Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pharaoh (video game): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:31, 17 November 2006 editGeni (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators37,898 edits →Fair use images← Previous edit Revision as of 16:38, 17 November 2006 edit undoInfrogmation (talk | contribs)Administrators88,152 edits →Fair use images: My opinion: far to many yoinked copyrighted images for one articleNext edit →
Line 111: Line 111:
::::Ok, my mistake there ] 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Ok, my mistake there ] 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Removing images from different sections is not the same thus not three reverts.] 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Removing images from different sections is not the same thus not three reverts.] 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Fair use images should always be used sparingly. Note the Fair use guidelines, including that any such image "must contribute significantly to the article". IMO the number in the article is way out of line, and we really shouldn't push things so far if we expect to continue to claim fair use. -- ] 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)



===Protection=== ===Protection===

Revision as of 16:38, 17 November 2006

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move.

There seems no opposition to the move. The discussion at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer and Video Games/Definition dispute is old and inconclusive. The request has been unopposed for several weeks, so I regard consensus as demonstrated. Andrewa 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Article renaming

Reason: consistency throughout wikipedia. Run! 20:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems like "Game (video game)" is the current default way of naming anything related to computer and video games (if even necessary). Just "game" could indicate a board game for instance, and "video game" is considered an umbrella term by some (most?), moreso than "computer game" by which people usually mean IBM PC compatible or Mac games, meaning better consistency than using for instance "Game (MS-DOS)". There is still a lot of disagreement about that though, so the actual situation is different than the one preferred, and the one preferred isn't preferred by everyone. A big reason for this is that outside of Misplaced Pages the industry itself doesn't seem to agree on a naming scheme. Basically naming is a big mess. :) I personally reason like this: all games for IBM PC compatible, Mac, consoles, arcades, etc. all use video to interface with the wetware, so a bracketed "video game" always makes sense. Of course once the game existss for a different platform, different enough to warrant another article (doesn't happen often at all), or another game with the same name exists, for another platform, using more specific bracketed words is necesary. I am just another, nothing special, Wikipedian, but that's what I know.
For more information, please see computer and video games, and also Portal:Computer and video games and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer and video games. Then there's a page specifically about naming issues called Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer and Video Games/Definition dispute. Also check their Discussion/Talk pages. I hope that helps. Retodon8 15:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Lots of talk there, but there doesn't seem to be any conclusion. I'm still favouring a return to Pharaoh (computer game) as proposed. There's no evidence or likelihood of any other versions, so the proposed title is accurate and specific. A redirect will stay from Pharaoh (video game) of course. Andrewa 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
When I first noticed the discrepancy (I've worked on other computer game articles which had "computer game" instead of "video game") I decided to check out the computer and video games article to investigate it, and the leading section seems to support the idea that Pharaoh should be under "computer game" rather than "video game". That's what lead me to propose the move. Run! 11:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Platforms etc

