Talk:OGame

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2007Articles for deletionKept
May 15, 2008Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 27, 2009Articles for deletionKept

Officers[edit]

Sorry all if this messes anything up, it's my first edit =)

Should there be any mention of the controversy raised by officers, as in them being the first benefit available in game that gave a significant advantage through payment?Xela King (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should. There is even a petition online that asks Gameforge to remove the officers. Nyme (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of players[edit]

As someone who hasn't played this game I'm a bit confused by the numbers in the first paragraph: "over two million gaming accounts worldwide. The German Ogame has 61 'universes' (servers) with a maximum of 14,000 players each". Doesn't the second sentence contradict the first? 61 * 14,000 = a maximum of 854,000 players. Just curious what the correct (realistic) number of players is.


That only takes into account the number of players on the German Severs. There are other servers as well, English, Polish, ect. That allows for there to be more then 2 million accounts. 

    There are about 300 servers in multiple languages on the first 2 pages of a Google search for "Ogame", if they all had 5000 
    players (as most servers don't have anywhere near the max amount of 14,000) then 300*5000 = 1,500,000 which is close to what they 
    say and even closer when u add the other languages that ain't in the to 2 pages of Google page 
    results.(Figjam88au 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Some players have several accounts in different universes (that is not prohibited by rules), I used to have 2, some have 3 or even more. And some universes have much less players. In Russian universe #1 there are only 2.5k players left (the newest, 14th universe had almost 9k players). But I do think that a there are over 1000000 accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.105.138.5 (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: However, in almost any given universe, a large amount of players are inactive. Furthermore, a huge number of players have 0 points, meaning they create an account, then leave forever. Therefore, the actual number of players is quite less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckytoilet (talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its true. Every time I go on Ogame, I see almost 1 inactive player per system, and many times more than 1 player. In Uni2 is down to about 1.8k players.Steven Jin (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC) EDIT:[reply]

This is surely no longer accurate - you're talking 400 players in some of the .org universes, and less in .de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.235.65 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Google shows 6 million hits for "ogame" (and all the first page links are to stuff related to the game). If that is not notability, then what is? Please do not put up for non-notability again.

Many, many thousands of people have played this game spending massive amounts of time (me once included, for several months in 2005) and the two million accounts claim does not ring all too wrong from the scope I saw this game have among online browser gamers.

Max robitzsch 12:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting it back for the moment. The article itself does not state how this article meets the criteria in WP:WEB. --InShaneee 12:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added info about notability, removed notability tag.


Could the editor that tagged this page please explain the reasons a bit more? Seems pretty silly to make this a VfD... --JD79 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, he said in his edit summary that he didn't see this article meeting the standards set down by WP:WEB. --InShaneee 23:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English[edit]

Defence and Colonization... Are we using English or American English?

It is German, thus European. British English is in order. Rama 09:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
German made yes. American based (.org) American translated. XD Anubis1055 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the .org version is officially the international version, but was originally only for British and Americans. Now it is international and the official language is English no English American I'm afraid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.19.110 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an American server (.us) seperate from .org. The .org servers are mainly for European countries that speak English and Australia, even though many Americans and non-English speakers play the .org because it usually runs faster and has more players to begin with. Spartan123209 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please...[edit]

Don't copy and paste explanations for technologies and buildings directly from OGame. Use them as guidance, but don't plagarize. λλλ - Shiri 22:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yah... okay. I was fixing them up and changing them fairly significantly, but I'll totally rewrite them in the future. A. S. Houdini

The page is starting to look good. Good show. That clean-up tag'll not be necessary soon. λλλ - Shiri 03:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

There still are some changes that could be made. I don't think we really need a "Different versions" section. --Zarel 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Size[edit]

We need to cut down on the explanations for buildings and techs and elaboarate on the community, game development, glitches, etc. Looking at other video game pages, Wikipedia doesn't seem to act solely as a game guide. People can go to the OGame tutorial if they want poorly translated tips. ~~ Shiri 03:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Umm...the technology sections and (perhaps) the buildings should stay, since they are good in length and have some imbedded Wiki links in them and explain a lot about the gameplay. I'm more concerned about that long list of ships that seem to be more in place for a tutorial or player's guide. ~~ Shiri 03:30, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Formulae[edit]

Do we want to be putting formulae in the "general formulae" section, or do they go in the applicable section? For example, the building formulae could go in under buildings, etc. A S Houdini 01:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Also, I noticed that most of the other pages with formulae use the "math" notation. Should we be using that? A S Houdini 04:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that we don't really need the formulae, we just need to have external links to them or something. Like I said, we need to discuss the community, gameplay, etc. more for this to be a decent page. And i've tried math notation and it didn't work. ~~ Shiri 02:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

How to break it up[edit]

I suggest that we break up each main section so it could have an article like Buildings_(ogame) it makes sense

Huge copyedit[edit]

If you have a problem with it, say something. I've made the page more similar to the other Wikipedia articles about games, in that I explain features of the game instead of making it a bloody player's guide. I figure that's what the external links are for. ~~ Shiri 04:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


