and from comments made by others, the article needs shortening, not lengthing. Jasonfward (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Travian vs Travians

Firstly, I don't think there is actually a game called "Travians", secondly, I suggest that these two pages be combined, but I'm not sure how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac B Wagner (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

lol, there is most definatly a game called Travians, as an extrenly simple search on Google proves, try typing "Travians" into the search box, glad you don't know how to merge, people writing encyclopedias need to stick to facts not belieifs. And there is no way the two articles should be merged, any more than Star Wars should be merged with Star Trek. Jasonfward (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved section to the bottom.--Joshua Issac (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Buying 'gold'

As I understand it, buying 'gold' as it's called, or credits, gives players game-play advantages as well as a more convenient experience of the game. For example you get extra % points defence or attack. But doesn't that make a slightly uneven playing field? Presumably you have some advantaged players (those who buy gold) and some disadvantaged players who don't. Or do the owners run servers for gold players, servers for non-gold, or have they done this in the past? Hakluyt bean (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, gold was introduced into the game in late 2006 (with Travian 3?), and some moderators/multihunters/administrators did think at that time that it unbalanced the game. Currently, the view they hold is that they do not unbalance the game, although it is clear that they do. It is better to have a slightly unbalanced game generating more revenue than a perfectly balanced game generating not as much revenue. There are no gold-specific servers as far as I know. There is at least one non-gold server—Travian.org, the original server—and possibly a few others which I do not know about.--Joshua Issac (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

travian is a game with no ending

travian romanian team stated yesterday theat you cannont conquer an natar village and make theat wonder world because is't a tiny litte script theat cam make theat village act like it's a capital.you distroid anyother village and make theat village a single villlage of a player acting like it's a capital. so the wonder world doesn't exist anymore...... if one is somehow rescueq before she become a single village capital.there is a chance to make theat wonder word if fact before.theat villlage was protected by the rulles.what is the reason theat travian become a game with no ending? no reason.just a mistake in programing. and travian team doesn't want to undo theat mistake it;s just a bug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.104.181 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, as player I can say that there is a end game to Travian. As to what you are are saying that would depend on the sever that you use. Applechair (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Botting

Have gotten this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Travian&action=historysubmit&diff=416212196&oldid=416177506 reverted with a reference to WP:V. It is a fact that a lot of Travian members complained about the CAPTCHA system not being enough, and that they therefore decided to implemented the system with immediate punishment. If you read Tschena's (who should to a very high degree be viewed as a reliable source) statement, she confirmed that it was the case that they got a lot of complaints. Since I'd rather not get involved in an edit war, could someone please explain why this was not a a verifiable fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.221.33 (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert the edit, but I considered it, and I think it's for the best. Forum posts are not reliable sources, especially in a section about a controversial topic. I would suggest finding a reference written by a reliable game journalist or publication such as those suggested at the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, forum posts obviously aren't as reliable as other sources, but on the other hand this is the main media through which TravianGame communicates, and that specific post was made by the Administrator of that domain. But perhaps that is not reliable enough still? 85.229.222.30 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There was indeed a huge amount of complaints. However, TG have said (on the crew forum at least) that automatic punishments were always part of the plan if CAPTCHA's didn't work Jasonfward (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

On the subject WP:V the reason my edit just says "later it was enhanced..." is because whilst I know what TG said (ie its the "truth"), because I read it on the crew forum, it is not verifiable, so I cannot say "it was always planned that later automatic punishments would be introduced, and after a few months they were.", if you can find a verifiable source that confirms your view, whilst I will know it to be "untrue" because I know the "truth", I would not edit or revert Jasonfward (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Release of version 4

The first release was on 1/12/2010 at the server ts10.travian.de as a so called "open beta" version. See: http://forum.travian.de/showthread.php?94817-Travian-4-startet-am-01.12.2010-als-Open-Beta 144.32.136.5 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A beta is a beta, the full production version was released as per the reverted article. Jasonfward (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)