Wikipedia

Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines/Archive 3

< Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Wesp5 in topic Citations
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Block Unregistered Users from editing

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can we please have a block put on this article for unregistered users from editing because lately multiple accounts of vandalism have been made. --Victory93 (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:RFPP. —LOL T/C 02:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also can people stop removing my changes to the Companion mod thread, I should know what it is based on. -- Wesp5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesp5 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wesp, are you the one making the anonymous IP edits? You ask that people stop removing your CompanionMod edits, yet your contribs show you haven't touched this article since last year. The only CompanionMod edits I've been seeing lately are from the IP address Victory93 claims has been vandalizing the article. -FeralDruid (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I edited the "plus" version back into the unofficial patch and the bit about the CompanionMod being based on the unofficial patch 5.6 but forgot to login. I only recently remembered to check this site after Tessera appeared on one forum again almost restarting the patch war. Wesp5 (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Cab driver

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should at the very least be placed as a vampire character, he has pale skin, a vampiric aura when you are using Auspex. Also He's effing CAINE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.161.118 (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Planet Vampire

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Near as I can tell, the entry for Planet Vampire shouldn't be in the article at all, per WP:FANSITE. I have removed it more than once, as have other editors in the past, but it keeps getting put back in. Continuing to tag it as "the adopted official site" is both opinion and WP:OR, as suggested here. Adopted by whom, the fans on Planet Vampire itself? The editor who keeps putting it back in? While the official site contains minimal information, there is nonetheless an official site. -FeralDruid (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well of course the fans have considered this to be their official site since the original official site has been taken down by Activision so fans consider Planet Vampire to be the "adopted" official site. And the section on the Activion site doesn't count as it's just telling about, not the official site. --Victory93 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources for Planet Vampire being "the adopted official site" and for how Activision's site "doesn't count"? Despite WP:FANSITE, I wouldn't mind keeping a link because of the official site's lack of content, but giving it a special title would require a source. —LOL T/C 02:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In its current version, the article discusses various unofficial patches and mods. While planet vampire may or may not be relevant enough to be mentioned in the section external links, it should definitely be linked in the section discussing the unofficial patches as a reference, like the other unofficial patch site is. Mentioning a specific website without providing a link is not helpful at all. As a reader, I feel annoyed when I have to type the name of a website into a search engine to find out its URL. Anyone arguing against providing a link to a website in the reference section should be arguing against mentioning that website in the article at all. X127 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Characters moved to new page

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've created a new article so to shorten the character section on this article. Visit the article here: List of characters in Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

and try to help to improve it. --Victory93 (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

nosferatu in the sewers?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I only played one for a bit, but you can travel on the surface, you just can't get close to anyone. the way it's written in the article it sounds like if you step out of the sewers at all it's a masquerade violation, leaving getting quests a bit of a mystery. wouldn't it be more accurate to say you can't get close to humans or speak to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.155.109 (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Solved. TY very much for your attention to detail. Anarchangel (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

do any characters appear in books?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Do any of the characters from this game appear in any of the VtM sourcebooks and novels? Observatorr (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Jack does, but I don't know about any of the others. I notice Gary, Strauss, LaCroix, Jack, and Nines are listed on as notable characters on their respective clan pages here on Wikipedia, but don't know if they're listed because of VtM in general, or if they were added because of Bloodlines. -FeralDruid (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Beckett appears in quite a few (novels and game supplements), Jack appears in one or two game supplements and the Gehenna novel, and both LaCroix and the Cab-driving Caine-impostor are mentioned in the Gehenna novel. LaCroix may also have been mentioned in the Nights of Prophesy supplement in passing, but I do not recall off-hand. Offkorn (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial patches again

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After taking a nostalgic look back at some of the comments in this section, I was amused to see that once again, my supporters were being accused of being... me, in disguise. This is Tessera speaking -- the REAL Tessera. And those accusations were quite simply asinine. Anyone who knows how to use the Wikipedia should be aware that you can look at the history of edits that were made to any Wikipedia page. And if you look at the edits made to the Unofficial Patches section, you will notice that on the VERY few occasions when I personally edited that page, I said who I was and I said why I made the edits in question. Furthermore, you can also see the IP addresses listed for each person who performed an edit and once again, you will see that mine are completely consistent. All of the edits performed by myself share the same IP... MY IP, and I only have ONE IP. I do not bother with proxies, because I have no need to resort to such idiocy. So please... just accept the truth. There are many, many, many people who prefer the True Patch to any of Wesp's mods. And if those people choose to speak out in defense of the True Patch, then please allow them to do so without constantly accusing them of being sock puppets. I assure you that they are not. My history of getting into people's faces directly should make it obvious that I have no need for sock puppets. I am quite happy to let you know exactly who I am and what I think, as well as sticking to the truth as I see it. Whether you like hearing it or not is the very last thing in this world that I care about.... hence, I have no need to resort to any sort of childish skulduggery. Case closed. And for the record, I have never made a single edit to any of Wesp's entries... and yet he has admitted to making MANY edits to OUR entries. Several of those admissions are right here on this page. So again... case closed. 24.186.133.194 (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Undue attention?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article needs to be summarized, both to improve it's readability, and to avoid a situation of undue attention. Briefly, topics on Wikipedia should receive coverage that is proportionate to their notability. I'm a fan of the World of Darkness universe myself, but what we have here is too much information about what is already a niche topic - most of it should be left to fan sites, and what is here should be a general summary that is enough for someone wondering about the topic to get started on the way to finding more information. Triona (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for simple patch info

Latest comment: 13 years ago63 comments15 people in discussion

Tessmage recently revealed that this is the source he's been keeping the entire time, one which he states is also in use in the article (and it is).

The relevant section would be where it states "RPS: How do you feel about the community patches that followed to fix Vampire up?

Mitsoda: I’m always surprised when I see new patches or content for the game, but I’m glad there’s still interest in it." With community patches being a link to this page.

