Talk:Richard Garriott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead Links[edit]

The link to the article about the kids that stole the alcohol and left behind the camera at Garriott's estate is now a dead link. "^ Claire Osborn (2007-04-05). Nine who left pics at crime scene identified. Retrieved on 2007-05-01." -- Rappo 22:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivia in any event. See WP:TRIVIA.139.48.25.61 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of influence[edit]

The article repeatedly makes references to Garriott and Origin's influence in the gaming industry, but fails to provide proof of said influence. Surely there must be articles or figures that can be referenced?

--Nibble 18:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The way he designed the graphical presentation of the game worlds in his Ultima games was very influential. Many games that followed from other developers emulated his presentation. But, no, I don't have a reference for this fact. I'm sure it's out there somewhere. You're right, it should be added to the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Owner of property on the moon?[edit]

I've heard it was something the Russians left behind and auctioned off, not Nasa. Don't have a source though. FrozenPurpleCube 22:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was either Lunokhod 1/Luna 17 or Lunokhod 2 / Luna 21 - there are sources on the web that mention one or the other, so I'm not sure which is correct. Somebody please ask him!

Lunokhod 1 / Luna 17 was sold for $68500 at a Sotheby's auction in New York in December 1993, but it's not clear (to me) whether Garriott was the buyer. Tweesdad 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This interview gives the answers and a guided tour to his mansion.--Nemissimo (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter Online[edit]

Seems unlikely that Origin had a contract for Harry Potter Online, doesn't it? I'm not terribly familiar with Harry Potter but someone who knows better is welcome to delete this comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.35.115 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 April 2007.

I've added a reference. It seems they were working with a company called Liquid Development. --Mrwojo 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relevancy of his political donations in external links[edit]

Why is this needed? How does it add to the article? I just don't see a reason for it. Nar Matteru (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've removed it. If you run across frivolous links or links that violate WP:EL in other articles, please don't hesitate to remove them. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spaceflight[edit]

according to the article, he is scheduled to go to the ISS by the flight Soyuz TMA-13 and to come back by the flight Soyuz TMA-12...6 month before. Can someone find the correct dates about this flight? (sorry for my english, I'm french) --82.227.142.250 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soyuz vehicles rotate. They fly one up, keep it on station, and return it 6 months later. So yes, while TMA-12 launched 6 months ago, it will not land until Expedition 17 returns, 6 months later, with Garriot aboard. Basically the crew that launches with the Soyuz, lands with it. So the vehicles are on the station for 6 months, which explains why he could return on a vehicle that launched 6 months ago. :) Ariel♥Gold 08:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceflight[edit]

Is he going to do the first civilian spacewalk??Danielshy (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielshy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ariel♥Gold 08:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts written in the future tense for past events. Did they actually happen? Nasnema (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article focus[edit]

How exactly did the article on Richard Garriot come to show his space flight as more important than his contributions to game design? He invented a genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.143.62 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While working on this article today, I would have to agree. However, the issue is not that there is too much about his flight (there are only two paragraphs) but that there simply is not enough about his other areas (properly sourced, of course) to balance it out. Ariel♥Gold 08:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Accent[edit]

Why is the mention of 'British accent' linked almost synonymously with 'Received Pronunciation'? The linked article itself claims only 2% of Britons speak in such a form and there is no evidence provided that Garriott does so. SaintDaveUK (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Garriott really a naturalized citizen? Why?[edit]