What platforms does Pharoah run on? Windows only? What versions of Windows? This seems to me to be relevant to the renaming. It seems that this article has been moved once before, and the current request is to reverse that move. Andrewa 11:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that so? Well, I'd argue that the original move was a mistake, as Pharoah was designed for Windows (either 95 or 98) and would be horrendously difficult to play on a console anyway. I can't say for certain that Pharaoh wasn't ported to consoles, but it definitely did come out for Windows PCs. Run! 11:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, I'm not rejecting your request. I'm just investigating it. I've only just noticed the backlog of move requests, and I'm doing something about it. I'm a volunteer like you.
Like many games articles, one of the weaknesses of this one is that it assumes a great deal of knowledge on the part of the reader. As a general encyclopedia, we should include information such as the platforms for which a game has been released, even if this is well known among the playing community of that particular game. This will also help in being consistent with naming, of course.
The categories tell me that this game has been released for Windows, but not what versions, and not whether it is also available as a console or arcade game. Again, I can probably guess this from the nature of the game, but I'd prefer not to guess. Andrewa 12:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean my comment to come across as hostile. I was just surprised that it had been originally moved.
Anyway, I did some searching and although there are no official sites left for the game, and no fan-sites give any platform details, MobyGames lists only Windows . It doesn't say what version, but the game was released in 1999 so I'd reckon Windows 98. Run! 13:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
No worries. I was a little surprised too. I've left a question on the user talk page of the admin who did the previous move, but I agree that your suggestion seems a better title, so if we get no other opinions I'll just do it (unless someone else beats me to it... there are a few of us working on the backlog now, some a lot more gung-ho than I!). I'm not sure that we are yet very consistent across Misplaced Pages, however!
MobyGames links to some descriptions of the system requirements. I've added a summary of these to the article, and some external links as sources.
It would be good to add an infobox to this article. You might also consider joining WikiProject Computer and video games, where you'll find people who share some of your interests, lots of guidelines as to how to write better game articles, and comments about what belongs in Misplaced Pages and what on Wikibooks computer and video games bookshelf, which you might also like to check out anyway. Andrewa 19:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Infobox done. I do check out that project page to make sure game articles that I work on conform to the standard, but it's probably not worth me joining the project as there are only a few games I have any interest in (and I have to have a lot of interest to write about them) Run! 11:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger

I think the articles should be merged as this one is too crappy to be stand alone. Also the pharoah article would help explain the game. This article should also be elaborated (as to the enhancements in cleopatra) once the merger has occured. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardmilgate (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • In favour - As opposed to games in their own right, Cleopatra is an expansion and should, in my view, be listed as such under its 'parent' game, not as a separate article. --Serge K. Keller, 1st September 2006

I don't have a problem with the merger, but the name is unintuitive. I think a better solution would be to keep the merged article at Pharaoh (computer game), and have Cleopatra (computer game) as a redirect. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In most stores today, the games are sold in a combined package as "Pharaoh & Cleopatra". When installed on a Windows XP system, the desktop shortcut has this name as well. That should be good enough to justif the current name. -Husnock 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. However, the name should still have a "(computer game)" after it I believe. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Great Expansion

I hope everyone is enjoying the tremendous expansion of the article. When I am finished, this should really be something. Perhaps even it can be placed as a Featured Article Candidate. So, *if* anyone would like to throw a Barstar my way, that would be really cool! :-) -Husnock 06:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is as far as it can go right now. I will add more pictures of housing later as I complete missions where such houses are available. For now, I'm going to try my luck at Featured article. Here we go... -Husnock 10:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Fair use images

42 fair use images is rather to many. For a comparison Rome:Total War has 5.Geni 14:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a rule as to how many we can have? There is also a chance that the article may be modified to create sub-articles where some of the images will be spread around. Due to the effort of uploaded these images, they shouldn't really be simply deleted at this stage. -Husnock 14:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No solid rule becuase people would then take they aproach that they have a right to that number of image but double figures suggests a serious problem.Genidealingwithfairuse 14:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll try and create sub-articles. The initial mass removal of all the pics was not explained at first and looked like solid vandalism. I follow now. -Husnock 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
sub articles would not strengthen the fair use case.Geni 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
For now, though, please stop your mass deletion project. As stated above, there is no set "rule" as to many images the article can have. If separate articles are created for the various sections containing images, there won't be so many in the article. Simply deleting every single image in the article is not the way to go at this stage. -Husnock 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
number per article is somewhat what secodary to the actual use (very secondary since the number is simply a way of picking up the fact that there is a problem). The use is not legit fair use. Creating sub articles will not help with that. At this point I belive that current practice is to remind you of the three revert rule.Geni 14:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you justify that these images are not allowed in the article? They serve to illustrate aspects of the article such as the appearance of the structures in the game. And I havent violated 3RR as far as I know. -Husnock 14:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