Is there maybe a one sentence deal that we can add into the relevant section about this, with a link to the patch page? That should make all of the fans feel better and a single sentence wouldn't be adding undue weight to the article. SilverserenC 16:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that. One sentence to indicate the existence of the patches should assist any users who need it, without the undue weight problem of having a full section on the subject. I'm glad you were able to locate a source which discussed them (it doesn't confirm that the game doesn't run without such patches, so I wouldn't put that information in the article, though.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(Yeah, I misinterpreted what some of the stuff Mitsoda was saying) So, should it be something like, "Community patches have been released as add-ons to the game, in order to fix errors and bugs that were not corrected by Troika due to the scope of the game." Since Mitsoda does specifically state that they wouldn't be going back to fix errors and bugs because the scope of the game is so large that it would take too long to do so. And Rock, Paper, Shotgun also adds at the bottom, "Bloodlines is quite a few hours of excellence, once patched up." SilverserenC 16:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That works for me pretty well. Even a link to the site that's linked in the article would seem to be appropriate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, i've added it in and made the Patches Scrolls link the first one and the Rock, Paper, Shotgun interview the second ref link, so people will click to the Patches first. Also, I added in "and the subsequent closing of the developer." to my previously stated sentence, as that fit in with what was already being stated in that section. So, we should be all good, right? SilverserenC 17:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I like what you've done, though if anyone else wants to weigh in, they are of course welcome. I think we're good. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't really say I see a problem with it as it stands now, since it's backed up by that lovely source. See if only we had taken this route from the beginning, all of the nastiness would have been totally avoidable. Eik Corell (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It would have been nice if Tessmage had explained that as the source from the very beginning, yes. Oh well, can't change human nature. SilverserenC 17:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it nice when we all work together nicely? Group hug! (***) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Gah, girl cooties! It buuuurns! SilverserenC 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a band-aid, folks. The relevance of fan-made patches has been established. Now you need to realize that the creators of these patches *are* the most reliable source for those patches. Tessera is the source of *his* patch and Wesp5 is the source of *his* work. They are *not* random users whose information and opinions are irrelevant. Censorship of necessary information just to satisfy your personal issues with one or both of the above content authors and then justified with excuses about "relevancy" and worshiping at the altar of "almighty Wikipedia rules" is STILL CENSORSHIP, folks. Nothing but petty tyranny over information. The information that was on Wikipedia before was not excessively long - about half a screen - and anyone whose attention span and reading skills are so limited as to whine, "tl;dr" about half a screen should be trolling 4chan for lulz, not reading Wikipedia for information. What's next guys, the Newspeak version of Wikipedia? Everything has to be summed in a short paragraph using words of one syllable? (If you don't get the "Newspeak" reference...wiki it. Unless that's been censored too.) We're all better served without these high-handed games by self-styled "wiki police". So if you'd be so kind at to restore the deleted content - now that its relevance has been established - we could all go on about our lives and people attempting to use this resource will have access to all the relevant data, without editors' personal biases getting in the way. Thanks. Cylnar (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point - Wikipedia cannot go on primary sources alone, and the authors of patches are primary sources - have a read of WP:RS. You're very welcome to add material that has been discussed by multiple reliable secondary sources, which really means that a game patch needs to have been discussed in, say, a gaming mag or a gaming site - all we ask is that you find such references and add them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Adding more information about the unofficial/fan-made patches is a good start, however, there is a large community of people who are very unhappy with the way Wesp5 has handled his Unofficial Patch and prefer not to use it, if at all possible. With the link to Wesp5 patch site only, it makes it seem that there are not any other alternatives out there. Would it be possible to come to some sort of compromise on the subject and change the patches-scroll.de link (Citation 8) to point to the Wikia.com link on the subject? (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade_-_Bloodlines) This way Wikipedia appears to be non-biased toward any particular author, and the different patch authors would be then able to link to their own respective works on a site that is a little more fan-oriented and less restrictive than Wikipedia is. Arglaar (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The link you've added is, as you say, to a wiki- are there any published sources that discuss the patch you want to add? The best way to keep Wikipedia unbiased is to use the same rules consistently, so if there's a reliable source discussing another patch, there's no reason it couldn't be added. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
So you folks are looking for *corporate* validation of all content? I wonder if that's what started this whole cascade of B.S. in the first place. Did Activision whine to you guys about fan-made patch content? They're the ones who threw Troika under the bus in the first place, refusing to support the game as a responsible publisher should.

And these patches *are* discussed on gaming sites. Tessmage.com is a privately owned gaming site that provides full support for its content and PlanetVampire - where Wesp5 can be found - is filled with all sorts of sparkly advertisements. But they *are* gaming sites. Just because they are not official, corporate-owned propaganda organs does not mean they are not gaming sites. Bloodlines is a six-year-old game that has been virtually abandoned by its publisher, its dev team no longer exists and big corporate-owned hype machines are not going to be pimping it like they would their latest rushed, botched cash cow of a console port that costs $60 and that you can win within eight hours of play. The information about fan-made patches is necessary - not just "nice to have" but necessary - for the article to be *complete*. That's what the word "encyclopedic" means, after all - and that's why the content needs to be restored. Cylnar (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If the information about fan-made patches is essential for an understanding of what this game is, then that information will certainly be in some of the published sources discussing the game. Wikipedia's rules are very clear- all information must be verifiable, from reliable sources. No, Activision has not contacted Wikipedia- if they had, you would see a label that said "OTRS" in the edit summary (that's the system that takes complaints that come directly to Wikipedia), and it would be someone else who made the change. We're just Wikipedia users, trying to explain the rules that Wikipedia works by to new Wikipedia users. Wikipedia is not a game guide: the question this article answers is "What is Bloodlines?" not "How is Bloodlines played?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
To respond to something specific that User:Cylnar said: Tessmage.com is not an independent source of information about this patch, because Tessmage himself wrote the patch. A source doesn't have to be huge and profitable to meet the reliable sources guidelines, but it does have to be independent of the subject, and demonstrably significant in its field. After all, anyone can put up a web site. Half an hour from now, I could have www.fisherqueen.com up on the internet, and it could say, "Vampire: The Masquerade-Bloodlines" is a game centered upon adorable fluffy bunnies, who must collect fruits and vegetables to win points." The reliable source guidelines are necessary to Wikipedia, to make sure that our information really is accurate, and none of us can choose to ignore that rule. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
<ec> (FisherQueen has said it, but I've started so I'll finish...) No, nobody said anything about "corporate", and this had nothing to do with Activision or anyone else complaining - so please take your "conspiracy theory" hat off and try to assume good faith for a moment, and actually listen to what we are saying, will you? Wikipedia's policy on sources is quite clear - it's at WP:RS, and the guidelines for notability are at WP:N. Please note it says nothing about sources having to be "corporate", but it does give some examples of the kind of sources that Wikipedia needs. To play this game, maybe the patches are indeed needed - we're not here to debate that, and we're not here to provide gaming instructions. All that matters for Wikipedia is that the patches in question are covered by notable sources, so if you can provide them, that will be fine - and I mean provide them in the article, not just complain here about them being available and about how it's all unfair censorship. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Since this is a 6 year old game, with a limited "cult" following, I highly doubt that any "Established" sources are going to do any sort of comprehensive review of the different fan-made patches that are out there. Which is, according to what I am reading, what will be needed to get a link to any of the other patches that might be available, placed in the article. Therefore I recommend either removing all mention of any specific fan-made patches entirely, leaving only the sub-section covering the Unoffical Patches, or add the names of the three most popular fan-mades that are currently out there. ("Unofficial" by wesp5, "True-Patch" by Tessmage, and "Stripped" by Offkorn). As a side-note, considering the "Unofficial patch" is mentioned only briefly in the RPS article, wouldn't that mean it doesn't fit the first criteria for Notability? "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Arglaar (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If, as you say, no reliable source has mentioned the patch or ever will, then there doesn't seem to be anything more to discuss, but feel free to note here if that changes. Here's an idea: Write a good article about Bloodlines - or, even more interesting, about forgotten games that are still fun to play and how to play them - and submit it to a gaming magazine. Write it well, make it interesting, and they might buy it from you- then there'll be a reliable source, and you'll pick up $40 or so as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In that case, what about removing the link to the patches-scrolls.de site (Citation 8) as I don't believe the passing mention of it in the RPS Article (Citation 9) meets WP:GNG specifically, part 1 re: "Significant Coverage". Arglaar (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
We were so clear with everyone that we'd include patches for which a source could be found, that I really don't think that would be fair. After all, if you find a similar mention of Tessmage's source, you want to leave the door open for including it, right? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm just attempting to keep the article as non-biased as possible, which is why I recommended linking back to the wikia page earlier, instead of the patches-scrolls.de link. With only the single link to the specific "Unofficial Patch" the way it is now, it may appear to the unknowing reader that it is the only unofficial/fan-made patch that is available and therefore they may not find the other patches. Recommend changing "Community patches have been released as add-ons to the game," to say "Several, different, fan-made patches have been released by the community as add-ons to the game," and then change citation 8 to point to the Wikia article (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade_-_Bloodlines), or add another citation pointing to it. Arglaar (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It's the topic as a whole which needs to pass the notability guideline for a standalone article, the patches aren't a standalone article so they don't individually need to pass the notability guideline. They do however have to have some level of coverage in reliable sources (wikipedia is not a directory/link farm). I would agree the link to patches-scrolls.de isn't a valid link per WP:ELNO, it doesn't provide any coverage just further links, nor is it a reference. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is censorship due to a personal dispute between certain individuals. The content was available and stable without any edit wars or anything, not hurting anybody or making the article too long for anyone with an I.Q. over 80 for some time until Eik Corell and FisherQueen decided they were the absolute arbiters of this article (at least - who knows where else they've been doing this sort of thing?) and got SarekOfVulcan to back them up. Then they called their buddies Silver seren and Boing! said Zebedee to come support them and create the illusion of a Wikipedia "consensus" once other Wikipedia users started to complain (rightly) about the ridiculous games being played. Your agenda may be to attack one of the content authors and then pretend fairness by removing mention of the other content authors as well (though you link a website where the other content author can be found, which puts the lie to this pretense). But you end up doing a disservice to everyone who comes here seeking information on the game by censoring this necessary content, which invalidates the whole purpose of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. The information needs to be made available on the page in question in the name of freedom of information. The personal agendas, issues and dislikes of contributors should not be involved. If you want to use neutral language not written by any of the content authors to do so, fine, but the information about the content needs to be available to the users without personal bias of users, moderators or administrators. Cylnar (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You really are not going to get anywhere by being abusive, you know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Just because something has been there for a long time doesn't mean it should stay there. The perfectly valid reasons for it's removal have been clearly explained on this talk page. Continuing to rant about this as if were some sort of conspiracy will not get anyone anywhere. Rehevkor ✉ 22:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears the fix is in and Wikipedia only recognizes corporate websites as valid sources. Just like everything else in this world, it seems Wikipedia has been bought and paid for by Big Money. I guess that's how it has lasted all this time - servers don't pay for themselves, after all! Not that we'll ever hear the truth - we know that there's a process for *official* complaints, but the *unofficial* complaints by corporate overlords will be disguised as "routine maintenance" of "Wikipedia standards" or some such sophistry. The sad thing is, some of you are undoubtedly *not* corporate stooges, simply dupes led by the stooges to believe that this egregious act of censorship is somehow "for the good of Wikipedia". And plutocratic bottom-feeders like Activision's Bobby Kotick just lean back in their ivory towers, laughing and counting their billions, while the "lower classes" do their dirty work for them. So go ahead, congratulate yourselves on censorship well done, personal vendettas well executed, and corporate supremacy well strengthened. Peace. Cylnar (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Why not. Go us. Another victory for our Corporate Overlords. Let's all go to Starbucks to celebrate. Oops, I meant to say "yawn". Rehevkor ✉ 01:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The easy way to test the "corporate overlords" hypothesis is to share an unimpeachably reliable source, and see whether anyone suppresses it. We didn't suppress the other one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't suppressed because it links to a corporate, ad-filled website, which is the only kind that seems to be recognized around here. More sophistry. Conflicting points of view will be censored or marginalized, apparently, unless they have corporate backing. Money talks, B.S. walks. Cylnar (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
And In Soviet Russia, good faith assumes YOU! Eik Corell (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
That joke's so old, it needs a footnote. [1]
  1. ^ Yakov Smirnoff

