| Revision as of 10:38, 6 October 2013 view sourceSNAAAAKE!! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users96,243 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:39, 6 October 2013 view source SNAAAAKE!! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users96,243 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ::::::Cool, a 'proof' for a 'good argument' for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists start clicking the articles, and you can check the history too, to see if there were any "history" sections that I 'vandalized'. It's nearly 1,000 articles since the early 1980s in almost all kinds of genres (except vehicle simulations). --] (]) 08:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC) | ::::::Cool, a 'proof' for a 'good argument' for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists start clicking the articles, and you can check the history too, to see if there were any "history" sections that I 'vandalized'. It's nearly 1,000 articles since the early 1980s in almost all kinds of genres (except vehicle simulations). --] (]) 08:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::This point is irrelevant. As stated in the guide for good video game articles, the best fitting organization should be used, not a fixed one enforced. I gave you a reason why a "history" organization is superior for the discussed article ("preservation of chronological order"). Some good argument against? (Also, in our last discussion you agreed that history sections are acceptable and sometimes appropriate.) ] (]) 10:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC) | :::::::This point is irrelevant. As stated in the guide for good video game articles, the best fitting organization should be used, not a fixed one enforced. I gave you a reason why a "history" organization is superior for the discussed article ("preservation of chronological order"). Some good argument against? (Also, in our last discussion you agreed that history sections are acceptable and sometimes appropriate.) ] (]) 10:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::The point is revelant: this strange layout is not used practically anywhere at all. Anywhere. At all. And it's not even a good layout, |
::::::::The point is revelant: this strange layout is not used practically anywhere at all. Anywhere. At all. And it's not even a good layout, you want to make too many sub-sections (sub-sub-sub-sections) for just single sentences of content (there shouldn't be even paragrpahs like that). --] (]) 10:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:39, 6 October 2013
 Archives |
Wing Commander organization
Hi Niemti, your recent change to a Development/Release organization instead of a sub-sectioned History organization which is in this case inferior as the chronological order is broken. Any good reasons for doing so? If not, I will revert it back according to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines which recommends "Organization History: discuss development, release, impact, critical response, etc. This can easily be several different sections." Also, fixed organization styles should be explictely not enforced as stated also there "Do not try to conform to them if they are not helping to improve the article." So there is not standard to enforce. regards Shaddim (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
"History: discuss development, release, impact, critical response, etc. This can easily be several different sections." - lol? Who and when wrote this crap? There are no "history" sections anywhere. --Niemti (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Niemti, we discussed that already, I gave you examples of existing articles with "History" and also this is the accepted policy. Please comply to it. regards Shaddim (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just recently checked nearly 1,000 articles while feeling this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists and THERE WERE NO HISTORY SECTIONS ANYWHERE. (Oh, and what I see? AFD? lol?). --Niemti (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Check your archive, I gave you examples. Shaddim (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Explain how I checked 1,000 articles and there was none. --Niemti (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your anecdotal experience is, first, no proof and second not relevant. The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines states that a fixed organization didn't exist (recommendation was "history"), neither should be one enforced (what you do at the moment), instead the best fitting organization should be selected. So, if you don't have a good argument for the change of the organization, I will go to the former one as a "history" section preserves the chronological order. regards Shaddim (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cool, a 'proof' for a 'good argument' for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists start clicking the articles, and you can check the history too, to see if there were any "history" sections that I 'vandalized'. It's nearly 1,000 articles since the early 1980s in almost all kinds of genres (except vehicle simulations). --Niemti (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- This point is irrelevant. As stated in the guide for good video game articles, the best fitting organization should be used, not a fixed one enforced. I gave you a reason why a "history" organization is superior for the discussed article ("preservation of chronological order"). Some good argument against? (Also, in our last discussion you agreed that history sections are acceptable and sometimes appropriate.) Shaddim (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- The point is revelant: this strange layout is not used practically anywhere at all. Anywhere. At all. And it's not even a good layout, you want to make too many sub-sections (sub-sub-sub-sections) for just single sentences of content (there shouldn't be even paragrpahs like that). --Niemti (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- This point is irrelevant. As stated in the guide for good video game articles, the best fitting organization should be used, not a fixed one enforced. I gave you a reason why a "history" organization is superior for the discussed article ("preservation of chronological order"). Some good argument against? (Also, in our last discussion you agreed that history sections are acceptable and sometimes appropriate.) Shaddim (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cool, a 'proof' for a 'good argument' for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists start clicking the articles, and you can check the history too, to see if there were any "history" sections that I 'vandalized'. It's nearly 1,000 articles since the early 1980s in almost all kinds of genres (except vehicle simulations). --Niemti (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your anecdotal experience is, first, no proof and second not relevant. The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines states that a fixed organization didn't exist (recommendation was "history"), neither should be one enforced (what you do at the moment), instead the best fitting organization should be selected. So, if you don't have a good argument for the change of the organization, I will go to the former one as a "history" section preserves the chronological order. regards Shaddim (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Explain how I checked 1,000 articles and there was none. --Niemti (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Check your archive, I gave you examples. Shaddim (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just recently checked nearly 1,000 articles while feeling this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists and THERE WERE NO HISTORY SECTIONS ANYWHERE. (Oh, and what I see? AFD? lol?). --Niemti (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)