The article includes the sentence "Garriott was born a British citizen in Cambridge, England, and raised in Nassau Bay, Texas where he gained his American citizenship." But the article about his father, Owen Garriott, says that Owen is an American -- he was born in Oklahoma and served in the U.S. Navy. As the child of a U.S. citizen, Richard Garriott would have been eligible for U.S. citizenship even if he was born in the U.K. Is the article correct in claiming he didn't get it? If so, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.32.199 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not only is the introductory sentence oddly worded, but it makes no sense. As above, he would be automatically a citizen, and thus, simply has dual citizenship with the UK/US. This needs to be re-worded in the article. Ariel♥Gold 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is he listed as just American? did he renounce his British citizenship at sometime? If you are born int he UK, you are British, even if you take another nationality. 78.105.230.196 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have fixed that. I read up a bit on birthright citizenships for both countries and came to the conclusion he was born a citizen of UK and USA. Cites included. SaintDaveUK (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are good, but unfortunately those sources are being tied together to say he has dual citizenship, when neither has anything to do with Richard himself. It's like saying "A is true (source), B is true (source), so C must be true." We need a source that says Richard is a dual citizen; nothing else is sufficient for us to say he is one. See WP:SYN --Sydius (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If additional sources are cited confirming he was born in the UK and was born of US parents alongside the current law sources, will that be sufficient? Or would we need to find one piece of solid evidence claiming that he is both? SaintDaveUK (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is still synthesis. It's straight-forward, logical, and obviously true synthesis, but still synthesis. Think of it this way:
A = Born in Britain means British citizen
B = Born of US parents means US citizen
C = Richard was born in Britain
D = Richard was born of US parents
E = Richard has dual citizenship

We are saying:
(A and C) and (B and D) implies E
Even if we know that A, B, C, and D are true from sources, and it is logically true that E can be derived from that, we still need a source stating E for it to avoid being original research in the form of synthesis. I think the much cleaner solution would be to say C and D and remove all reference to citizenship. --Sydius (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, we can't know for sure whether he has renounced one of his citizenships or gained citizenship someplace else. I think we should just state what we know and not make any assumptions about citizenship. I don't think his citizenship even matters that much to the article.--Sydius (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no worries, perhaps we should delete all mention of 'citizenship'. However, I feel it is still necessary to regard his nationalities in the infobox as American and British. There are plenty of sources stating that he is proud to be British, and he is even wearing the Union flag on his NASA uniform. SaintDaveUK (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't complain. --Sydius (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox/Profession[edit]

While being a space tourist is what hes probably best known for at the moment, hes not a career astronaught and much better known as a games developer. Now that hes comes back down to earth and this news subsides, he'll be best known as a game developer again. So why use the astronaut infobox? Nar Matteru (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't see a reason why people would object, so go for it. SaintDaveUK (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, all of the people who have been spaceflight participants, use that infobox. I agree that it makes no sense to use the astronaut infobox on them, but it seems to be standard across all of the tourists. Ariel♥Gold 01:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW he announced that he's leaving the video game industry and pursuing something he learned while fooling around with spaceflight. So the astronaut infobox may not be so out of place anymore. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement might have to do with a recent legal battle with former employer NCSoft over fraudulent termination. Also, it appears as though according to legal documents given here the claim that he was voluntarily leaving NCSoft to pursue "other interests" was worded in an open letter of resignation that NCSoft Fraudulently authored in his name. I'd say this page is about to get some pretty serious updates in the near future. --NateDSaint (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NCSoft lawsuit[edit]

Would it be worth mentioning Garriott's 27 (or 24) Million Dollar claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.69.198.17 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current article says "Later, however, Garriott claimed that the letter was forged as a means of forcing him out of his position and that he had had no intention of leaving." I didn't update this as I don't want to babysit the page in case someone decides I didn't word a correction just right and just reverts it instead of improving it. The complaint gives two arguments; the letter is not important in either of them.

Argument 1 (or rather, "SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — FRAUD"): Chung said Garriott's time at NCSoft was "over" and that NCSoft wanted to "part ways"; this was the truth, and Garriott had been fired; NCSoft employees made false statements that Garriott relied on, so he exercised the stock options.

Argument 2 ("THIRD (ALTERNATIVE) CAUSE OF ACTION — FRAUD"): Chung said etc; but it was false. Garriott relied on this false statement and voluntarily left NCSoft.

