Greetings, warzoners. I come here to convince you on a small little proposal to both raise awareness to the game and as a way to use our powers to team up. I want to create a wikipedia page for this game!

As some of you know, Warzone is not easily found online. If we look up "Warzone" or "Warlight" on wikipedia you will get to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_zone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlight

As you can see, very different things to this site

I know the first thing we need is some people who have accounts for the site to actually edit things. Secondly, we need to plan what to add to this page. We need things such as history, gameplay, features and other sorts of information so new players can understand the game. I ask for everyone from all parts of this game to come forward and bring whatever knowledge you can gather to assist in this task. I see this as a great way to find new players who look up the name and get a brief overview of the game. A well known site like Wikipedia is just the thing we can use to attract more attention to this game. Give me any other suggestions or ideas in this thread. Thank you all for your cooperation :D

soooo, IIRC,

WarLight did have a wiki page at one point, but it was removed as it doesn't meat ToS. I don't think that has changed.

how doesnt it meet the TOS? I'll see if I can find see what guidelines are needed. I dont see any reason why an article wouldn't work.

Of memory, but something about the page being used for commercial purposes (promote warzone/warlight) and not to document anything.

Main thing was that there is a lack of thrid-party sources (ie all WarLight sources is... warlight/warzone.com ..except for 1 random article or something one place). Point is...the deletion, at least at the time, was correct.

EDIT:
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/131489-warlights-wikipedia-page-nominated-deletion

Edited 9/6/2018 00:51:15

Ah I see what you mean. I suppose that will require a lot of digging to find. Unless of course, we make our own third-party sources (perhaps link some youtube videos and stuff to have more than 1 source)

Things with wikipedia pages have to prove their noteworthiness. I couldn't make a page for myself unless I could prove that I was noteworthy enough to deserve one for example.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]

From the wikipedia guidelines for notability above, I would surmise that WarZone would need news coverage and detailed descriptions and reviews from a few, maybe a dozen third party sources. Those sources would have to provide enough information about the game for the reader to have a good understanding of it without actually having to play the game or visit the website. As-it-is there's no such volume of information available about Warzone but it's possible in the future. We should compile a list of third party coverage of Warzone and have an article prepared for when we get enough information.

I mean im down for that. That way we will drop the best page on wikipedia the moment we get the chance :P

Also thanks for linking that old thread, you reminded me how I used to express myself on this site.

Tbest is making me hungry for a steak.

And I've started a wiki page for a band a long time ago, and by far the most difficult part of it had to do with properly citing sources. Wikipedia is very anal about this (despite some popular belief) and moderators are running around like crazy reverting edits and requesting proper sourcing.

I don't see why a warlight wiki page should be even close to as difficult to start since there's probably not nearly as much information you'd need to work with and source, but I dunno. It's just a small indie game so there wouldn't be nearly as much demand for loads of superfluous info.

Edited 9/6/2018 03:44:14

Yeah. Warzone isn't a radical feminist topic so the page will be held to scrutiny.

Radical Feminist ideology has a lot greater impact on the world than warzone. Also, no need to inject politics into this.

It was a joke lad

I'm also down to seeing how much external information and sources we can find.

I'd also like to note that those guidelines are for "Stand-Alone pages", meaning that Warzone would get its own page.
To get mentioned on another page requires far less external sources, I assume - i.e., get Warzone on the list of Indie game developers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indie_game_developers), a compilation of strategy games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_strategy_video_games), or a mention under the "Risk clones" on the Risk Game page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(game)) etc.
It's not much, but might be a good start.

Edited 9/6/2018 06:11:36

It's already been taken down for good for lack of notability, clearly the page doesn't follow the wiki guidelines. The guidelines refer to trivial vs nontrivial sources for the topic. Getting mentioned in a wiki page is mostly trivial. A nontrivial source has to go into detail explaining the topic; the guidelines say that the reader has to be able to learn about the subject well enough through the secondary source without doing any original research. Basically, the secondary sources have to have a description. Just being mentioned in a list isn't a description. There are a lot of topics mentioned on the wiki that don't have their own pages because they are too trivial to warrant their own articles but relevant enough to warrant a mention in a greater article.

Edited 9/6/2018 06:27:24

As noted above, we used to have a wikipedia page but they removed it due to not meeting their notability guidelines.

The real problem is that the press won't write about this game. Wikipedia puts lots of emphasis on articles written by independent sources.

I've tried contacting the press -- I once spent more than a week reading all the guidelines about how to contact the press, and writing personalized messages to hundreds of them. It was very time consuming. And they all ignored me. So I never bothered trying again.

Alright, external (notable and trustworthy) sources.
I can find some. It's not the New York Times, and I've skipped all the blog posts on Wordpress by 14-year olds.
The following look rather valid:

Killscreen
"Founded by a former Wall Street Journal culture reporter", “the TED of videogames.” (This one was deemed a good source on the previous Wikipedia page):
Overview and description: https://killscreen.com/articles/warlight-tweaks-the-rules-of-war/
Review: https://killscreen.com/articles/review-warlight/

AV-club
"An online newspaper featuring [...] articles that examine [...] games and other elements of pop culture media" (according to AV-clubs own Wikipedia page).
Overview and review: https://games.avclub.com/november-1-2010-1798223519 (scroll down a bit)

Ghacks
Ghacks is a technology blog that was founded by [...] a journalist from Germany who is interested in all things technology. Five authors and more than 230,000 user comments. (According to own site).
Overview and review: https://www.ghacks.net/2011/11/26/warlight-risk-like-game-with-advanced-options/

Digital Trends
Owner "chosen as finalist for EY's Entrepeneur of the Year and named Portland Business Journal's "40 under 40"". 100 employees and 30 million global monthly unique visitors. (According to own site).
Overview and recommendation: https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/where-to-play-risk-online/ (scroll all the way down).

Appgrooves
co-founded by [...] former CEO at Crowdstar, "over 100,000 companies actively using our solutions" (According to own site).
Out of 19k reviews Warzone has a rating of 3.9/5 (It also claims 500k downloads, just for good measure).
https://appgrooves.com/app/warzone-risk-by-warzonecom-llc


I also find the The AI Games contest to be interesting, and possibly a valid Wikipedia source to show "notability" of the game, since there are external companies (and external money) involved. I'm not personally familier with the contests, though.
http://theaigames.com/competitions/warlight-ai-challenge
http://theaigames.com/competitions/warlight-ai-challenge-2

Edited 9/6/2018 07:45:10

Oh hey I remember the ai challenge from way back. That was neat

Thanks for finding all that info btw Murk. I think stuff like this will be a great start for possible sources for the game. And seeing how many pages on wikipedia only have like 1 or 2 sources, I think with these sources, this can work too

I was also thinking, weren't a few youtube videos made showing how to play different maps? I remember seeing one on the mdl page (which btw if we were to mention that we can easily put as a source and since it is technically not first-party as it's a CLOT made by players) which can also help. I see it as a good way to add more sources and to cite specific concepts in the game.

God now I feel like I'm making college essays again trying to find "sources" XD

A few WZ related YT channels:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEGGmGZLoDeCyc12kd1a-8A
Benoit's channel, though nothing new added for one year, still very useful videos for learning there .

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmyZTaqmKKYD1CS_ApJL9rg
ps's channel, too bad not very active on WZ recently

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9zcmQOygNv2gdaPyitWomA
Pichu's channel with WZ related cartoons.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT8s3xNFUKUUeUoI1m4mUkg
Myth0nian's channel , newest videos are 2 years old though

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIWyI6U_rnunILdlPaFZS8w
Phakh Gokhn's channel, fairky new, only two WZ related videos so far, but should be more in the future.

Was unable to find Kcsrag, looks his account is not present anymore.