Answer me this, please: what EXACTLY are your criteria for a "reliable source"? Please be specific. You seem to think a link to Wesp5's "unofficial patch" is worthy of being linked because it was mentioned *once* on some huge site, years ago, when it was the only game in town. Which is fine. That information needs to be here, just like info on the True Patch needs to be here.

But what makes tessmage.com any less relevant? It has been running for more than four years, has a passionate Bloodlines community, tons of articles, facts and files, has had over a million visitors during its run and has been supporting the Bloodlines community ever since the release of the first True Patch in 2007. This, in the mind of virtually any truly unbiased source, makes tessmage.com every bit as legitimate a source as PlanetVampire or any other.

But of course the difference is that tessmage.com is privately owned, paid for out of its administrator's own pocket and does not depend on corporate largesse or ad revenue to stay up. There seems to be a mindset that if somebody didn't get paid for the content, than it is not valid, regardless of any other consideration. That is an extremely narrow-minded and saddening viewpoint.

The word "guidelines" is used throughout Wikipedia. "Guideline" does not mean "hard and fast rule that must always be followed without exception and enforced with an iron fist." Wikipedia's own description at the top of guideline pages reads: "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

In this case I believe an exception to the guideline is in order, so users have all the information they need on this topic. Simply because one content author has refused to follow the common practice of posting his files far and wide on any ad-supported corporate organ that will host said files is no reason to discount and discriminate against that perfectly legitimate content. Users of this article deserve to have all the info they need free of personal or institutional bias, and information on *all* fan-made patches for Bloodlines - not just the ones hosted on for-profit corporate sites - is needed. Cylnar (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cylnar, proxying for indefinitely-blocked users is frowned upon here.
Please either come up with your own questions, or don't bother editing here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow - that's almost an impressive rant by Tesserac or what ever his name his. It's almost getting into Derek Smart territory, except he actually did produce significant apps. Ravensfire (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ironically, all it is doing is encouraging people to alienate the editors who were originally willing to assist. Battleground mentality and all that. Rehevkor ✉ 04:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
And yet, the questions (both Tessera's and mine) are perfectly legitimate and have not been answered, except with the same sophistic blathering mouthed by those with an axe to grind against Tessera and his website. You guys are using "guidelines" as an excuse for petty tyranny against people you don't like and favoritism for corporate websites, with payola being the only criteria for your brand of "legitimacy". And the user suffers.
And "alienating editors who were originally willing to assist" is a joke. This whole fiasco has been an attack by certain parties who shall remain nameless, and their supporters, against a non-corporate website and its controversial owner and administrator. No one here has demonstrated any "willingness to assist" whatsoever; rather, those parties have hid behind "guidelines" as a justification for their attacks. Then when they are called out for their attacks, they retaliate, saying the one who called them out is attacking *them* by exposing the truth. It's not libel if it's true, folks. Cylnar (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Because you can't seem to ask without accusations of bad faith, insane conspiracy theories and attacks. No one here has an axe to grind, it's all in your head. Rehevkor ✉ 12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
And now it looks like Tessera has taken the site down completely.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
That's just a sad overreaction by him, but ultimately, not our issue. Hope he sees the light and brings it back up. Last I looked, it was claiming approx 400 members. Ravensfire (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
And nevermind the last - from his post, he's grabbed his ball and gone home. Sadly, it seems that as people became aware of what Wikipedia is looking for in terms of sources, that information was found and it seems this is mostly resolved. Ravensfire (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to say I'd never heard of Tessera or his website until this came up. The site doesn't interest me, but I've got nothing against it - and I expect most Wikipedia editors here feel similarly. Considering the work some people have done in good faith (see below) to find good sources to improve the article, it seems a real shame that Tessera has seen it all as a personal attack and has come out fighting, when the truth could hardly be more different. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, I think we can mention:

  • The buggy/glitchy state of the original Bloodlines
  • "At the opening, you forgive the array of bugs and glitches", "Having animation flickers and textures going wrong is a different thing from - say - reloading and finding that simple action has broken some of the level's scripting or getting caught in a game-ending crash bug upon exiting a mandatory mission. " [1]
  • Bulleted list item "Chinatown, the final hub of the game, is particularly error-ridden, with ridiculous character animation faults and subtitle typos littering the otherwise expertly crafted district." [2]
  • Bulleted list item "Helaas waren die bugs er w?l, en de offici?le v1.2 patch die Troika later vrijgaf loste slechts enkele ervan op." [3]
  • The non-existant support for Bloodlines by Troika
  • "Also, developers Troika were shut down on the same day, so patches were left to the fans." [4]
  • "Helaas waren die bugs er w?l, en de offici?le v1.2 patch die Troika later vrijgaf loste slechts enkele ervan op. Onlangs sloot Troika Games dan weer de deuren, waardoor de Bloodlines fans op hun patch-honger bleven zitten." [5]
  • The existence/tracking/reporting of community Bloodlines patches on various sites throughout the years:
  • "Another new unofficial patch for Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines is now available with further homebrew support for the Source-engine RPG from defunct developer Troika games. If you are curious, this is the 43rd unofficial patch for the game by our rough count, which is not counting the unofficial patch that actually came out before the game's single "official" patch." [6]
  • "An unofficial patch for Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines is available, bringing the first-person action role-playing game by Troika Games to version 1.7. Word is: "This is an unofficial patch for Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines by Troika Games. It is build upon Dan Upright's great unofficial oma patches, whose readme is included with some minor corrections added. This patch attempts to fix many bugs and improve other things but no guarantees are made, since not everything could be tested. It can be installed easily on top of the official 1.2 patch from Troika Games." [7]
  • "Five years after Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines's release and four years after its developer Troika Games closed its doors, the community is still churning out unofficial patches. Today patch 6.3 was released." [8]
  • "Also available is a demo of Worldwide Soccer Manager 2008, a wallpaper pack for Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath, a mod for Battlefield 2, an unofficial patch for Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, and official patches for Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space and rFactor." [9]

Seeing all this I propose that the line "As a result, direct support for the game ended. Community patches have been released as add-ons to the game, in order to fix errors and bugs that were not corrected by Troika due to the scope of the game and the subsequent closing of the developer.[8][9]" refers to the Gamespot "Demos and Patches" section (so that all interested parties can take it up with Gamespot). Even tough it is out of date, it isn't fan-based like many other real directory websites, and that section deals specifically with the topic at hand: the existence of community based patches for Bloodline as part of it's maintenance (but if anyone has a better link that would be great).

On a related side-note I also propose that "unofficial patches" be merged with "Development and Sales" and turned into "Development and Maintenance" or "Development and Support", whereas "Sales" is joined with "Reception" to form "Reception and Sales". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverStern (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/r_vampirebloodlines_pc
  2. ^ http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/7245/Vampire-The-Masquerade-Bloodlines.html
  3. ^ http://www.pcgamespecial.nl/?itemid=2142
  4. ^ http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=147504
  5. ^ http://www.pcgamespecial.nl/?itemid=2142
  6. ^ http://www.bluesnews.com/s/99669
  7. ^ http://www.ggmania.com/?smsid=19631
  8. ^ http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Vampire-The-Masquerade-Bloodlines-Still-Getting-Patches-18476.html
  9. ^ http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/vtmb/news.html?sid=6180281&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures;title;1
All we are asking for is equal representation, and what we get is an argument, the guide lines for this should be simple, all party's involved in making unofficial patches and or mods should be allowed to be represented. The guide lines you are claiming to be following are contradictory, in one place it'll say something in the area of having a verified source is not an absolute necessity, use common sense, but in another sentence it says it is necessary, so which is it? All I am seeing here is unrelenting bias against against the other fan made patches because they didn't get their foot in someones door to get a pat on the head for their work, just give us back an equal footing. Schu2 (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
So, you want a better link other than Gamespot, sort of like GameBanshee http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EEZZFFVuVuJxmJgfss.php. Gamershell http://www.gamershell.com/news_42755.html Even the Australia Kotaku http://www.kotaku.com.au/2007/10/vampire_bloodlines_gets_new_unofficial_patch/ to name a few.Perez007usa (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There, you see? Corporate websites *have* mentioned the True Patch. The ball's in your court now. Cylnar (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What you term as 'corporate' isn't always so, as a side note. Ads pay for the servers to run a site. Not all websites are run by a corporation. It is not about corporations anyway, it is, as you have been linked(but refused to read), about being reliable. Reliableness constitutes a history of non-partisanship and fact-checking. A tabloid that posts rumors wouldn't be reliable for instance. As to the companies that own the sources, it just so happens that people who build a reputation for accuracy become popular with people, and others want the eyes of the people who visit that site; generating money for the site with ads.
So, as others have been telling, and asking you, please assume good faith, and stop with the attacks on other editors. It won't win you any points here, and won't end well if you keep it up. We have rules here, attacking others because they follow them, and try to inform others of them, isn't right.
As a full disclaimer, I found this page after reading ANI. I'm actually fairly busy in research regarding a WoD character myself(which is kind of odd, I've been seeing much in that area as of late that isn't directly related to my own hand(tv ads, this, etc)), which is why I have been rather inactive. I'm also doing some side scripting, trying to fathom how it will work, how to make it work.. Either way, I'm not really 'here' right now. I'm only here now as it has piqued my interest. But I will likely not be posting here again.
Please remain WP:CIVIL.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Good morning! The three sites offered by User:Perez007usa work pretty well for me. Anyone have a problem linking to Tessmage's site based on those, in the same sentence that silver wrote earlier? Thanks so much, Perez, for digging up sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, they look like good enough sources to me - they look to be serious third-party gaming sites -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think that User:SilverStern's suggestions seem to be sourced, and I'd have no problem with their addition into the article (except for the ones that aren't written in English). I'm not sure I'm clear on what GameSpot page he's suggesting linking to... this one? GameSpot seems like a pretty neutral go-to site for games, and it would be preferable to linking to each individual patch we identify, wouldn't it? I understand the reliable source guidelines, and I'm less familiar with the specific sources that gamers use, but it seems to me that the sources SilverStern has identified are solid. (Thanks for digging them up!)
On a side note, I've blocked User:Cylnar. The above message makes it clear that he's editing as a proxy for User:Tessmage, and not as an independent individual- User:Tessmage isn't allowed to edit while he's blocked, even by telling others what to type. I'd like to thank all the people who came here, saw past Tess's rather heated rhetoric, and are working within the system to help.
Yesterday was Sunday. Today is Monday, and I do have to go and actually earn a living, so if I come home from work tonight to discover that it's all sorted out... I will give everyone involved a cookie. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

One comment to the Mitsoda article. It links to the download page of the Unofficial Patch only and not to the True Patch although the latter was already known at the time! Also there are three paper magazine articles mentioning the Unofficial Patch, I don't know if they are available online but these are PCGamer (8.2008), GameStar (10.2008, in German) and PCZone (2.2009). I can provide anyone interested with screenshots of these articles if you don't believe me. Wesp5 (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also I would like to ask FisherQueen why the links of Perez are okay for him here, but similar links were not okay in the The Precursors article. The GamersHell link is just a patch download like the The Patches Scrolls so it is not reliable. The GameBanshee and Kotaku links are just news articles similar to the one on Blues News for the The Precursors patches which was not accepted at the time. Wesp5 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  • People seem to be conflating notability with being verifiable and the demands of WP:NPOV. Inidividual facts/items in the article don't have to be notable in their own right (That's generally the bar for determining if they warrant their own standalone article), they do have to be verifiable, cited to reliable sources, and balanced according to WP:NPOV, they also have to be in line with wikipedia's purpose of being an encyclopedia i.e. see what wikipedia is not, not everything which is "useful" appears here (hotel reviews are useful, phone directories are useful etc. but inapproriate for an encyclopedia). Some of this despite best efforts has a subjective side to it (the policies try and generally set out to be objective), sometimes wrapped up in generally understood practise rather than formal rules. As above I'd agree the Patches Scrolls isn't a particularly appropriate link here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you,FisherQueen, when I said, "too name a few". I have sites ranging from German,Russian,Italian and many other languages that has the True Patch and also Weap5,,, if he's interested.Perez007usa (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perez, I'd like to see reliable sources for both the Unofficial Patch or the True Patch that are neither a download page, a news announcement or a forum post. I myself know nothing except the Mitsoda article already cited and the paper magazines which I listed above that only mention or link to the Unofficial Patch. Wesp5 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

