This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Datumizer (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 17 July 2008 (→David Zhang). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:00, 17 July 2008 by Datumizer (talk | contribs) (→David Zhang)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
no archives yet (create) |
genre stubs
Over the past few months I solicited a lot of feedback from the video game wikiproject, and there was a lot of support for various merges of genre articles. At wikipedia, I think a lot of people are tempted to create a huge page for every term or variation they think of. But we usually end up with a bunch of stubs. I can't remember where I pulled the information from, but the turn-based tactics article has improved just by merging otherwise good information from other badly categorized articles. Randomran (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
sources
thanks for formatting the sources list nicely! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome! SharkD (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Space trading games
If you're expanding the "space trade and combat simulator" section of the space combat simulator article to build a case for a split, I just wanted to let you know that I think that's a good idea. There's a tricky discussion going on at Talk:List of space flight simulator games. Part of the problem is that some of these games are space flight simulators (like Elite), and some just aren't (like Space Rangers or TradeWars). I'm curious as to your thoughts. I know that the research out there uses a lot of different names to describe this genre. But for the sake of clarity and avoiding confusion, I think a split to "space trading game" would avoid the most mis-categorization problems. There's a decent amount of research to support that as the name of the genre, even if there are more popular names. And even though we'd choose the name of the article for clarity's sake, we could still document the alternative names in its own section (similar to Iran naming dispute). Randomran (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be OK to rename it to "Space combat and trading game", but the "combat" has to stay. That said, "simulation" has been used pretty extensively to describe these games, as I've demonstrated in the Talk page, even for games like Space Rangers (haven't checked up on Trade Wars, it's so old, though I agree it's an unlikely case). SharkD (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely acknowledge the research out there, and the many names out there. This choice of name would be to err on the side of clarity, so people understand that it can be a top-down or even text-based game. I'm okay with "space trading and combat game", even if I prefer conciseness. (I mean, when people go to the the page, they'll quickly understand that combat, trade, and exploration are all important parts of the genre. But the real point is to pull this category apart in a way that's clear and accurate.) Randomran (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't however, like the split of the list of simulations. I think that it's more important to reflect the space trading and combat genre and these games as being part of it, not focusing too narrowly on "simulation". SharkD (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's a whole other discussion. I'm sincerely not sure what to do about that. But I think the space trade and combat game article should reflect those differences: that some types lift more features from flight simulator games, while others don't emphasize the flight simulation aspect at all. Randomran (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind. Renaming it to "Space trading game" or something like it would be OK IMO. SharkD (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. It's not that the other name is non-notable or original research. Just that "space trading game" would lead to less confusion and miscategorization, I think. (I'll try to be better about edit summaries too. Mind you, I get sloppy when I do a lot of edits in a row when I'm working on one particular article.) Randomran (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, after quite a bit of consideration, "space trading simulator" may be less common, but it works "smoother" for our categorization scheme. SharkD (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. It's not that the other name is non-notable or original research. Just that "space trading game" would lead to less confusion and miscategorization, I think. (I'll try to be better about edit summaries too. Mind you, I get sloppy when I do a lot of edits in a row when I'm working on one particular article.) Randomran (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind. Renaming it to "Space trading game" or something like it would be OK IMO. SharkD (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's a whole other discussion. I'm sincerely not sure what to do about that. But I think the space trade and combat game article should reflect those differences: that some types lift more features from flight simulator games, while others don't emphasize the flight simulation aspect at all. Randomran (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't however, like the split of the list of simulations. I think that it's more important to reflect the space trading and combat genre and these games as being part of it, not focusing too narrowly on "simulation". SharkD (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely acknowledge the research out there, and the many names out there. This choice of name would be to err on the side of clarity, so people understand that it can be a top-down or even text-based game. I'm okay with "space trading and combat game", even if I prefer conciseness. (I mean, when people go to the the page, they'll quickly understand that combat, trade, and exploration are all important parts of the genre. But the real point is to pull this category apart in a way that's clear and accurate.) Randomran (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
David Zhang
Sorry if I bit your head off at this professional gamer's AfD, but the language question is shaping to be a speciality of mine and it needs to be dealt with promptly when it arises.
If you agree with my reasoning, would you be willing to gather other wikipedians to search for Korean sources? You're more familiar with our coverage (and presumably our behind-the-scenes structures) regarding gaming, and more reliable than I currently am. --Kizor 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. The issue was successfully raised in an AfD once before, so I assumed it was policy. As for finding sources, I'm a bit busy at the moment, and haven't taken a particular personal interest in the article in question. SharkD (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)