Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 137 - Biblioteka.sk

Upozornenie: Prezeranie týchto stránok je určené len pre návštevníkov nad 18 rokov!
Zásady ochrany osobných údajov.
Používaním tohto webu súhlasíte s uchovávaním cookies, ktoré slúžia na poskytovanie služieb, nastavenie reklám a analýzu návštevnosti. OK, súhlasím

Odborná literatúra, audioknihy, eknihy:


Kategórie (12):


















© Beletria.sk

Panta Rhei Doprava Zadarmo
...
...


A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 137
 ...
Archive 130 ← Archive 135 Archive 136 Archive 137 Archive 138 Archive 139 Archive 140

Notability of the concept of a video game franchise

Is the concept of a video game franchise independently notable of media franchise? I want to gain some general consensus on this, since my recent conversion of the redirect (which redirected to List of video game franchises) into a stub article was disputed. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of notability, the redirect is inconsistent with other similarly titled pages (here's a full list of examples: Book series, Comic book series, Film series, Radio program, Television show, and Media franchise) As a matter of conceptual context and reducing confusion and inconsistency, it should not redirect to List of video game franchises. If it is not notable, it should redirect to Media franchise. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe it should be an article, unless someone creates a particularly impressive one that stands apart from Media franchise. I think Video game franchise could be a disambiguation, though, linking to Media franchise, List of video game franchises, and sublists thereof (best-selling/longest-running/etc). My second choice would be to redirect it to Media franchise, which has the list in its see also. ~Mable (chat) 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how a video game franchise isn't a notable topic. An article should probably be made in my opinion. However, before an article is made, the redirect to Media Franchise is fine. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • From my understanding of this, a "series" is a group of products within the same medium (like the Harry Potter series of books or the Harry Potter series of films). But a franchise is a series of series. A metaseries, if you will. A series that crosses over into different mediums. So the Harry Potter franchise would include the book, film, and video game series. Thereby making the term "video game franchise" redundant. It should be renamed Video game series.--Coin945 (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been working on cleaning up and sourcing List of video game franchises ever since it survived its WP:AFD, and from what I can tell, sources more or less use "series" and "franchise" interchangeably, and rather loosely at that. They frequently use "franchise" to describe what is basically just a second game in a series of two games and zero other types of mediums. Like Watch Dogs, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd actually say in those instances, they are referring to the game series hoping to become a franchise. I think they referred to the first game as the next big franchise, before any media is released. Arguably, merchandise and other external media to a video game series is common for pretty much any series. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, interpret that source as you will, but the same thing has happened again and again and again with other sources and other game series. I've been using "does a reliable source call it a franchise" as a part of the inclusion criteria for the list, thinking it would wipe out a huge chunk of the items. It hasn't. Journalists use the term far more than I realized. It's trimming out some, but it's used far more than I personally realized. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the phrasing of "it sounds like the company will stick with the franchise" seems to support my suspicions that the article is not treating a two-game series as a franchise, but rather pointing out that the success of the second game leads the company to consider expanding it into a (multi)media franchise. Similar to how people were discussing the Frozen (franchise) barely after the first film was released, due to all the future plans. --Coin945 (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, that's just the wording of one particular source. A short search shows it happening over and over again:
I mean, that's the examples I've come up with and I didn't even finish working through the "A" section of the list that is in alphabetical order... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm not arguing the actual definition of a franchise, I'm just saying the video game industry uses the term pretty loosely, and that's probably why it's currently at "list of franchises" and not "list of series". I don't really care which word we chose - the way that sources use the terms interchangeably means the scope wouldn't meaningfully change the scope of the article either way. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I am personally in favor of changing the general article title phrasing to "video game series". "Series" is more commonly used, and more specific to the concept that is conveyed, based on what everyone is describing above. I have done some search queries (shown to the right) to attempt to examine the usage of "series".
Engine Query
"video game series" "video game franchise"
Google ngram 2.148×10-8% 4.51×10-9%
WP:VG reliable sources search 1,150,000 results 396,000 results
Google search 635,000 results 771,000 results
One always has to take ngrams with a grain of salt, because we're moving into a multimedia society that's not primarily books, but the difference in usage is impressive. Regarding the Google search results (which the WP:VG search is part of), the counts are notorious for being estimates, and can vary between users because of targeting, so they probably aren't that useful. (I think some sites offer more accurate Google search result estimates, but I haven't done any research on it lately.) Wikipedia's chosen phrasing probably also has an effect on the preferred phrasing in the result counts, so the Google searches are not an independent sample.
I am aware that my methodology is a rough heuristic, and I welcome better methodology, but even with just the ngram results, I think "video game series" should be used instead of "video game franchise". E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 19:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The other searches are estimate numbers; VGRS real returns for me are often in the realm of "10^1" even though the number often returned is "10^5". --Izno (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
That's why I said "the counts are somewhat notorious for being estimates", but since you commented, I have revised my comment for more due weight. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 18:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Linking and "Video game franchise" vs. "Video game series"

