Talk:Voyage Century Online

I have played this game, voyage century online and i have noticed that the spelling is very bad. it get quite irritating after a while, maybe we should do something about that. --Joiz303989 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For the start lets note that this *is* still beta. That said this game features simply incredible amount of spelling and grammar mistakes. There are also numerous quest erros with most well known one being where your asked to kill hyenas (which dont exist ingame) but where you actually have to kill Wild Wolves. As for doing something about it, reporting errors on forums is the only way. Biggest problem from the Wikipedia side is that I dont know of any Reliable Sources to be used in this page. Shinhan 12:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note

Please follow Wikipedia guidlines[1] when editing this article. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvasir1488 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

someone with vast knowledge of the game and experience with creating/editing wiki articles needs to rewrite/edit this page, especially the exploration part because I think that's a direct rip from the website which doesn't have the greatest grammar. MrTrubak 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix this article lately, getting to it at some parts and then others. You are just too right about the exploration system, it probably was taken from the site. Firefox's ABC automatic check underlined a lot of things red. Well, I've been getting to it slowly, just letting you know. PЄ|>ρ3® 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The very least someone could do is finish the unfinished paragraph under ships. If i knew more about it i would do it myself. Thanks mates 76.197.192.108 (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a wikipedia expert, but if someone is making corrections to the description note that RoG (Rage of God) attack is 3x of your standard attack, and RoG2 (Rage of God level 2-Axe Special-is learnable at 110 skill level) and produces a 4x attack. Both RoG attacks are not reduced by the opponents defense stat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.27.152 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to add. I haven't played this game very much but the final paragraph under criticisms seems to be very overly cynical and should be rewritten or removed altogether.24.10.14.16 (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a major rewrite of the criticisms and added reflinks of a lot of claims to the voyage century site. This article needs a lot more referencing, and that Criticisms part was just a whole load of junk about someone whining on about their annoyances with the game, not pure facts. 203.206.83.64 (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved

I have moved the location of this article to "Voyage Century Online," as that is the true name of this game. PЄ|>ρ3® 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms: Item Mall Overuse

This section was added to address, as well as properly cite, criticisms that have been generated from players posting on forums posts, as well as just simple intelligible human observations. I have tried very hard to write it in a manner where it says "there are people who think ... XYZ" and give references as opposed to "it is a fact that ... XYZ". The difference here is that the section refers to criticisms made by players (again, with appropriate references), not necessarily facts of the game (although there are some such things). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.228.145 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor article

Article is essentially a guide, written poorly; addressing reader directly in almost every paragraph, and it goes on like that throughout the entire article. I've brought the article to bare bones, because for all the content it had, nearly all of it was gameguide material; a section on the role of weapons and ships would tell "you" how "you" could use this weapon which does +3 damage blah blah blah, you get the point. 23:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Voyage Century Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.igg.com/aboutigg/aboutigg.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://forum.bountybayonline.de/showthread.php?t=129109
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://forum.bountybayonline.de/showthread.php?t=129136
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://piraty-online.ru/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://piraty-online.ru/news/2015/0906/1354.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ma.vibrant3g.com/sp/intro.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ma.vibrant3g.com/sp/intro.jsp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links dispute

Hello. I would like to discuss an ongoing issue with the external links being deleted.

The rationale is that all the excessive links have been removed as per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL guidelines. According to the guidelines "Normally, only one official link is included.". That does make sense in a wide variety of cases, but not in this specific case.

As one can read in the article, Voyage Century Online is hosted by a dozen of different companies, which have nothing in common with each other. Those are basically different games, as every company did something different and unique with their version to make it distinctive from others. Therefore, there isn't a one single official website. Every company has its own official website, so it makes no sense to give unfair advantage to the English version website, because its as equally official as the others are. So as per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites.", which is exactly the case here, so in this case it makes perfect sense to link one official website per game distribution.

Before this turns into an edit war, I would like to hear the rationale why does one version of the game gets to be linked, while all the others do not. --DSofa (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia for a start - our readers would naturally prefer to see the english official site. But I suppose we do have the option of omitting the links entirely. - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That rationale would make sense, in case all of the distributions were exactly the same, if they were copies one of another but on a different language, which is, I repeat, not the case. English version is just one of the distributions, hosted by one company among many others. Since the article talks about all distributions, it makes sense to link all of them, as each one of them provides significant unique content and they are in no way interlinked between each other. Since you kindly asked me to respect Wikipedias's guidelines, I need to kindly remind you about good editing practices. You should always improve rather than remove, so removing all the links is not an option.

I suggest we ask for a third opinion. --DSofa (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)