So he didn't say the letter was forged. It wasn't written by him, but that wasn't important because he signed it. He was not sure if he had voluntarily quit or not, but in either case he was blaming NCSoft for making a false statement. 23.121.191.18 (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

The first paragraph of the "Spaceflight" subsection states that "Garriott became the second second-generation space traveler", but the last sentence of that paragraph claims he is the first second-gen space traveller. Can someone please resolve this obvious contradiction? If I do it myself, I'm just going to delete both sentences. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omega[edit]

Garriott is listed in the "Video game works" table as a designer for Omega, but he was just one among many programmers that helped design the robot programming elements of the game. The head director of game development was Stuart B. Marks. -- Ϫ 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table doesn't claim he was the sole developer of the game, just one of the developers of the game. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 09:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I'm sure he played a role in the development in many games, doesn't mean we should list them all. I think we should probably restrict the table to only the games he had a major role in. -- Ϫ 05:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Moth Podcast[edit]

I'm not really an editor, so I wouldn't know where to put this - but Richard recently was a guest on The Moth Podcast, with a short story about his spaceflight experiences. Might be worth putting a reference to it - http://themoth.prx.org/?p=1014 74.117.32.5 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"British" -- according to whom?[edit]

I got a funny feeling if he was a serial killer there wouldn't be a push to call him "british american" simply because his fully-american parents were visiting England when he was born. I think we should just leave the nationality entirely off the the lede and simply explain he was born in England to american parents in "early life" . Even the modern citizenship rules would preclude him from being considered "british". 71.89.112.70 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He may call himself Lord British but he seems to be all American. Dream Focus 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula Rasa[edit]

Since I have no way to contact Mr. Garriott I am hopeing he will read this someday. I truly believe that with the court issuing Mr.Garriott $28 Million that he shuld take some of that money and re purchase the rights to Tabula Rasa (if he doesnt own them already) and find a new publisher and re create the game. It was amazing in its own right and was very inovatve. I am a game developer myself, and to be honest I was a subscriber to Tabula Rasa. I was a game that not to many had ever seen before and I wish to see it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.104.16 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can post on his Facebook page if you want to talk to him. This isn't the place for that. Dream Focus 17:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Games section[edit]

I saw the games section and was appalled. The list is non-standard and used a whole bunch of small tags try and make everything fit into the table. Exercising due diligence, I changed it into a proper table, using accepted abbreviations for platforms so all the info would fit in the table. I even included the legend for the abbreviations.

My esteemed colleague (a.k.a. another editor here on the 'pedia), Caidh, reverted it stating I misspelled Apple as the reason. Sorry, but I used AppII as an abbreviation for Apple II, which is right there in the legend before the game list.

I don't want to start an edit war, but I've never seen another game credit list that forces everything to small type so it can fit everything. Here is my version and here is the original version. Please take a look and tell me if and why which version should be used. I honestly think my conversion make it easier to read and digest. If you have a good reason for preferring the old (and current) version, please state why. Thanks. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 06:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frecklefoot - I have no problem with changing the small font to normal size. I just don't see the need for the abbreviations (some of which are non-standard. I personally, have never seen Appll for example, though NES/SNES are less of an issue). Either way, I don't see a real reason to change to the abbreviations anyway since they seem fine fully spelled out. Sorry for my initial belief that Appll was a misspelling not an abbreviation.Caidh (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AppII is used widely in articles about video games, especially in lists with a number of platforms (see List of Electronic Arts games as an example). It's not widely used in prose, just in lists. And it's "AppII", not Appll, since it's an abbreviation for Apple II, not for Apple in general.
So I take it you still oppose the change to the list with abbreviations? It's often done when there are a number of platforms for a game. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps its better to say I'm unconvinced rather than opposed. I tried to look for other articles where it was done similarly, and didn't see any (but it could be the ones I checked). They all seemed inconsistent. Compare for example the pages for Will Wright, Sid Meier, or John Carmack. Most of those didn't even list the systems along with the games (in table or list form). I'm starting to think the article would look less cluttered if we just removed the system column all together (relying on the articles for each game to inform the reader about the systems the games are on.Caidh (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: the lists are very inconsistent, and I don't think the platforms are a very important component in the list, nor are his "roles". I would be happy with just:
  • the game title
  • year of release
  • a very short description of the game (think one sentence)
The list in Sid Meier's article is close to this. What do you think? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Sid Meier games list looks like a great way of listing the games. I've just made the changes though still left the 'Garriot's Role' column. I think that is of more use than the notes column. Thanks Frecklefoot for the initial cleanup and I'm glad we could agree on it!Caidh (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is never a reason to use abbreviations where most won't know what they stand for. I don't see why in this case, which is about the person not his games, there should be a list of what systems they were all ported to. Dream Focus 00:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lord British British?[edit]