News announcements from reliable and independent sources are fine. [As far as I'm aware] Rehevkor ✉ 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there something about footnotes when dealing with non-English sources? Might be a good idea to link to the policy that deals with that(can't remember which one it is). Eik Corell (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You mean this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NONENG ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverStern (talk • contribs) 23:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, as far as I'm concerned that sounds fair and neutral, I'm still looking for information for all involved, but Perez007 would probably be better for it Schu2 (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WHAT 'IS' it with you Wesp5, you won, Tess is no more. So why, don't you put a sock in it.Perez007usa (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perez, this isn't about my Bloodlines patch, but about my The Precursors patch which FisherQueen removed from Wikipedia because of similar reasons. If he accepts your links on the True Patch, he needs to restore my The Precursors patch to Wikipedia. As for Tessera, he will probably be back soon enough. He closed his site several times already and always reappeared. Wesp5 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you should be having that discussion on Talk:Precursors (video game) not here. As far as him coming back, not this time. He deleted everything. Even his local copy. And FWIW, FisherQueen is a She, not a He. Arglaar (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of External Links

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Falcon9x5 removed most of the external links at 10:12, 10 August 2010. Why? What makes the Mobygames entry that he decided to leave, any better than the Gamespot or IGN links that he removed. And removal of the Steam link removes one of the only 3 ways to purchase this game. Steam, Direct2Drive and find it in a Brick & Mortar (if you're lucky). This definitely falls under WP:ELYES#2 doesn't it? Arglaar (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. SilverserenC 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELYES #2 only applies if none of the criteria for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO applies, but it goes against #5 seeing as how the primary purpose of http://store.steampowered.com/app/2600/ is to sell the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverStern (talk • contribs) 07:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry there, didn't see this. Only official links, and the occasional mobygames/imdb etc link, should be included per this guideline. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. The same guideline you've linked states that the page should have EL's to the Game's official homepage, the Publisher's page, and the Developer's page. Since Activision has taken down the official page (http://www.vampirebloodlines.com), and the developer has long since broken up, that leaves us with the Publisher's "Official" page. (http://www.activision.com/index.html#gamepage%7Cen_US%7CgameId:VampireTheMasqBloodines&brandId:Vampire) If this link is too specific, then a link to the publisher's page (http://www.activision.com) should be added, in the least. Since the page is currently protected, I am prevented from adding this link myself. Also, please edit the last line under Vampire:_The_Masquerade_–_Bloodlines#Development_and_sales to add the Direct2Drive link, and remove the Gametap link and language, as they no longer offer the game. Thank you. Arglaar (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Done! I left the Gametap link as the tense suited - it was made available on Gametap (even if it's not there now). Thanks! Fin©™ 08:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mods and unofficial patches

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

I've removed the mods section because it was only a collection of links -- references were just links to the mods that is. Nothing to establish their notability, so I removed them. I removed most of the "unofficial patches" section, leaving the first paragraph since it was backed up by a reliable source. Eik Corell (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this subject, but I noticed the edit-conflict while looking at new changes. It seems that what you removed were things made by third parties, not part of this fame, but fan-created works designed to go with the game. Only those that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria should be mentioned in the article- all games of this sort are accompanied by many, many, many fan-created works, and the best way we've found to avoid articles turning into link directories is to use those guidelines. Let's try this: any of these 'mods and patches' that are added to the article should be sourced by an article or review in a significant game magazine (print or online). Those that haven't been the subject of such articles and reviews should be left out. That's how I see Wikipedia's rules applying in this situation. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All you have done is remove any possibility of people gaining an informed opinion on what mods or player made patches they may wish to use, many of those links have been there for years and you also deleted the info for the "Offical 1.2 patch" meaning you have essentially committed sabotageSchu2 (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you created an account just to weigh in on this topic, but whatever - No such thing has been done. Wikipedia isn't the place for comprehensive information about every conceivable topic, it's an encyclopedia. Further, insisting that this information be listed actually harms the article, by making it excessively long and by having the wrong tone. The right place for the information is a fan or community site about the game - or even it's own Wiki - if you have enough to write about it, I'm quite sure Wikia will set you up your very own wiki for the game, and that might even be able to be linked to here... I hope you do continue to make other 'productive' edits, to this and other articles, but this issue is just keeping us from building an encyclopedia - or even from improving this article in other ways. If you really care, listen to reason, quit fighting over something that is pointless, and then start working to improve this and other articles - perhaps all the way to featured article status (this one could get there with a little work!) Triona (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a typical example of WP:NOT. We are not here to cater for the fans. Reminds me of the drama at Little Big Adventure some months ago. Rehevkor ✉ 03:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please immediately restore the information regarding fan-made patches to the page. Due to corporate interference by Activision the game without fan-made patches is nearly unplayable. This has nothing to do with any "patch war" - if you want to play the game and have a good experience one of the fan-made patches is virtually required. The information available on Wikipedia for some time before the latest "edit" was free of "patch war" bickering - neither patch author edited the other's entry. Removing the information on fan-made patches does a disservice to all readers of this column who need information on the fan-made patches to get the complete story on this game. This high-handed behavior on the part of certain individuals is an outrage that EVERY user of this article should be mad about - it's nothing but censorship that deprives users of information they need and that needs to remain in this article. I invite every reader of this page to weigh in and demand that ALL the missing/deleted content be restored! Cylnar (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous information in the article about patches and mods was either unsourced or sourced to unreliable sites, mostly a single forum. These sources do not fit under the reliable source requirements that Wikipedia has for including information in articles. Furthermore, any information that is unreferenced can be removed by any user, per Wikipedia policy. If you wish for the information to be included, then you need to provide reliable sources to use in regards to it, while making sure to not create original research from them or synthesizing information. SilverserenC 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Then at the very least you could do is put the links to the most involved sites back up with a summery explanation of who they are and what they do, total deletion is excessive, new players come here to find information about what is available, when they see nothing, they're going to figure there is no support at all when there are options to explore. Triona I have a years old account but don't remember the user or password Schu2 (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read the beginning of this section, or User talk:Tessmage, then you know what we're waiting for: simply a reliable source confirming this patch's importance, like an interview in a game magazine that discusses it. Tess said that such sources existed, but he wouldn't tell us what they were. If you can give us a link to one such source, we can add the information you want added, and you can be a hero for getting your message board re-opened. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this not an encyclopedia regarding the information for "ALL" users,no matter what the info pertains? If certain links is not listed to said info, it is not a true encyclopedia then. As the above where it said,"new players come here to find information about what is available," that's is what I want,'availability'. This petty thing about reliable sources, is it not up to us to see that at first hand, whether it's good or bad. This "hero" talk, is this the way "THIS" encyclopedia sums it up, What other information have you withheld,not just this discussion we are having,but others games and have nots. If this is a "true" encyclopedia,then I would come here to view those info, might they be good or bad,then its up to me to choose. Whether it be Tessmage or Wesp5, or whatever you put down. The decision,rest with you.Perez007usa (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not. Eik Corell (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but like an encyclopedia, we can only allow information that is from known reliable sources. Forum posts do not count, random websites on the internet do not count. If you want certain information to be included, then you need to find reliable sources that discuss that information. SilverserenC 17:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tessera's work is featured as an article in the May 2008 issue of PC Action magazine. --ゼノせいや Zenoseiya (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to it? SilverserenC 17:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a printed magazine, not an electronic thingy-whatever. --ゼノせいや Zenoseiya (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a pair of .pdf files that comprise the article, provided courtesy of PC Action, however I am unsure how I can provide them to be sourced. There is no provision in the uploading rules concerning .pdf files, which leaves me in a bit of a mystery on how to provide them. --This be Claen'tor, signing off. (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Latest comment: 13 years ago47 comments12 people in discussion