<---
From what I can see/read User:Geni its the quantity of fair use images within the article, not that the actual usage of any individual image violates fair use policy. The questioon is how many need to be removed before you would consider the quantity acceptable? Gnangarra 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Justify? oh part 3 of US fair use law (the killer being that there is a Official Strategy Guide that will use the material in much the same way wgich rather nocks out the other defenses).Geni 15:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
so is anyone going to defend the fair use claim or am I to take it you have no counter arguments?Geni 15:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

After researching the rules, the images might be allowed as "images from a software game" under the clause that they are being used as critical commentary. The critical commentary being to explain the apperance of the structures which appear in the table. Also, all I was asking up above was for people to leave the article alone for now. I wanted to study the rules and see how to fix it. Instead, the mass image deletion campaign continued with indications that the images themselves would be deleted from Misplaced Pages as a whole, requiring a mass upload again to restore them when and if the article dispute was rsolved. In any event, I am out of reverts for tonight but tomorrow's another day. -Husnock 16:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No critical commentary on the artwork takes place so nice try but no.Geni 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The original version of the article had descriptions of all the structures, these were replaced by pictures of the structures instead. Can I suggest a cool down here? I am trying to research this and fix it, not have a big fight. I am alread considereing a single picture of all the houses instead of several separate pics. Just give some time here and I'm sure the article will have these concerns corrected. -Husnock 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Protecting the article is not acceptable since you are involved in any conflict. Please unprotect it.Geni 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There was an edit war in progress and, as stated below, I pledge to make no edits to the article while it is protected. If I had not protected another editor surely would have. -Husnock 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it. Why didn't you wait to find out? Now you are in a situation where you are have to bet on my having more respect for process than you do.Geni 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I have restored the article to its format proir to the removal of the images. I think that WP:3RR has been violated by User:Geni and have placed a warning on his talk page, User:Husnock I suggest that you dont revert any further removals of the images until this matter is resolved as you are also close to the 3RR line. Gnangarra 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was watching closely how many edits. One more and I would have been over. The initial revert, though, ws in response to what I saw as vandalism (at the time) before the editor explained what he was doing. -Husnock 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Geni response to my warning left on my talk page moved here to keep it all together Gnangarra 15:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah no. If you look at the history I'm yet to create 2 idential versions. Even with the most extream interpritation of the rule I've ever seen I have not reverted more than twice. Now please stop preventing the removal of copyvio materaial from wikipedia.Geni 15:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
<--
In response to User:Geni I complied a summary of the edits you made 5 edits to remove images, 2 of them from the housing section, 2 are from religion and 1 from health care.
Summary of edits
Geni edits at the time they occured, other edits in sequence
  • 21:48 removed housing images
  • 21:49 fixed table no images removed
  • rv by husnock
  • 22:04 removed religion images
  • rv by husnock
  • 22:30 removed health care images
  • rv by husnock
  • 22:53 removed housing images
  • 22:53 removed religion images
  • rv by Gnangarra - Geni warned about 3RR violation
Husnock cautioned about further rv
21:49 didn't remove any images. It correct an error in the table.Geni 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, my mistake there Gnangarra 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Removing images from different sections is not the same thus not three reverts.Geni 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use images should always be used sparingly. Note the Fair use guidelines, including that any such image "must contribute significantly to the article". IMO the number in the article is way out of line, and we really shouldn't push things so far if we expect to continue to claim fair use. -- Infrogmation 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Protection

To prevent an edit war, I have protected the article. I am also concerned that one user in the dispute has an acknolwedged sockpuppet (Genidealingwithfairuse). As I am involved I pledge to make no edits to this article while it is protected. -Husnock 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Self reverted as research shows not allowed to do that. Might be a good idea for protection nonetheless. -Husnock 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
All my sockpupets are legit under WP:SOCK. They are hardly unknown. even nominated one for adminship once. But that was a while ago.Geni 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sub-articles

Proposed sub-articles are:

Possibly moving the main article to Pharaoh and Cleopatra (computer game) might also not be a bad idea.

Any further thoughts on sub-articles? -Husnock 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories: