Video games: Indie C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the indie task force. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Concerning  :

The game is not commercial so probably lacks the third party coverage of many gamesites and magazines (since they often receive pay for publishing articles on a game). I added one reference from IGN, and an interview on a game development site so I think this is sufficient third party coverage to remove the tags. Ofcourse its not much but as I said, this game is not being commercially developed. Wiki1609 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is quite notable. It is a polished, professional-quality(judging from screenshots), freeware game. Freeware games are not exactly a majority, and few are this impressive. I think that qualifies as notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.70.83 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 January 2009

Could someone update the images? They are a few years out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Free software strategies category. However, I'm not sure this was the right move now that I see it's not out yet. GPL is only enforced on something that's released - distributed. This is not, so it's doubtfully free software at this point. Weather it now qualifies for the "future free strategy" is to be seen in the said future. After the feature on Slashdot, I don't think 0AD development team needs any more hype. It's time to release it. Share your thoughts - should the category stay? --Paxcoder (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0 A.D's source code has been released. It is free software, at this point. I don't see why it wouldn't qualify for "future free strategy" right now. Wildfire games is not looking for hype, they are legitimately working on the game, try to be a bit more patient. In conclusion, you have not given any legitimate reasons as to why it should be removed from the "free software" category. --Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs)

0 A.D. (video game) → 0 A.D.0 A.D. –

• Unique name, no need for the (video game) part Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "0 A.D." to most people means the year 0 (year), or the zero of some other year counting system, not some routine videogame Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 0 A.D. simply doesn't exist. Anyone searching for "0 A.D." (and hoping to find out if it exists) would get:

Not to be confused with 0 (year).

Besides, it's been an article about the game or a redirect to it for over 5 years. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "A.D." is unique to the Gregorian or Julian calendar, so no I'm pretty sure it wouldn't mean anything to someone using a different calendar.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 04:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and retarget to 0 (year), on primary topic grounds. Powers ^T 22:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try Google; every use of "0 A.D." would be incorrect unless it refers to this game. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect, sure, but still a common topic for inquiry. Powers ^T 15:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Teaching people that there is no year 0 in the Gregorian/Julian Calendar is not the function of a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs)
        • I agree completely. Powers ^T 12:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. 0 (year) is the obvious primary topic of 0 A.D. and the redirect should reflect that. Jenks24 (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain what is so "obvious" about it? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The dab is totally appropriate. All year articles should occupy the primary namespace. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irreverent. The proposed move would move a article to a redirect, there is nothing about any "year articles".
• Comment The main problem here is whether 0 A.D. should exist as a redirect to [[0 (year)], if it shouldn't then the 0 A.D. (video game) article should take its place. I am pretty confident that 0 A.D. should not exist as a redirect to 0 (year) as outlined in WP:R#DELETE section 8. A hat note in the 0 A.D. article linking to 0 (year) should be fine. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 22:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab-page the 0 A.D.. 0 A.D. is not the common name of year 0, it's one of the alternatives in certain calendars. But it is the common name of the video game (even suggested by search). We should not give special treatment for the year. Basically, this is a case of no primary topic. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If you ever heard someone referring to "0 A.D." in general conversation, you would assume they are talking about the year 0 (even if it is incorrect to call it that). Just because 0 A.D. is not the common name of year 0 does not mean it can't be the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • When would you ever hear that in conversation? Here you can see all calendars that use a year designated as 0. The Mayan calendar is no longer used and both the Cambodian and South Asian come from cultures where the latin phrase "Anno Domini" (AD) would carry very little meaning and would never be used. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 08:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but we are the English wikipedia, not the Mayan, Cambodian or South Asian wikipedia. That AD carries little meaning in those regions is completely irrelevant. Jenks24 (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you suggesting that English-speakers wouldn't know about Southeast-Asian or Mayan culture? English is a language not a culture. That wasn't my point though. My point is that no one is going to mistakenly mix up the year zero, a concept unique to Southeast asia/Mayan culture and "AD", which is distinct to Western culture. Hence why I'm arguing "0 A.D." would never rationally be searched for if looking for year zero and should instead be a page about a video game and not a redirect. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 07:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the heads up that English is in fact a language. Seriously though, English speakers will probably be vaguely familiar with Southeast-Asian or Mayan culture, but not nearly familiar enough to know that the year zero is concept unique to those cultures, and they would be much more familiar with the Gregorian calendar. Therefore if the average English reader was trying to find an article on the year zero, "0 A.D." would be an extremely plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]