Ravensfire is restoring a citation linking directly to a download to one community patch belonging to Wesp5 while excluding the citation to the True Patch. This kind of act is not neutral. When he restores the citation, he simply refers us to the talk page... in which he states such obviously prejudicial comments such as "Wow - that's almost an impressive rant by Tesserac or what ever his name his. It's almost getting into Derek Smart territory, except he actually did produce significant apps." He isn't actually commenting on the situation or offering up something constructive. For that reason, and until citations for BOTH community patches are up, then citing one patch and linking to it while not allowing the same is simply a breach of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillNever (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason that this particular patch is linked is because it was mentioned in the the Rock Paper Shotgun interview, which follows after the link to the Patches Scrolls site; First one is the place of the patch. By itself it's not notable, but having been mentioned in an interview with a developer(the rock paper shotgun interview), it will do just fine, using both as sources. Eik Corell (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The True Patch was properly cited in the preceding discussion and all of the links posted by Perez were verbally acknowledged by FisherQueen to be genuine. Why haven't those citations been added to the article? Why isn't there a correlating link to a download location for the True Patch? If the citations for Wesp's patch are considered to be valid by the Wikipedia staff, then by default the citations provided for the True Patch are equally valid. You can not do one without the other without being guilty of producing a biased presentation. The True Patch is not just some little insignificant patch, it is enormously popular and every bit as vital to Bloodlines players as anything which has been produced by Wesp5. Either both patches need to be cited properly, or neither of them do. This is supposed to an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement on behalf of a particular clique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 09:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verification not truth - we need a reliable source to use. The problem is that for this particular piece of information, there does not seem to be one. You are also a bit confused about what we do - we report on what reliable sources say. If a patch is mentioned in a reliable source, and another is not - we have no duty of 'balance' to either mention both or exclude the one that we can verify. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The following link has already been acknowledged by FisherQueen to be acceptable, as per her earlier remarks on this discussion page: http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EEZZFFVuVuJxmJgfss.php Therefore, it needs to be included within the article, along with a separate download link pointing to the True Patch, such as this one: http://www.sailmaker.co.uk/vtmb/ Doing so would ensure that the presentation of both patches is unbiased and equally informative. Failing to do so leaves the article in an incomplete and biased state, which is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 10:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agreed with that source as well. But now I see a few problems: Having closed his site, there's no "primary" source for the patch, and as far as I'm aware, mirrors of files/sites are usually not allowed. Another thing is, the GameBanshee site links to the forum of that patch, which is no longer up. Furthermore, it's more a progress report/changelog for the patch than it's actually coverage by a reliable source. The Rock Paper Shotgun article, on the other hand, is with a former developer, by an established expert source within the gaming industry. As I see it, the GameBanshee source alone is not enough. We need something better. Eik Corell (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also incorrect on your part, Eik. Tessera's site is up and running and the True Patch can be downloaded directly from there, as well as from several other mirror sites including http://www.sailmaker.co.uk/vtmb/. I feel constrained to point out that the download link you seem to be approving of for Wesp's patch is -not- a web site owned and operated by Wesp himself. It is simply a minor German gaming site, which hosts hundreds of patches for dozens of different games. Wesp's patch is merely one file that they happen to offer and it has no further legitimacy beyond that. Tessera's web site, on the other hand, is the actual source for the author's work and it offers full-featured support to the users of the True Patch. Currently, the official download link, so far as I have been told, is http://www.tessmage.com/True_Patch_Gold_FINAL.rar Furthermore, the "Rock Paper Scissors" interview with Brian Mitsoda is not especially relevant. Wesp's patch was mentioned in an offhand way during one of the questions posed to developer Brian Mitsoda. However, Mitsoda himself did not specifically acknowledge Wesp's patch by name, instead responding "I am always surprised when I see new content for Bloodlines" or some words to that effect. Objectively speaking, his response could thus be applied equally to both patches, since it was non-specific in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.133.194 (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Note - this is the banned user tessmage who is Tessera. Ravensfire (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
See, I knew something was up when I read the whole "UGO" thing -- That was what the nut wrote on his site when referring to one of the sources mentioned here, so I was confused as to why a new user would use the exact same terminology, and getting the same things wrong in exactly the same way. Oh well, Tessera can now add "liar" to his resumé. I must say, though, the liar Tessera is more pleasant than the psycho Tessera. Figures. Eik Corell (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:No personal attacks, please, Eik.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Noted, and in light of that, I'm gonna leave this issue well enough alone for now, since I'm obviously past the point of assuming good faith. Eik Corell (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of this argument (and preceding arguments), seems to consist of "WESP/TESSMAGE'S PATCH IS EX/INCLUDED, THEREFORE THE OPPOSING PATCH SHOULD ALSO BE EX/INCLUDED". That's a ridiculous argument, if any content is backed up by a reliable source, it's fair game for inclusion. Here are some points for everyone:

Read each and every link if you haven't already. There is no conspiracy of Wikipedia users trying to promote one piece of content over another. If someone has a reliable source for whatever, then add it. Turning this argument into "WAAAHHHH, WESP/TESSMAGE SUCKS AND WHATEVER" does not make anyone look good. Also, nobody outside your community cares about your soap opera. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