I was thinking there could be a brief description of each ship and the moon features but that'd probably be a little bit too "player's guideish." Da Dohboy 13:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Shiri on this one. Wikipedia should have a good article about OGame, its history, what OGame is, but this should not turn into another playerguide. We should mention that fleets can be used, and the different types of actions a fleet can take, but it is not necessary to distinguish between light and heavy freighters, or differnt levels of combat ships. We should only mention tactics if they are something unique to OGame, something that isn't shared among games of a similar genre, or that are generally acknowledged as classic moves by the playerbase and surrounding OGame community. Rekov 00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good[edit]

No more article size warnings. Wormeyman 09:49, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

4th universe[edit]

Looks like a 4th universe just opened Wormeyman 09:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Uni 15 came out a couple of days ago by the way. Just updating this. ^^ 08:01 EST, Feb 10, 2006 Da Dohboy 13:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And uni16 is out today. Da Dohboy 12:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uni 19 opened a couple days ago --24.75.246.150 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universe 36 just opened... RJRocket53 (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages[edit]

Anybody know anything about the Russian, Spainsh, etc. versions and would like to discuss them under the community section? ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 17:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I know a bit about the Turkish version.... --193.140.194.104 06:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ogame Novel[edit]

It exists an ogame novel but it is in german. You can find it also in the german article bout ogame. But I am not sure if it's so important for the english article.[1] --134.147.115.45 17:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is also now a picture of the novel. U can find it here. --134.147.116.209 09:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Erdenkind und Drachentod Roman Cover.jpg
Cover of the self published novel "Erdenkind und Drachentod"

You can translate the title as "Earthchild and Dragondeath" --134.147.29.179 07:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War[edit]

Please be carefull a guy had written here complete nonsens. I had rechange it. But please take a look. Thx --134.147.73.118 18:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan language, Forums, etc.[edit]

There is no "Balkan Language"... The "Balkan Countries" have their own languages (Turkish, Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, etc. Thanx

  • I removed all those links and instead redirect to the top of the article: OGame in various languages...where I have all the links and such. cheater 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Romania is not a Balcanic country :P

copyrights of ogame?[edit]

what are the copyrights of ogame? is it open source? can clones be made? where can i find htis info?

It's not an open source. <_< It's a GameForge game, so ask the administators of the game for the info. Da Dohboy 12:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its copyrighted... This means you cannot use any images, website code, or any other applicable copyrighted material.. ANYWHERE. Clones get shut down very fast by the legal team. So do websites caught using copyrighted material. See it all the time lol Anubis1055 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

external links[edit]

I think there are a bit too many links.. could someone please short it? especially the different languages which are also available on the website are unneccessary

Done. I was finding that pretty annoying also. This is the English version of the Ogame page. Links to all the different languages is redundant to those pages.

The links are needed as ogame.org is not just for english users its for International users. Whereas the other ogames are only for their given contry.I dont think there are two many links in it either...if you want to see a shitload of links go to the ogame fourm in the Tools and Sims section.

why were ALL of the links deleted? The OGame wiki was relevant. --JD79 02:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why do people insist on editing in a cheat site? These are the same people who complain that "officers" are cheating, yet want to further destroy the players who play this game fairly by advertising cheating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.76.72 (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important note - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links which explains External Links. It should be noted that external links are more of a "For Further Research" and if one link doesn't include information that the other does, then both links should be kept since they both contain unique content. -Lawrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Richard Wright (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian and/or Hungarian[edit]

Someone (mis)labeled ogame.com.hr as Croatian and/or Hungarian. That website is obviously in Croatian language, so unless person editing it cant distinguish Croatian and Hungarian languages I would really like to see proofs to the contrary. Also, Hungarian domain is .hu and that might have been what confused the editor. Shinhan 14:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, your input is greatly valued. I had no way of checking, since I speak neither Hungarian or Croatian! cheater 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Language recognition chart if you are not sure in what language is something written. For country codes you can see ISO 3166-1 alpha-2.

Notability[edit]

Please post here everything we can use to prove notability of OGame since somebody thinks its not notable. Here's some alexa ratings:

.org - 8.499
.de - 7.947
.fr - 12.677
.com.es - 3.732
.pl - 7.779
.com.tr - 3.966

This should show that ogame is pretty big, esp. since its multilingual.

Found some stuff on Google Scholar, but not everything is english: Google Scholar search

Anything else? Shinhan 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't great Alexa ratings... --InShaneee 18:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are for a browser-based game. I'd go so far as to say that Ogame is probably one of the top-ranked browser-based games on Alexa, if not the highest ranked (aside from Runescape.) This utility is an Ogame combat simulator; it's #80 on Sourceforge overall and has almost 2.5 million downloads. That would be impossible to achieve if the game weren't notable in some way. (Or if somebody downloaded the program a few million times for no apparent reason.) syphonbyte (t|c) 02:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of this will be enough. We need reviews from long standing review sites, not listings, or places where anyone can add a review, but INDEPENDENT reviews. take a look at the talk page of Starships! and you'll see what we are up against.Matt Brennen 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New screencaps?[edit]

