Talk:Project Milo

Ugh

This article seems to have a severe lack of full stops!!! PureLegend 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No..this article appears to have a lack of confirmed details. I'm deleting all of the made up crap. Grymsqueaker 10:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 12:15 26 September 2006

Um what?

Um the article first says it's a codename for a game currently being developed. It then goes on to explain the project stopped and was replaced. It sounds as if the second is probably correct, but perhaps it's all rumours and the article should just be deleted in the absence of reliable sourcing Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

True. The article claims it may have been replaced by Fable 2, however it gives a link to an updated site which now says "Peter was talking about Fable 2 in ways which sounded a lot like another secretive Lionhead project known as Dimitri, leading us to speculate that the two peojects had become the same game. Today we can reveal that this is NOT the case!" ~ http://games.kikizo.com/news/200610/015.asp -- I am erasing the rumours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wixpert (talk • contribs) 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. As a general rule, articles should be titled to reflect their current content, not an anticipation of what their future content might be. This is in the spirit of our policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the article scope changes, then you change the title. Aervanath (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The Dimitri Project → Milo and Kate — Considering that the article will most likely develop to focus on what is currently referred to as "Milo and Kate", perhaps this article should be renamed to reflect this, with the Dimitri Project and Project X information shifted to a History section within the article. Dancter (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure. Part of me says yes and part says no. I've seen smaller older articles moved into newer articles as a history section before and they then end up being edited down to nothing. - X201 (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be a little odd to do at this stage, but perhaps Milo and Kate could be split to a separate article. Dancter (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I proposed the move because the scope has changed. Half the article's content is now about Milo and Kate, as well as the infobox information. At the moment, the majority of verifiable information available about the project concerns the Milo demo. It is awkward to continue to frame the subject around a code name that is no longer used, associated with earlier phases of its development about which information was sparse and ambiguous. I don't understand how the "crystal ball" principle really applies to what I was discussing. I'm okay with a "not moved" result, but I'm a bit irked by the ultimate reasoning. Dancter (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposition: It's silly to call this article anything but Milo; by your rationale, we should change the name of the Gamecube article to Nintendo Dolphin, because that's the name it was referred to as during development. If it has indeed been confirmed that the name of the project is Milo, we should change the name of the article to reflect this; perhaps a redirect from The Dimitri Project would set things straight? 62 Misfit (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the best route to go with this is to wait until enough information is available for Milo to stand as an article on its own, and then merge/redirect Dimitri into that article. I'm against merging into the Natal article because that is a hardware article and Dimitri will just get lost and edited down to nothing, due to parts of Dimitri having little or no relevance to Natal. Whereas Dimitri has 100% relevance to a Milo article. - X201 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Move

I've moved the article after spotting the correct spelling at a number of sources, Edge, Eurogamer and Lionhead's own website. - X201 (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Tech demo, won't be released

Game will not be released, according to an MS exec. Article should be amended or most likely deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.15.253 (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That was two days ago, from an ill informed PR. The story has moved on since then. And even if it was only a tech demo that would still not be criteria enough to delete the article. We have plenty of articles for cancelled games, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not if they are released but if they are notable. - X201 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Added unreferenced flag due to strong and unverified AI claims

It is my understanding that Microsoft released commercial video footage of a person interacting with the game which demonstrated how the game could work, at this stage the game was still a tech-demo/concept and it hasn't progressed much since. Thus the AI features of the game have been presented but not verified, I think you would be doing the scientific community a disservice by leaving such claims in, especially claims such as "recognises emotions" and "recognises drawing on paper".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.192.129 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 September 2010

This is vaporware

since milo and kate is in development hell and no release date this is vaporware shouldent this be nentioned in the artical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.144.84 (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the whole article? In several parts it debates whether or not it's a real game...Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wheter or not its a game is irrelevnt it is still vaporware tell me do you know what the defintion of vapor ware is?It dosent have to be a game to be vsporware so im putting it in the artical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.144.84 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very aware of what vaporware is, and that it doesn't just apply to games. The article debates whether or not its a game, a tech-demo, or if it's ever really supposed to be released at all, much like the term vaporware. It essentially discusses it without using the actual term itself. And the term kind of has a negative connotation, so don't be surprised if people who believe it's "a real game with a future release" take it out. I'd provide a reliable source if I were you and wanted it to stay in the article... Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The games designer and microsoft exc araon greenberg say it is a game in deveolpmt but still it should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.175.49 (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article written as if it’s real?

I could be wrong, since I’m no gamer, but I was under the impression this was one of the most famous hoaxes in gaming. Certainly, the concept sounds far fetched to me, and I’ve seen the video and at one point the water begins to "interact" BEFORE the woman in it reaches her hand out. It still hasn’t been released, of course. And I always thought this was well established as a blatant hoax. Am I wrong in that? I mean, I 100% believe it is, but I understand that’s not enough and we would need a source for a claim like this, which is why I’m asking here. --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)