I see the infobox lists his nationality as British/American. Where is it stated he is British? He was born in England, but to American parents and he's lived the rest of his life in the US. Where does it say that he has dual citizenship or considers himself both British and English? Just trying to find out. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When he goes into space, despite England having absolutely nothing to do it at all, he still wears an American and a British flag on his uniform. Dream Focus 10:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. But that still doesn't make him a British citizen, does it? All we can say is that he's an anglophile at best. I'd be all in favor of listing him with British nationality if we can find one reliable ref that states it. I'm not going to change it, but I don't think it's correct. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His birth certificate says he was born in England, so that counts. Dream Focus 15:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That counts, but, unlike in the U.S., it doesn't make him a British citizen (see British citizenship by birth in the United Kingdom). — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit dispute. Is he an astronaut?[edit]

  • [1] The dictionary says an astronaut is "a person who travels in a spacecraft into outer space". Also look at the definition in the Wikipedia article for Astronaut)
  • Check the dictionary definition I mentioned at [2]. And the Wikipedia article for Astronaut states:

An astronaut (in the U.S.), cosmonaut (in Russia and many ex-Soviet satellite states) or taikonaut (in China) is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft. While generally reserved for professional space travelers, the terms are sometimes applied to anyone who travels into space, including scientists, politicians, journalists, and tourists.[1][2]

  • So clearly he is an astronaut. He has also done scientific experiments in space, an educational show, made a film about him going into space, and given lectures. Not sure if you'd count that as a career instead of a hobby, thus not putting it in the career section of his infobox, but it surely belongs in other places in the article. Dream Focus 21:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying he was not an astronaut. It is definitely not a career though and should not be listed as an occupation. Having it elsewhere in the article is definitely of value though but there already is a long section on his spaceflight. I don't see any need to expand or reduce that section. Caidh (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what sources say[edit]

http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_26.pdf

Recently Richard Garriott (aka Lord British) visited the offices of Computer Gaming World. We were able to ask him a number of questions about his company, Origin Systems, as well as his latest game, Ultima IV. Here is what he had to say. inside Ultima IV

CGW: How did you get started in the publishing of computer games? LB: By accident, actually. When I was in high school I took the one computer class my school offered, and using the school's one Teletype, system operated by paper tape no less. At the same time I learned to play fantasy games such as Dungeons and Dragons. This was in 1977. Since my school didn't have any other computer classes, another student and I managed to get a three year self study course approved. All we had to do was work on an approved project and show our work at the

end of each term. My projects were computer fantasy games (back then they were pretty simple).

http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_49.pdf

My first real exposure to computers came in my freshman year of high school, in 1975. At about that same

point in time, I was reading Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was my introduction to the swords-and-sorcery fantasy genre. I was beginning to explore fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and my appetite for the medieval and fantastic grew quickly. ...

The high school I attended offered nothing more advanced than a one-semester introductory class in the BASIC computer language. We also had only one computer terminal—a 110-baud Teletype with a paper tape punch and modem to tie in with an unknown mainframe elsewhere in Houston. In spite of these limitations, a couple of other students and I were eager to learn more. To that end, the school faculty allowed us to have our own "class" without direct supervision. The primary class requirement was to develop an original programming project which would be graded at the end of the term. Unsurprisingly, the project I chose to pursue was to create a computer fantasy role-playing game!

Reading different issues, different information comes forth. In 1975 he took a one semester class on BASIC. He then convinced them to let him do a three years of self driven classes. He graduated in 1979. The first source says 1977 is when he got started. A bit odd, but whatever. Dream Focus 00:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that "this was in 1977" refers to when he learned to play D&D (Perhaps at that computer camp at the University of Oklahoma?). A possible chronology is: 1975 - reading Tolkein, takes BASIC class. 1976 - begins self-directed class. 1977 - learns to play D&D. Ylee (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But he says in 1975 "I was beginning to explore fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons". Not too important, just sort of odd. Dream Focus 13:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit with no references[edit]

I just reverted this series of edits by an anonymous editor, 198.255.172.222. While some of it may be true, none of it is backed up by verifiable references. They did provide one reference (but with incorrect wiki-markup and not as a ref), but that was for a rather non-notable "Environmental Hall of Fame" (I've never heard of it). Also, I found one claim hard to beleive, that Garriott's Ultima II was the first home computer game "shipped in a box" and "the first game with trinkets" (feelies). I'm pretty sure many other games came in boxes before 1982, and Infocom began including feelies with their first game, Zork (though that wasn't until after they got their publishing rights back from Personal Software), which debuted in 1980, predating Ultima II by two years. The speil about the use of "Avatar" should go in the Ultima IV article, and it's unreferenced as well.

The other edits--all those awards--sure could use references. On second thought, none of the others have references either. I'll restore those, but insert a {{cn}} for the needed refs. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In many interviews he has done over the years he always claims his was the first game to be in a box. Seems like someone would've mentioned if that wasn't true. If the only references are from him though, its not able to be used in the article for something like this. Him creating the term "Avatar" as it currently use is significant enough to get mentioned if referenced. Dream Focus 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ultima II may have been the first home computer game to come in a box, but it certainly wasn't the first boxed video game, since I remember all my Atari 2600 games coming in boxes. But, yes, we certainly need a VR outside of Garriott that says U2 was the first boxed home computer game. We can say that he claims U2 was the first boxed game with a VR.
I don't have any objection for the mention of Avatar in this article if it has a VR. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The French say: He is just a girl! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A540:2CC1:0:CA5:DEA8:CB15:AC22 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Redirects[edit]

Lord British (username) and Lord British (nickname) should redirect here, so that they appear on the searchbox dropdown, as he's famously known as 'Lord British' -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Richard Garriott. 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, 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: 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) 02:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Garriott. 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) 09:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Garriott. 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) 22:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although?[edit]

The article reads: "Although both his parents were American, he maintains dual British and American citizenship by birth."

Although...? He was born in Cambridge (the original one, in England, not Massachusetts), so why would he not be British? Are jus soli and jus sanguinis not concepts most Wikipedians comprehend? Please, let us get rid of this reductive, simplistic, and US-centric nonsense.

And, again: "although..."?

Lord British merge proposal[edit]