The screencaps in the article are dated. OGame recently changed to better-looking images. Could someone with a decent amount of planets provide a new screen cap to reflect the changes? I would, but I only have one colony, and fear I would not do justice.NME 07:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a new screencap, and an infobox. :) MichaelJE2 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Merge[edit]

I have just merged the Intergalactic Research Network article into the buildings section of the OGame article. As I am unfamiliar with the game, does anyone know of a better section for it? Or is it ok? Garydh 08:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the Intergalactic Research Network portion in buildings. IGN (as it is commonly abbreviated) is a research (an upgrade). A section that may be neccesary to add to this article.68.70.149.142 11:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, don't understand why you deleted that paragraph. It's listed in the game under "Buildings." I don't see the point in not having it in the "Buildings section of the article. -- Ben 15:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because IGN has little to do with buildings. 68.70.149.142 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please re-include the material somewhere in the article? It defeats the purpose of the merge if it is deleted from the article. -- Ben 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution would be to create a seperate section for researches. I'll go create it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.70.149.142 (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC).68.70.149.142 03:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV & Overhaul[edit]

Can we please remove the obvious non-NPOV comments? Starting with the the Issues faced section? Since when was it okay to use bulletin boards as references? As for the rules, can there be a short list of the actual account instead of a paragraph that seems to have been written by a middle schooler doing an essay? This reads more like a guide you'd find on the ogame board and not a encyclopedic article. Requires definate overhaul. Godloveslamb 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sited the Ogame board twice. The first one was sited the official announcement (since the Ogame board is the only place where these annoucements are made). The second one was to show player unrest and thus I linked to a long thread that had many player complaints. Besides almost everything important (from the FAQs to the pillory links) is on the boards.
As for the rules section, if you don't like the ways the it's set up you are more then welcome to change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.70.149.142 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have the removed the criticism about loosing your fleet. If someone has a problem with the concept of a war game and the fact that you need to FS and generally bother to learn the game then take it elsewhere please. MartinDK 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the part about there being a steep learning curve as there are no sources. The section is now untagged and simply renamed "Officers". Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for disgruntled former players. MartinDK 09:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Guys- this game isn't 10% as sourced as Starships!, and there are guys who are trying to get THAT article deleted. This article is in SERIOUS CRITICAL need of sourcing. I know it sux, but some of these admins are total nazis when it comes to this. They will come in, remove everything you've been using to source the notability of the artical so far, then put the artical up for deletion on the grounds that it isn't sourced. Dirty trick, eh? The only way to combat this is to have SOLID sourcing that is indisputable, and to fight tooth and nail to keep each notability source in the article. Don't just google. Go to your bookstore and see if 0Game is in any books. look for magazine writups on their own pages, google doesn't get to everything. Matt Brennen 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother... it takes about 2 seconds to search Google news and realize that this game is the number one browserbased game in Europe. It has indeed been the subject of multiple articles in established magazines and newspapers. But that doesn't matter because this is what is known as gaming the system. You walk into an article that you have never edited. Slap it with a notability tag and then you wait. If someone actually bothers to add sources you just revert them claiming that they aren't reliable. After a few days you AfD the article claiming that not only did you attempt to solve the notability issue by adding the template but the authors of the article are also adding unreliable sources. Hence WP:WEB has not been satisfied and the article gets deleted. It's better not to waste any time on it to begin with, all you get out of it is disappointment and anger. It's all about the burden of proof. If they had actual evidence that it violates WP:WEB they could (and should) have put it up for speedy deletion. There is a specific criteria for articles that fail WP:WEB. They don't do that because they know that they can't prove anything. How would they? They don't know anything about the subject of the article and they have never edited it. That's why they try shift the burden of proof. If someone is willing to add the sources then fine. Personally I have seen this too many times to even bother. MartinDK 10:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just passing through this article after it came up on the Starships talk page, I hadn't noticed Brennen calling me (?) a Nazi here the day before. Yes, I've slapped this with a notability tag, because a few minutes of searching didn't turn up any obvious reliable sources (searching Google News for "ogame" returns no results, Google Scholar turns up a lot of typos and Japanese surnames). If there are multiple articles in established magazines in newspapers, all you need to do is mention them in the article, and that's it, your article now meets WP:WEB, its notability can be easily verified by future editors, and it won't be challenged again for its lack of sources.
I wouldn't revert a source unless it failed the clear rules of WP:RS, and any AfD ruling would obviously take malevolently deleted sources into account, if they were raised during the discussion. --McGeddon 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um...I never called you a nazi. I spoke of wiki-nazis, but never mentioned you. I find it interesting that you would take it personally like that. Now that I've left starships to help O-Game with references, I suppose you are going to follow me here now? Matt Brennen 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that McGeddon. That was a very nice change from what I'm used to in these situations. I was being unclear... you need to search the archives of Google News because that way you get foreign language hits as well, most importantly the German ones (GameForge, the owners of OGame is a German company). In light of your response I retract my sceptisism and I'll get started then. WP:WEB is quite clear on what sources should be added (non-trivial, reliable sources). MartinDK 11:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept this as an example of a reliable source? This is an established and reliable German news source. MartinDK 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that just a press release site? English-language sources are always preferable, either way, and it could be argued that a German source only proves that the game is notable in Germany. But it's a good enough start. --McGeddon 11:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even i know OGAME is massive, if this one goes, I give in :-( I managed to source Travian yesterday. I think blogs from 'reliable' sources like fairly well known games designers are ok. Its hard to source these games, to the WikiNazis standards. Good luck. Bjrobinson 11:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, self-published sources can be okay, if they're the personal site of an established and published expert. If you disapprove of the current standards for determining which web sites should and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, though, you're better off proposing changes to them at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web), rather than calling other editors Nazis for enforcing them. --McGeddon 12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fairly clear. I dunno, this entire episode has just had quite an impact on how i view WP, i have been quietly contributing and editing articles for two years, very very few of which had anything to do with this subject, but, well, i dunno, its a shame. Im not sure anymore. Bjrobinson 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks McGeddon. I'll try to get better sources. If it proves impossible to prove the notability of OGame even if I know that it is then I respect WP:V, that is the criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth. I know that WP:WEB is quite restrictive for a good reason... we don't want to be a web directory and there have been serious spam issues with these website articles. I've had a few of them deleted in the past because of that. The reason I'm so concerned about this one in particular is that the game has a huge number of players when compared to other online games, even games like World of Warcraft. So I'm fighting for this one but obviously policy trumphs everything else. If blogs are regarded as reliable under some of course quite restrictive conditions then that might make it easier to source the article. MartinDK 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just an additional question.... if a press release has been printed in an established German gaming magazine (as I know that it has because I buy them - I live in Denmark) then does that make it reliable and would I be required to prove that it has been printed rather than link to the press release? I know this may seem a bit technical but it matters when I want to source the article because obviously online sources are easier to judge as reliable og unreliable but often good sources are printed and not online at least not without having to pay for it... Also are more people than me actually working on this? If this only matters to me then I give in. MartinDK 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid straight reprints of press releases are actually specifically ruled out as inappropriate, in WP:WEB. WP:WEB and WP:RS should answer all your questions about appropriate sources, really. --McGeddon 20:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving On[edit]

