| Revision as of 19:50, 30 June 2009 editS@bre (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,609 edits re← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:07, 8 July 2014 edit undoTutelary (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,196 edits →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: wikiloveNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :Its not a matter of the amount of sources, its ''how'' the sources cover the facts. Both the IGN and arstechnia sources merely state that there isn't going to be LAN, to put a spin on it saying that it is a controversy is what we generally refer to as ] here, a form of ]. It ''must'' be reported as a significant controversy or dispute of note explicitly by the sources, and these sources have to reliable: in this particular case, you're looking for gaming and mainstream media, not blogs or sources similar to that (IGN and arstechnica pass as reliable sources in their own right for future reference). The Misplaced Pages-as-a-source comment was because the other guy who started mindlessly adding the controversy section (unlike us, who are discussing it properly) started using other Misplaced Pages articles as a source for the section. In any case, this is merely a development decision and its reaction, so its information, even fan reaction should that be properly sourced to media outlets, is better placed in the development section. As part of neutral point of view bits, sections entitled "criticism", "controversy" and so on are discouraged unless they are the proper stuff that can't be put elsewhere. For instance, with ''Resistance'' mentioned previously, that involves lawsuits, religious problems and questions to the Prime Minister; that can't be properly covered under the umbrella of development and requires a separate section (and in this particular case, an entire dedicated article), whilst this sort of stuff can. -- ] (]) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | :Its not a matter of the amount of sources, its ''how'' the sources cover the facts. Both the IGN and arstechnia sources merely state that there isn't going to be LAN, to put a spin on it saying that it is a controversy is what we generally refer to as ] here, a form of ]. It ''must'' be reported as a significant controversy or dispute of note explicitly by the sources, and these sources have to reliable: in this particular case, you're looking for gaming and mainstream media, not blogs or sources similar to that (IGN and arstechnica pass as reliable sources in their own right for future reference). The Misplaced Pages-as-a-source comment was because the other guy who started mindlessly adding the controversy section (unlike us, who are discussing it properly) started using other Misplaced Pages articles as a source for the section. In any case, this is merely a development decision and its reaction, so its information, even fan reaction should that be properly sourced to media outlets, is better placed in the development section. As part of neutral point of view bits, sections entitled "criticism", "controversy" and so on are discouraged unless they are the proper stuff that can't be put elsewhere. For instance, with ''Resistance'' mentioned previously, that involves lawsuits, religious problems and questions to the Prime Minister; that can't be properly covered under the umbrella of development and requires a separate section (and in this particular case, an entire dedicated article), whilst this sort of stuff can. -- ] (]) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your vigilant efforts to describe your edits and argue for them. Please stay. <3 ] (]) 02:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
Revision as of 02:07, 8 July 2014
Re:SC2
Its not a controversy until reported as one. At the moment, I'm seeing nothing more than a light breeze in a teacup. Fans will often complain about practically anything, they aren't considered reliable sources so forum posts, Digg comments, and other user generated sources (including Misplaced Pages itself) aren't suitable. "Controversy" sections are.. err.. controversial, and should only be created in the event of a proper controversy: for instance, Manchester Cathedral being used in Resistance: Fall of Man, and the various issues surrounding GTA4 are controversial, and were reported as such in both gaming and mainstream media. StarCraft II not having LAN is information that should be confined to the development section in the interest of a neutral point of view, especially when sources don't report it as a full blown controversy. These sorts of sources do not do that, they merely state—conveying a little surprise but nothing more—that the game may not have LAN play. A tongue in cheek rule of thumb for this stuff in relation to video games: if it don't have lawyers, it ain't a controversy. -- Sabre (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Its not a matter of the amount of sources, its how the sources cover the facts. Both the IGN and arstechnia sources merely state that there isn't going to be LAN, to put a spin on it saying that it is a controversy is what we generally refer to as synthesis here, a form of original research. It must be reported as a significant controversy or dispute of note explicitly by the sources, and these sources have to reliable: in this particular case, you're looking for gaming and mainstream media, not blogs or sources similar to that (IGN and arstechnica pass as reliable sources in their own right for future reference). The Misplaced Pages-as-a-source comment was because the other guy who started mindlessly adding the controversy section (unlike us, who are discussing it properly) started using other Misplaced Pages articles as a source for the section. In any case, this is merely a development decision and its reaction, so its information, even fan reaction should that be properly sourced to media outlets, is better placed in the development section. As part of neutral point of view bits, sections entitled "criticism", "controversy" and so on are discouraged unless they are the proper stuff that can't be put elsewhere. For instance, with Resistance mentioned previously, that involves lawsuits, religious problems and questions to the Prime Minister; that can't be properly covered under the umbrella of development and requires a separate section (and in this particular case, an entire dedicated article), whilst this sort of stuff can. -- Sabre (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For your vigilant efforts to describe your edits and argue for them. Please stay. <3 Tutelary (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) |