NO CONSENSUS
I find no consensus to merge anything anywhere in this discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I'm suggesting what relevant information can be condensed and salvaged from Lord British be merged into this article. The character by itself is near inseparable from Garriott, and lacks really any standalone reception. It's been that way for about 15 years now, and a cursory look for sources hasn't change that. In addition much of the Lord British article is near unusable, and the section about killing him borders on gamecruft (at best it's vastly overdetailed).-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeable to Lord British being redirected to Richard Garriott's article on principle. However, I would much prefer that most of the Lord British stuff, especially the running gags about players attempting to kill him, go to a dedicated section in the Ultima series article as opposed to a BLP article. Haleth (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From the sources, it seems like the real person is indistinguishable from the fictional character. There is no need for a separate article on the nickname. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not notable on his own, and would help improve Garriott's page with interesting details. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose? I'm not an expert on the subject, but Lord British was a character people heard about even if they didn't play Ultima (I certainly didn't). As mentioned in a conversation at the WP:DISCORD, there was fairly huge coverage of Lord British's "death" and it was considered one of the major "Wow, MMORPGs are weird" factoids of the era - the Leeroy Jenkins of the era. (A quick check of some old PC Gamer scans don't seem to turn up the issues that would have covered the incident, but it was, if I can dig up my old copies somewhere.) Ultima is a very significant, very well-selling and discussed series. I'm not saying the article as is is perfect, but I strongly suspect this is notable and best covered on its own (it would be a little weird to cover it in Garriot's article... despite Lord British being an expy of him, they're not the same person, any more than merging other characters blatantly inspired by real world people into said real world person's article would make sense. SnowFire (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Garriot literally goes about as the character and treats it as an extension of himself, and is often referred to directly as Lord British by publications. Being notable and suspecting there has to be sources are two different things.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He gets coverage for his space travel and other things. He only referred to himself as Lord British when advertising his Ultima games. Google news search for times his real name is mentioned without "Lord British" and you'll find 256 results. [3] From his space travel to him as the president of the Explorer's Club, to his wanting to build a pod transit system in Austin, etc. Dream Focus 12:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dream Focus: That doesn't mean the character can't be discussed in the context of this article. An easy alternative would be to merge it into the character list, but it feels more intrinsicly a part of Garriott's persona with how they're referenced together and how he portrays the character. But you've been pointing that "sources exist!" while the article has been stuck in this state for over fifteen years. If you truly have sources add them to the article but simply listing a basic search result isn't going to satisfy anything especially given how many of those are either saying little or can't be cited.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_British&diff=1177570465&oldid=1167741458 I added in a few more references last month. There is already plenty about Lord British, his deaths, and what he does in the Ultima games. We argued about this back in 2009 on across Talk:Lord British, and I found references there to prove the article was notable. Dream Focus 15:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, with accommodation for SnowFire's comment. It's largely an article about Garriot, but there may be something worth mentioning in the MMO article. (Even if there might not be more then two or three sentences to say about it.) Shooterwalker (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Evilcasper (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Please look at both articles. One is for the fictional character of Lord British, the other is for the guy who created him and role played him at times. What content specifically do you think could actually be merged over? Note the assassinations bit has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources. Even this year, its still getting coverage. https://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-14-legend-yoshi-p-witnessed-one-of-early-mmo-historys-most-infamous-mishaps-firshand/ It is a notable aspect to list in this article. Dream Focus 06:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Snow and Dream. Also, 100 greatest video game characters (ISBN 978-1-4422-7812-7) has two pages of discussion about the character. Through the Moongate: the story of Richard Garriott, Origin Systems Inc. and Ultima (ISBN 979-871743300-6) has a whole chapter dedicated to him, though I'm not sure about the reliability of that book. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 100 greatest video game characters often does nothing but give a blow-by-blow of a character's backstory, not actually *discuss* them in any citeable capacity. It routinely gets brought up because people see it in google searches but when you look at the actual book there's no meat to cite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have no opinion on whether Lord British is a developed enough character to warrant his own article, but the content should absolutely not be merged into Richard’s article. Garriott dropped a lot of references to himself and his friends (and sometimes his enemies) across all the Ultima games, but that does not mean these fictional characters should ever be confused with their real world inspirations. Garriott’s article could certainly use a little more info on the origin of the Lord British persona, but if the Lord British article is to be merged, it should point to an article on the Ultima series, not this one. Indrian (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, Oppose the target article. Like said above, this should be mainly merged to List of Ultima characters#Lord British not here. --Mika1h (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undid the nominator trying to close this since that's against the rules unless everyone agrees. See WP:MERGECLOSE. I asked for a proper closure at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Richard_Garriott#Lord_British_merge_proposal. Dream Focus 04:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Garriott&oldid=1216507039"