It appears that McGeddon wishes to follow me here from Starships! (a little creepy, I know), so I'll be moving on to a different game and work on sourcing there. This will either have the effect of ridding me of this editor, or ridding you guys of him. Either way it's a good deal for somebody. McGeddon, please don't follow me again. Matt Brennen 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I only chanced across this article because you were attempting to cite the Spanish social-bookmarking entry for it as a source for Starships. Please try to assume good faith. --McGeddon 20:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You two should work together you seem to have a shared interest in this subject. It may even be worth starting a project thingy to try and save those not already deleted Bjrobinson 09:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be easier just to join this one really. DarkSaber2k 09:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I give in. There is no way I can properly source this as long as WP:WEB is the proper policy which unfortunately it is because this game happens to run using a browser rather than a downloaded client. Given my involvement in this I will not AfD the article myself since that may be considered a bad faith nomination to prove a point and I just won't take tha risk seeing how agressive people are being on related AfD's. Sorry Matt, I just don't see any way out of this. Policy is on their side and we would be far better off trying to change WP:WEB to exclude things where the browser is only used as a tool. This game would run quite fine with a dedicated client but because GameForge specializes in games that happen to run through a browser there is just nothing I can do to salvage this. MartinDK 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article would have exactly the same problems if it used a downloadable client. Wikipedia notability rules apply to all articles - a downloadable game, a video game, a politician or a chocolate bar would all require "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to merit a full encyclopaedia article about them. --McGeddon 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this but if you read a guideline like WP:MUSIC there several additional ways to establish notability of a song for example. This is also the case for webcontent (an award for example). However, the only sources I can give for this game are from German gaming magazines that copyright law forbids me from scanning and it is just too easy to question those sources unless somone else can verify that I am speaking truthfully. I really do hope that you see my problem here. I respect policy which is also why I give in but my point here is that WP:WEB just isn't suited for this one. There ought to be a guideline for things that could very well run without a browser but there isn't and so I respect that. So please... put this one out of its missery McGeddon. I won't contest it if you do. MartinDK 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a paper magazine is fine - here are guidelines for doing so. Just make sure that the source is good enough to meet WP:N, particularly because "it does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source, but does require that the source speaks on the subject in detail, rather than a mention in passing or name drop". If you're not sure, post a description of the article to the talk page here. --McGeddon 09:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) As far as far as I'm concerned, as long you can cite the issue number and page of the those articles, that's acceptable. Plenty of articles have citations for books and articles that aren't readily available. Nowhere in the reliable sources guidelines does it say the sources HAVE to be available online. DarkSaber2k 09:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being patient with me and convincing me not to give up. I'll get my magazines out tomorrow as it is a holiday here in Denmark. For now, the best I have is this [2]. It does not appear to be a mere reprint of a press release and it does say that OGame is indeed Europe's biggest browserbased game. I don't think that I can get a more reliable source for the number of players than GameForge themselves since they are the only ones who know how many players there are. That's also why the article cites ogame.de as the source. But I'll get more printed sources that have been edited by real journalists working for respected reliable German magazines. As for the sources being in German there won't be much I can do about that, sorry MartinDK 10:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is one here as well. This is from the German version of PC World that I would call a reliable source. It describes OGame as Das weltweit größte Browser MMO. Am I on the right track, especially when I get the magazine articles as well? MartinDK 10:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reads a bit like a quoted press release, autotranslating it to English, but if you're happy that it's not, it should be fine.
I'm not sure whether sources being in another language means that the subject should only be really considered notable in that country (Wikipedia.de has no article for some English MMORPGs, and I can imagine it could be frowned on to add an article about English subject which was only trivially notable to German readers), but I've not yet seen any policy guidelines to suggest that this is the case. --McGeddon 10:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent + edit conflict) ::::::I had to run it through Babelfish to get an english version (and by-pass my office web filter), but that article is a prefectly usable source. It's not trivial, it doesn't appear to be a re-print of a press release, and it's the German version of PC World, a most definitly reliable source of information. Good find! DarkSaber2k 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! I have one more... this is from Bayerischer Rundfunk and you can read it here. The main subject of the article is OGame and it contains a brief comparison with World of Warcraft. I know it won't be a source of any specific information but it is an example of OGame being the subject of a non-trivial article by a reliable source. Could some of the others who have expressed their support for OGame possibly help me out with finding articles? Or am I on my own? MartinDK 11:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) That article is also perfectly fine as far as I can tell. I would help finding the sources, but currently I'm in work and we have a hideously restrictive filter. I can only get Wikipedia without any pictures (seriously!) and sometimes Babelfish will actually translate something (like the two articles above). But I've got no access to search engines for another 5 hours, when I'll be back home. DarkSaber2k 11:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DarkSaber. Thats perfectly okay as I am at work too right now. I was thinking more about Matt and the others really, I appreciate your help right now! I have this one too [3] It is page 2 of an article about browser games in general so I respect that it is a weak reference when it comes to notability but it does mention that OGame is the biggest browser game in Europe and the source is a reliable German gaming magazine. I'll keep working on it when I get home and then I can add more/better ones and hopefully get a nice collection of good sources. I do feel, however, that I have provided good sources to prove that among browser games OGame is notable. The question on my mind now is how to prove that browser games are notable to begin with... that's task number 2 for me. MartinDK 11:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That mention is a bit trivial I think. It appears to be about half a sentence saying it was agreed by a conference to be the third best browser MMO? (I'm not sure, the translation was a bit weird), but with those other two sources I would say you wont have to worry about any deletion shenanigans for a little while. But naturally, more is better when it comes to sources. The problem with establishing notability for the Browser game genre is that notability is not inherited. Just becuase a few of them are actually notable enough to be covered in an article doesn't mean they all are. (And some editors concerned with 'minority interests' can't seem to get this into their heads.) Now that all the articles that definitly failed to assert their notability are gone, we can concentrate on looking deeper into the articles that appear to be borderline notability. DarkSaber2k 11:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I agree. And you are right about the article only very briefly pointing to it as being number 3 in a competition. I was being unclear. I agree that notability is not inhereted and far from all games are notable. I'm happy that the two I have found today is a good start. I think it would be nice if the article could show that this game in particular is not notable because it is a notable browser game but because it is a notable game in general just like World of Warcraft is a notable game. That would be much better because then it won't matter that it happens to be a browser game and then no one can point to this game and say well because this is a browser game then all browser games are notable. This is what I so miserably tried to explain when I said that WP:WEB in my opinion wasn't the best guideline to judge this from. I have had enough trouble with people using the "x stays so y stays too" argument to realize that problem. MartinDK 11:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in those first two articles to the references section. The information can be worked into the article later. What matters at the moment is that they are there. DarkSaber2k 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Picture[edit]

I think we need a new picture for the Ogame article. The welcome screen has been revised considerably.


Ntoablility proof[edit]

A notable web site review...

GameFAQ's

--Armanalp 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrases there are "Reader Reviews" and "You can submit your own review for this game using our Review Submission Form". Wikipedia requires reliable sources for its articles: reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. --McGeddon 09:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ogame.JPG[edit]

Image:Ogame.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No aparent reason for deletion[edit]

I've read all the article and found no reason for deletion except a possible speculation about the reason why some players are banned. I've made a small change on that part of the article. Some players on ogame.pt have complained about being banned because they've become a threat to other players, without giving proper explanations or facts about it, though.

Hyperdanny 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you can add something meaningful to the AfD discussion, please feel free to speak up over there. Posting here might be spitting in the wind. But your comment here doesn't really indicate that you are prepared to address the concern over whether or not the subject meets the criteria outlined by WP:WEB. -- Ben 05:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a game guide[edit]

Does this article really need to list out all the missions and researches? I think it's gratuitous. I think it's one big step towards making the article a game guide. Any thoughts? -- Ben 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or... more to the point... Do we really need all that information about the ship types? -- Ben 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would say so for the fact that this is about the game. These are relative to the game part of it. You use these just as you would any other part. Jason 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)
Full details probably arnt needed. This seems to be more of a "what is ogame and what does it do?" kind of page. just how i see it

Anubis1055 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is good as it is now, althrough we don't need the costs of defenses and ships in Wikipedia. But the details on every ship is ok, they do have weapon lists in first-person-shooter articles, why wouldn't strategy games have lists too? Nyme 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Please help me fill in the rationale for fair image use, the images were obtained from the homepage of ogame.org and is entitled for free user viewing.Yulu 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free user viewing? not sure i follow. are you asking if its ok to use them on your site? if so then you must get permission from gameforge as all material on any ogame site is copyrighted. if you dont get permission you risk a lawsuit. Anubis1055 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Editing[edit]

Whats with the massive editing? looks like there was just an edit war... kinda hard to keep things fixed etc. when 2 guys are going at it like that... fixed the sections that were lost in the fog of war... atleast... the ones i noticed gone anyways... Anubis1055 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In hinsight I think we may have gone a bit too far... ;). I really didn't oppose the offficers and commander sections - they were just full of people's own opinions and analysis rather than being factual and well sourced. This is an encyclopedia after all, not the OGame complaint department.
How does everone feel about a sourced and encyclopedic section about the use of tools? The tools section under external links were basically just a place holder for violations of WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If we created a section as described above we could solve this issue with the links by treating them in an encyclopedic way. EconomicsGuy 07:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should see some of the stuff in the past in the officers section. at one point it was on big insult to us game operators and the others ;) do you have any examples of a section like what you are referring to? Anubis1055 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other ogame sites[edit]

i dont know them all so if you know of an ogame site (ogame.de, ogame.fr) etc. then plz add it to the article with a note as to what language it is. <3 66.169.101.151 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I have removed excessive external links to OGame websites in different languages as per WP:EXTERNAL. If you think this was unhelpful (and you have a reason), feel free to revert. Joshua Issac 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replaced links as allowed WP:EXTERNAL. if you were going to troll wikipedia then you could have done that instead of blanking the entire section. took me an hour to find all the sites...Anubis1055 00:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Servers List[edit]

Sorry for my last edit. I messed up some things, but i've noticed that everything is in place again. Adding link to references -> site with the complete list of the servers --82.106.116.216 15:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT A GAME GUIDE[edit]

as the subject says... this is NOT a game guide.. this is a what is ogame and what does it do page. lets refrain from turning this into a user manual please...Anubis1055 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is adding ogamewinner...[edit]

Stop adding ogamewinner.com to the links. The french site contains a proxy, which is illegal in OGame rules. Site author, if you are so keen in adding it here, remove the proxy from the site. Then you can add it here freely. I don't want to start an edit war, so everyone: if he adds the site, remove it. Thank you. Nyme (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i just removed it again. confirmed with a SGO that if he continues its grounds for banning as it violates the proxy rules. Anubis1055 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is no proxy, not on french or english site. But: there is a proxy. There is no links to the page but it still exists in form of http://www.ogame-winner.com/proxy.html which points to a site with the proxy through 300 Multiple choices error. Author: remove the proxy COMPLETELY, even if nothing links to it visibly, because people can reach it by using that address I mentioned. I dunno should the link be removed anymore because its not visible however. Nyme (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My proxy doesn't work with OGAME ! However I abandonned the proxy. You can try again your link.
Yep, gives 403 forbidden when I try it. The proxy is nowhere to be found now and the matter is solved. You may add your site to the links. Nyme (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you.

sections merged Anubis1055 (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Trolls[edit]

and this includes overzealous mods... if you are going to edit this page edit it ONLY if you know what it is. do not be an asshat and troll wikipedia... Anubis1055 (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ogame Blog[edit]

I recently added Ogameblog as a link to the tools page. Anubis then decided to delete it. I can't imagine why, as it is a valuable tool. So, shouldn't it of stayed up? Wikipedia is here to support factual information presented to the user, it is not to have only one side of Ogame shown.

MatCauthon (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)MatCauthon[reply]

The site contains a cheats section which has LONG lists of proxies, bots and other programs considered illegal in OGame rules. Yes, the site claims "Whether there is a point in using cheats is not for me to decide. I only inform the OGame community of them". Think about how many people who use them use them for, say, recognizing other cheaters? Not many. Listing these cheating programs does more harm than good for OGame. The OGameWinner edit war's (solved now) reason was that the side had one proxy. OGameBlog seems to have a LIST of proxies (not to mention the list of bots), which is even more blatant. Sorry, but the site doesn't exist in Wikipedia if the cheats section isn't removed. Nyme (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several reasons why i removed it. i left a note on your IP Addresses talk page as you wernt logged in. ill start from the top. Cheats. redundant i know... harms the community. Proxies. an issue well understood by the administrators of wikipedia (got one of them involved on the last dispute). the editor removed the proxy and his site has been allowed to remain. slander. i could quote a few things but im sure you already are aware of the lies your site has on it. the site is blatantly offencive and insulting. this is a what is ogame and what does it do page. this is not a page where you can post slanderous websites up and get away with it... do i need to call a wiki admin again? please stop.Anubis1055 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand when you say "my site". I am neither the owner or operator of the site. As for an IP message, I haven't edited this page without being logged in? As least I don't think I have. While I will happily concede the point that the Ogameblog has both Proxies and Cheats, I have not found evidence of lies or any content offensive to the average Ogame user.

Wikipedia is about information in an unbiased manner. You two are clearly biased. While I won't re add the OgameBlog link, I will inquire to an Admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatCauthon (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was another user who undid Anubis' edit. On why he said "your site" is because of the former edit war I spoke of earlier (there the author of the site was adding it here, and I too thought you were the owner of the site). But about the site again... there are no "lies" for what I saw when I looked through the site. There you are right. But why do you call us biased? Because we remove a site that conflicts with the rules of the game it is about? Do you call the government biased when they punish people for their crimes? By all means, ask an admin but you are not going to get anywhere. Nyme (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I quite frankly agree with you. The government is unbiased. However, Game Forge does not own or operate Wikipedia. And if you look on wikipedia, you can learn all manners of illegal things, from botnets to the Anarchist's Cookbook. Wikipedia is here to inform the masses about all sides of a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatCauthon (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, they don't own Wikipedia. Exactly, it is here to present a neutral point of view. But providing this kind of information for the masses is somewhat like writing 'OGame is a game where one can cheat with minimal risk of getting caught. Here are some links to bots, proxies and everything you need to play unfair.' It's somewhat like promoting cheating. This is what I feel, of course it isn't the only true opinion. I haven't completely read through all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but actually, if you look at any other "cheating in video games" article (for example, aimbot article), are there any links? Nyme (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you say you will get the wiki admins involved. by all means. wont change a thing. you see the wiki admins i have worked with in the past have all agreed to keep things on the page that does not harm a community. and you say illegal things like the anarchist cook book... dude i could drive down to Barns & Noble right now and buy it... im sorry but your argument does not fit with what is going on... la cook book at barns&nobleAnubis1055 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Several external links were removed from the article as per the WP:EL guidelines and unanimous agreement on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Listing every official site of every country in the world in External links. The two reviews are still listed but should eventually be removed from the External links section and be used (if necessary) as references instead. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

put external links into its own section.

1) please use the sandbox before you edit to make sure you know what you are putting on the page please 2) unanimous agreement on another wiki page is not the ogame page. sorry... but no. economicsguy edited the links back in a few months ago. wiki admin puts them back in then its permitted. 3) thank you for making the discussion on this page. however when doing a discussion on a users talk page its common practice to leave the person who made a comment on your page a message on theirs so they know to check for a response.64.183.198.42 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add all those inapproriate links again. They plainly violate the encyclopedia's external links guideline and will just be removed. This page is subject to both external links guideline and consistency with other games articles. It is not special. No consensus exists anywhere for such a long list of repetitive links. To the contrary wikipedia is not a link farm. That is encyclopedia policy. 2005 (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to add to what 2005 said, one Wikipedia admin making an edit does not override Wikipedia guidelines that were created by community consensus. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for that matter, User:EconomicsGuy isn't even an administrator to begin with. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wasnt economics guy. if you look farther you will see it. Anubis1055 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Anubis, doesnt really matter. Admins cant really over-ride guidelines without a good(and specified) reason. John.n-IRL 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FINALLY! i cant believe it took ALL THAT WORK to get them to protect this article... bloody hell... thanks for the help guys. Anubis1055 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the tag(Refs)[edit]

Refs: Page has 4 sources. The first one is a site which appears to fail wp:rs, 2 more in German, which is not the issue but both are used for one sentence. The final one is a primary source which is used once. Please fix this, or much of this article may be deleted. John.n-IRL 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate to add a "no" references tag when in fact there are references. Bad references should be dealt with, and a refimprove tag can be used. But "no" means "zero". It sould not be used for other purposes. 2005 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done John.n-IRL 03:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly where does the article still need references? I see that account numbers are already referenced. I can't think why information like game resources and technical aspects should be referenced. Nyme (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it needs a reference, go look at featured articles, such as Halo 3, the gameplay section would be similar to what you describe and this of full of references. For an article of this length to have so few resources is a bit ridiculous. Also, anyone who is familiar with this article, why is there so little real world information in the article? This is all in-universe information. John.n-IRL 15:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. It's pretty hard to find references outside the game or its official forums. The forums, however, are the main channel between Gameforge and the players and is used for informing. I recently used the rules thread as a reference, but I don't know if this is advised. I didn't really find any guideline which advises against this (or perhaps I didn't look for it hard enough). And if it can't be done, it will be hard to reference the article better. Nyme (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, if you cant find a reference outside of a forum, then its an indicator that perhaps its not suitable for the article. This article contains a tiny fraction of non-universe info, while the "gameplay" section takes up the rest. Alot of what this article contains would be more suitable to an ogame-wiki. John.n-IRL 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Fair Use[edit]

To make you aware, all the images in this article are missing Fair Use Rationales, they each require one for this page. John.n-IRL 02:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the rationales. It's been for some time but didn't remember to tell it here. Nyme (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

protection removed?[edit]

i spend about 2 months trying to draw attention to this article with so many links at the bottom of the page and then do all that work to piss people off to get the page protected and now its unprotected again? i guess its safe to say... "welcome back editors who wish to edit in obscene and cheat related sites". freaking BS... Anubis1055 (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see if the situation gets worse. Perhaps the vandals have left the article. Now when there are almost no links to 3rd party sites, they won't perhaps add their sites because there is no place for them. Nyme (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that may be gone but problems still remain. for example. this bit of vandalism that was just recently reverted. it continues... should have been permanently protected....Anubis1055 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were right. The link spam began again. It should be permanently protected. Nyme (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

continuing removal of gameforge link[edit]

as seen here and in many other articles it is entirely appropriate to leave the game creators link in the external area. please stop removing. this was also confirmed on another talk page that you were a part of.Anubis1055 (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not a video game[edit]

Categories: Stub-Class video game articles | Low-priority video game articles | WikiProject Video games articles Ogame is by definition a Text Based Browser Game. Not a video game. Why are these categories listed?Anubis1055 (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Nomination for Deletion[edit]

I have nominated this article for deletion, discussion can be found here. (Sorry for the many...many mistakes in the edit field, more tired than i thought). John.n-IRL 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A GameForge Page?[edit]

I think GameForge deserves a page. I don't know enough about the company to write an article about it, but someone should. Luckytoilet (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The future of the article[edit]

Alright, now that the deletion debate has passed, we can focus on modifying the article. It was agreed that it should be stripped down to what can be referenced from the existing sources. The most obvious person for making the chances would be a german, but since it may not be available, we must talk about what shall be reserved and what shall be removed. I'd say we keep the header, rules, refs and external link sections. Then we can delete the rest. However, we should make a short gameplay section with a mention on interface and the general idea. Nyme (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules should probably go under gameplay with only a brief mention, try to have only two or three paragraphs on gameplay/rules. John.n-IRL 14:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is too game-guide-esque. Most sections can be summarised by a short paragraph. Details on how the player can obtain each resource should be deleted, detailed percentages and maths regarding game mechanics should go, sections such as the Fodder section should be outright deleted, to name but a few examples. This article also requires some out-of-game information, (development, critical reception, etc). The prose is also fairly weak in places: use of second person "you" (e.g. "your fleet") should be removed, where lists contain encyclopedic information they should be converted to paragraphed prose, stuff like that. Una LagunaTalk 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
shoulda seen this page about 6 months ago. it literally was a game guide. 3 or 4 of us worked to reword it and remove the guide part (mostly)Anubis1055 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone familiar with the game could take out gameguide stuff and keep just the basic info, I'll do it if no one else can but I dont play the game so not sure on whats essential for the page. John.n-IRL 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the game. I'll make the changes. Someone can then revise the article. Nyme (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy II[edit]

please cite.

"OGame is a text-based, resource-management and space-war themed online browser game. an updated version of the classic MMO game Galaxy II,"

ogame is copyrighted to gameforge google has no reference to a galaxy ii game. google search 76.233.100.17 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heise.de[edit]

The reference published on heise.de was removed in this edit, with the summary "Can't use heise.de article, as it is either referencing Wikipedia or is a copy of a Wikipedia article". The article is neither referencing Wikipedia, nor is it a copy of a Wikipedia article. The section is just a list of URLs where the reader can read more about the subjects in bold. For example, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMOG for MMOGand http://www.ogame.de for OGame. If you still think the reference should not be added back, please state why not. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use Google Translate for translating the article and the links if you do not believe me. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no objection, then I am re-inserting the citation. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogame[edit]

I was thinking about moving this to Ogame. If you look at the website, GameForge seems to have lowercased the "g" in OGame. For example, in the Universe 42 redesign it is uncapitalized. -download | Sign! 03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, in the login screen it clearly shows OGame, as well as the short introduction "OGame is a strategy-game set in space." And to me, the word is made from two parts, O and Game, and thus I think it should be written like OGame, instead of Ogame. Of course, in real grammar one can't write capital letters inside a word, but that's another thing. Nyme (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the board, it states that they are planning to lowercase the 'g', also. -download | Sign! 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are planning to replace the capital G with the small g, we do not change it here until the change actually happens there. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this. Nyme (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Decoybrick1 (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2009 (PST)

BioWare[edit]

Neither of the two articles cited corroborate the fact for which they indicated. Neither article mentions BioWare let alone indicates their involvement in production and development - please also note this GamingBol article the CEO of BioWare does not indicate any relationship between OGame, GameForge, EA or BioWare-Mythic. Further, a search of EA's, BioWare's, OGame's and GameForge's websites does not indicate any relationship. If the statement regarding BioWare's relationship is to be made it should at least be corroborated and preferably include official press releases from at least one of the relevant corporations. Quadrifrons (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogame is also on iPad[edit]

https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/ogame/id553453991?mt=8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.27.236 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on OGame. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OGame&oldid=1202953608"