24.186.133.194, The Patches Scrolls alone is not enough, but it is the site linked to in the Rock Paper Shotgun interview, so by proxy(if you can say that), it's validated. The TesMage page is not stable enough to use as a main source because of the whole shutting down thing. In other words, beyond unreliable. So, the Sailmaker one is the best alternative. Remember, the reason the unofficial patch thing is mentioned the way it is, it's mentioned specifically in the RPS article, linking to the Patches Scrolls site. It is an offhand-mention, but it is specifically the Unofficial patch that's linked in the article, and I think it serves the article well: It's useful, and at the same time it's just notable enough to stay in the article. The ideal thing would be if both patches could be mentioned on the Patches Scroll page, but I think if one was to try to achieve that at this point, that might not be acceptable... but I'm not sure. What I mean is: The site, as linked in the article, referred specifically to the unofficial patch when it was linked. Eik Corell (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Eik is simply in error and he seems to be refusing to acknowledge the facts. Tessera's web site is back up and fully operational, now that he has managed to obtain additional funding in order to cover the maintenance costs of his server. This has been verified and the tessmage.com community is assisting him in this endeavor. In any case. it is not up to Eik or any other third party to make arbitrary determinations about other people's web sites. So we are now back to the matter at hand: the citations for the True Patch are superior to those being used to justify the inclusion of Wesp's patch. And yet for some inexplicable reason, the True Patch citations continue to be omitted from the article in question, whilst the citations for Wesp's patch continue to be preserved, by what is apparently a small circle of acolytes. Any dispassionate outside observer such as myself can clearly see that there does indeed seem to be some sort of vendetta taking place within this article. That type of behavior is unacceptable and it must be remedied immediately, if the article is to maintain any sense of legitimacy and lack of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The website is not fully operational. It's a husk of what it used to be, and a few weeks ago, the creator stated that it would be permanently closed, and now he has changed his mind. Hence, it shouldn't be used as the primary source. I'll be perfectly frank with you: I'm not gonna bother with you if you start this whole conspiracy bullshit up again, because that will lead this discussion absolutely nowhere. The best thing you can do is present the reliable sources that have covered the TesMage patch. If they really are superior, you just need to present them here for the other editors to evaluate. By the way, you are not an outside observer - You seem to be involved in this silly patch nonsense as well, so don't pretend that you're a neutral party, that's dishonest. Again, present whatever citations/sources you have and we'll work from there. Eik Corell (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
When the front page of a website contains the words "My web site... no, OUR web site... has been completely erased from the server and I have formally requested that my account with our host be terminated.", its future (technical) reliablity isn't exactly guaranteed. If the citations are "superior", then why haven't you added them? Every edit you've made has been the removal of a link, not once did you add one. "Any dispassionate outside observer such as myself" - this made me laugh. Also, there's no conspiracy, but if I don't get my cheque from Wasp pretty soon, I might have to start, y'know, editing without a massive bias/lack of legitimacy/blah. Has everyone else got theirs' for this month? Thanks! Fin©™ 11:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are once again in error, Eik and Falcon. Go read it again. Tessera's web site is simply in the process of being migrated to a less expensive server. His entry page no longer contains the words which you have quoted. You might consider flushing your browser cache, as you seem to be reading outdated material. In any case, this still does not explain why the citation pointing to the UGO article about Tessera's patch has not been added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've gathered the links that are claimed to support the "true patch":

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2007/10/vampire_bloodlines_gets_new_unofficial_patch/ http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EEZZFFVuVuJxmJgfss.php http://www.gamershell.com/news_42755.html

Personally, I'm ruling out the Gamershell article because essentially just a mirror. The best of them would be the Kotaku article because that's an established, reliable source. But all of these sources have the same problem: They're not as much coverage as they're mirrors with a little description, but I'm not sure. Let the debate begin. Eik Corell (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Woah, I just want to point out here that the front page of Tessmage.com has changed since I quoted it (22 mins by my count). I assume this means Alkaoonion is in direct communication with Tessera, which is A) very definitely a conflict of interest and B) maybe evading a block? Also doesn't change the fact that a few weeks ago the entire site was effectively shut down. I didn't add the citation about the UGO article as they also haven't sent me my cheque this month. If massive corporate entities are going to bribe lowly wikipedia users, they damn well better make sure the bribes are timely! Thanks! Fin©™ 11:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Eik, but why are you continuing to side-step the UGO article, which was published on a major gaming site and which does indeed speak -specifically- about the True Patch and its authors? I am told that the UGO gaming network is owned by the Hearst cororation. Are you saying that they are not "legitimate" enough to meet your standards? There isn't anyone bigger than them, Eik. It is far more robust than any of the citations being used to justify Wesp's patch. On the one hand, you have an obscure reference made in an offhand manner in an interview which is already obsolete. On the other side, you have an iron-clad and highly specific reference to the True Patch and its authors, published on what is just about the most enormous network of game-related web sites in the world. So what's the problem? And to Fin, stop trying to squelch people. I am not in communication with Tessera, I simply loaded up his web site just like anyone else is able to do. There is nothing wrong with it, so please stop reaching. You are only adding weight to my allegations of bias. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 11:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You're referring to the GameBanshee one... I gave my reasons for that one above: Link leads to non-existent forum thread, and it's essentially another mirror. Truth be told I'm not quite sure what to think of it. I'm not familiar with GameBanshee, that's one of the reasons why I'm hesitant - I haven't really run into much of their material or articles. Eik Corell (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't believe that a website, that has had no content removals in the past few weeks, suddenly removes a chunk of content after I mention it, and that's completely unrelated to you or this discussion. I assume it's also a total coincidence that your argument ("GARH, CONSPIRACY!111") is the same as that on tessmage, and the same as used above? Does anyone know where my UGO cheque is? Here's the google cache for the page with the content intact. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The link has already been posted more than once, but I am happy to post it again: http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EEZZFFVuVuJxmJgfss.php

As you can see, it is a clear and specific article regarding the True Patch and its authors, including a direct link to the tessmage.com web site. It not only mentions the patch in question, but in fact goes into a fair amount of detail regarding its contents. This is certainly a far more robust source than an offhand comment about Wesp's patch, put forth by an interviewer in Rock Paper Scissors, who conducted his interview a full year before the True Patch had even been released. And his question was not even specifically addressed by the developer who was being interviewed, thus it can not be construed as being some sort of validation of Wesp's work. Far from it, since it also refers to an outdated version of Wesp's patch which has not been available for several years. The UGO reference most certainly deserves to be included and properly cited within the Bloodlines article, as it fully meets all of the requirements put forth by the Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise, and since the tessmage.com web site is linked to directly from within that article, the download link at tessmage.com should also be cited, just as a third-party download link for Wesp's patch has been included. I really do not understand why you feel that this is in dispute. And Fin, the only person jumping up and down and screaming about conspiracies is you. Please take it somewhere else.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 12:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask for some additional editors involved in the last debate to have a look at the sources. I've seen similar sources(articles that are mainly just mirrors/quick blog entries) being used as sources for unofficial patches for other games, but I don't wanna just go by example, so here I prefer asking for some help, in part to get this cleared up for future reference. Eik Corell (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a mirror, Eik. It is an article specifically about the True Patch and its authors and it was published, I assume, as a service to the gaming community. GameBanshee is a major commercial gaming site, which has existed for many years - far longer than Rock Paper Scissors. It is owned and operated by the Hearst Corporation, a major force in the world of publishing for something like 100 years. Tessera even posted a link on his entry page to their corporate information: http://www.ugo.com/corporate/aboutus Also, I am not sure why you feel the need to call in other editors and stretch this out unnecessarily. The sources in question have already been acknowledged by a Wikipedia staff member as being genuine and acceptable. Allow me to quote what she said, further up on this very page: "Good morning! The three sites offered by User:Perez007usa work pretty well for me. Anyone have a problem linking to Tessmage's site based on those, in the same sentence that silver wrote earlier? Thanks so much, Perez, for digging up sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)" So again I ask, what exactly are you having a problem with here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 12:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


I hate to say it, but no, that patch wasn't mentioned in RPS. The question wasn't about that patch. he just asked a very short question and got a very short answer about community patches in general. RPS has apparently placed an example link in the question, but it doesn't indicate that that particular site was actually discussed with the interviewee. Such a very short question doesn't even warrant inclusion in an article. It's an undue weight issue. Unless RPS turns around and dedicates an entire article to this patch, it doesn't warrant mention or even linking in the article. A single question in the history of all reliable sources about this game is extreme undue weight.--Crossmr (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can see what you mean. I was kind of hoping for a compromise on the grounds that the article linked it. I supported keeping in in the article for that reason, but it does kind of seem far-fetched now that I think about it. I think I support deleting mention of the unofficial patches. What about the sources presented up there? I checked this list of sources here[1]. GamersHell is listed as reliable, Kotaku is listed as "situational", and GameBanshee has not been classified yet. What I'm really curious about is the particular way that the sources presented, and I'll just present them again for perspective's sake: http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EEZZFFVuVuJxmJgfss.php. Gamershell http://www.gamershell.com/news_42755.html Even the Australia Kotaku http://www.kotaku.com.au/2007/10/vampire_bloodlines_gets_new_unofficial_patch/
These are blog entries. As I said, Kotaku is mentioned as situational, with the suggestion that you should check the individual writers. Well, Logan Booker is the guy who wrote the Kotaku article, and I found some info suggesting that he's been at this since 2002, and works as a game developers. I'd say he qualifies. Eik Corell (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Concur. As has been said from the beginning of this mess, there need to be reliable, verifiable sources which have not been provided to do what Tessmage or those directed here by him want. There is substantial discussion above which came to a concensus which is reflected in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to repeat that the Unofficial Patches at The Patches Scrolls were mentioned in the following paper journals: PC Gamer (8.2008, The Patches Scrolls linked), GameStar (10.2008, Wesp5 interviewed in German) and PC Zone (2.2009, Wesp5 interviewed). I can upload scans of the pages if needed, are these reliable sources? Also be sure to read the comments of the GameBanshee link mentioned above. Wesp5 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Scans cannot be used, but citing the text from the article should be fine. Here[2] is the guideline that deals with citing books, magazines and so forth. You know what page it's on and what it says, so you can figure fill all that stuff out. Eik Corell (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm content with the way the article is right now, so I would only use these sources in case the RPS article is suddenly deemed not reliable anymore. Wesp5 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's reliable, it just doesn't really provide any coverage of the community patches. It has become habit here for anyone who tries to make a mod or fan patch for something to try and promote it through wikipedia. Scans can be used for other editors to verify the content you are citing, but not used in the actutal citation itself. So yes, please provide scans of those so that the other editors can verify exactly what was said so we can continue the discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a zip archive of the two English articles containing info about my Unofficial Paches to FileFront: http://www.filefront.com/17234775/BloodlinesUnofficialPatchSources.zip Wesp5 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For me those are convincing enough to use the link as an external link. Not a citation. The site address is clearly given in PC gamer, and there is a clear interview in the second. The existence of community patches can be talked about in the prose, and how long they've been on-going.--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose changing the last paragraph of the Patches section to remove the citation for all unofficial patches and add a carriage-return after "game ended." to make the existence of the Community patches more evident. If the reader wants to find the Fan-Made patches, they can use their favorite search engine. Removing all direct links to fan-made patches will remove any hint of Bias, as well as it will clean up the article somewhat, which is one of the "multiple issues" as listed at the top of the page. Example edit:

Unable to find additional work, Troika disestablished itself in February 2005. As a result, direct support for the game ended. [Troika closes ref]
Community patches have since been released as add-ons to the game, in order to fix errors and bugs that were not corrected by Troika due to the scope of the game and the subsequent closing of the developer, as well as to restore unreleased additional content found in the game files.[Mitsoda article ref] Arglaar (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So just because you can't find a reliable source for your favorite patch the other should be removed too? Wesp5 (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wesp5 will you please shut up, you have done nothing but aggravate the situation and make things worse. Besides that, Game Banshee is a reliable source they just refuse to accept it. I have used both patches and have tried to stay neutral here, but all you seem to do is cause more interference and frankly all you have done is make me and a lot of other people mad, just like Fin with his comments about not getting his check, yes Fin its not funny and you are making Wikipedia look bad with your comments. All anyone is asking for here is a fair unbiased decision and a Game Banshee link in citations, but all we get is a stone wall, an argument and insults. At least FisherQueen was willing to compromise but everyone else just wants to ban those of us who stand up for what we believe to be right Schu2 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Don't attack other users. Keep other crap off wikipedia. I don't consider GameBanshee reliable myself, though I do consider RockPaperShotgun reliable. At the end of the day, this entire conversation is because of a spat between Tessera and Wesp. In my view, neither patch has been mentioned by a reliable online source (though the PCGamer/Zone articles seem decent), the RockPaperShotgun article happens to link to a page that contains a patch by Wesp. To say "OMG WE NEED TO HAVE OTHER PATCH TOO ELSE THIS IS ALL BIASED AND WRONG!!" is incredibly petty. You all need to get over yourselves. I thought my comments about the cheques were funny as there's a constant undercurrent of talk of a conspiracy by Tessera's "supporters", so that's good enough for me! Thanks! Fin©™ 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Shu2, but I just want to make sure my patch isn't removed from Wikipedia only because people like Arglaar or yourself can't get your own favorite patch on. Also while you are citing GameBanshee all the time, please care to read the comments to that link, especially post #3 by the site owner Jon "Buck" Birnbaum himself. Wesp5 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this has nothing at all to do with wanting to "get my own favorite patch on". It has to do with WP:NOTLINK and the fact that in the RPS Article that is cited here, your patch isn't even directly mentioned or discussed. It just happens to be linked in the article. While the RPS article might be a notable source, it isn't, in the respect of Unofficial patches. It's an afterthought. A blurb. If it was an in-depth article about Unofficial patches and their effect on the game, then yes, I could see including it. Most likely, all that happened was the original article author did a google search for "vampire the masquerade bloodlines Unofficial Patch" and linked the first result for article completeness, which, just so happens to be the patches scrolls link.
The only things I'm attempting to do here, is end this constant bickering, and improve the article. It doesn't matter which patch I "support", I'm here supporting the game, and Wikipedia in general.
TBH, most of the information in this article should be removed and moved over to a wikia article anyways. But that's my opinion. Arglaar (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh brother. I am not trying to get my favorite patch on, I am trying to get these people to put the link to the gamebashee "article" into references where it should be, unlike "The Patches Scrolls" link which isn't even an article...if the tessmage link can not be there nether should it, it is not a reference it is a mirror site for mods and nothing more. @Fin it doesn't matter if it was cited in an article, by wiki's own definition that link doesn't belong in references tho the RockPaperShotgun article does just like the GameBanshee one. Schu2 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This is so tiresome. Like I said above, I don't consider the GameBanshee link reliable, don't think it should be included. But then again, I don't consider the patches-scrolls reliable one either, I'd be quite happy with just RockPaperShotgun (I think I actually removed the patches-scrolls link a few times before?). What's the deal with this anyway? Why do you people have such a vendetta against each other? Thanks! Fin©™ 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh and if you're not doing so already, you should be reading every page I'm wikilinking to. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine what about http://www.kotaku.com.au/2007/10/vampire_bloodlines_gets_new_unofficial_patch/ even Eik Corell, who started all this by removing a bunch of info, seemed to be OK with it. Admitted its not a full page article, but the site has been cited as a reliable source before. Add that to references, then keep the article locked to prevent sabotage, and I'll shut up.Schu2 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
That is just a news report and the info itself shows that the author doesn't even know that this patch is different because he still calls it an Unofficial Patch which is the name of my patches. But I tell you what, if you really can't live with the state the article is in, let's just remove the TPS link and let the RPS link stay on it's own like you suggested. No more war, okay? Wesp5 (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
And your point is? Plus in case you don't know this, the Media considers any work not done by the original publisher or development company to be "unofficial" so technically they all are "unofficial patches", admitted there are typos but directly below the article you can see the name clearly along with the patch notes. Schu2 (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
My point was that there wasn't actually an editing process or independent research involved with that link, otherwise the author would have known that the True Patch should not have been called another Unofficial Patch ;). Wesp5 (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vampire:_The_Masquerade_–_Bloodlines/Archive_3&oldid=1137292925"