Maplestrip has suggested "Video game franchise could be a disambiguation, linking to Media franchise, List of video game franchises, and sublists thereof (best-selling/longest-running/etc)." I'm inclined to agree with them, although I still think video game series is a more precise wording for the list titles, and by extension, the disambiguation (see above). What does everyone else think regarding both the disambiguation proposal, and the list titles? (@Lee Vilenski, Coin945, and Sergecross73:) E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Maple's idea. Still indifferent on the name, as both franchise and series seem to be used pretty widely in the industry. I'd be inclined to treat it more like WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN and keep it at franchise if they're both perfectly acceptable. If we can't come to an agreement here, someone could always set up a WP:RM on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I hold by what I said above: that "video game franchise" and "media franchise" mean essentially the same thing, only that "video game franchise" provides the extra information that the franchise began with video games. Then "video games series" would discuss those sub-sections of media franchises that only include the video game portion. As I said above, the whole idea of a "franchise" is that the producers of one medium (e.g. video games) have to franchise/license off the property to other producers to create content in other mediums. So a "video game franchise" should literally be a "video game series" that has been franchised. Regardless of how the literature likes to conflate these two terms, I think this is a reasonable distinction that will certainly help streamline the naming here at Wikipedia.--Coin945 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • See my counter examples above though. We're on Wikipedia. We need to stick to what sources say. Sources do not use that sort of definition for franchise. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have very little comment on the franchise vs series discussion. I think "franchise" sounds better and may be more widely appropriate because of how much franchising happens with video games compared to other media. The disambiguation page I still think is a good idea, anyway. ~Mable (chat) 09:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (3 March to 9 March)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

3 March

4 March

5 March

6 March

7 March

8 March

9 March

Salavat (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Silent Cartographer

  • Are we really at the point where a single Kotaku piece alone justifies a standalone article, nevertheless with statements like, "It has received critical praise and recognition for its iconic visuals and level design, being called groundbreaking and the best level in the Halo series." Coat racks for trivia... Was the last discussion somehow unclear? czar 15:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If you are at the point where you are trying to "justify" articles with something other than notability, like whether it fits your idea of what is a "good" article, then you are misinterpreting the rules of Wikipedia. If the subject was non-notable, then yes, it would not qualify for an article. A single article alone would also not fulfill GNG. However, I think something being fully detailed and explained in a large article and receiving many smaller mentions elsewhere, is grounds for notability. See also WP:OBSCURE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I would only expect that a single work would be sufficient to justify a topic passing the GNG only if that work was a book-sized volume dedicated to the topic, not a single opinion piece. We look for multiple sources for good reason, to prevent cases of one opinion piece justifying a full article. --Masem (t) 16:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with Masem and with Czar here. That said, list of locations in Halo (list of levels? locations is probably fine) could probably take all of the articles recently created as well as a pointer to the article on the Halo (or even possibly subsume that as well, since the Halo doesn't have a lot of obvious reception in its current article). --Izno (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Same argument applies as the various character articles I did... not all locations in Halo are notable, in fact a very small fraction of them are. Silent Cartographer is widely considered the best Halo level, and The Library the worst. Blood Gulch is its most famous multiplayer map. Those are superlatives and the rest are generally not mentioned that much.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Lists need not be inclusive of everything related to the list title. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Well, it's pretty much inevitable that someone would try to add the rest of the levels/maps. There's pretty much no harm in splitting it up over a list article, but there is the high probability that a list article will become a crufty mess that will eventually be deleted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. Same reasoning as the cruft Sonic characters. Same reasoning as I made at Talk:Luke_fon_Fabre#Notability. - hahnchen 19:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Only other source I can find that hasn't been used is an article about how the level was the "holy grail of speedrunning Halo". 1. Nomader (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree this doesn't meet the GNG and is better covered in the parent article. If you ask me, saying something is notable because it's considered the best is like saying Mnemoth is notable because he was the first villain in Hellblazer. JOEBRO64 20:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Wait, Mnemoth has an article? JOEBRO64 20:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Except the article doesn't "say" it's notable because it's considered the best, it's notable because it has many reliable sources saying that it is the best, which the article transcribes verbatim.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

it's notable because it has many reliable sources saying that it is the best, which the article transcribes verbatim

... what? As quoted in my original post, the lede claims without evidence that the article has been called the best level in the Halo series, which (1) is puffery when it refers to a claim without critical consensus, and (2) isn't borne out in the sourcing. What sources are cited as calling it "the best"? There's the Kotaku piece already under discussion (which disclaims that point about "the best" in its own article) and what, the Entertainment Weekly listicle that says nothing of the sort?
I have no idea where you are pulling your ideas of encyclopedic notability, but coverage in sources does not guarantee standalone articles. If you have sources that assert the noteworthiness of specific Halo levels, cover them in their dedicated game articles (not even a separate "Halo levels" article) until a split is warranted by a preponderance of sourcing and therefore length. Take The Library (Halo), which is 550 words of (1) basic description, and (2) repetition of the same point: the level was designed poorly and wasn't liked. To drag that point out over two cluttered paragraphs gives heat but no light. The sensible way to handle that sentiment: stack the simplified, paraphrased claim with multiple refs in the Reception or Legacy section of the game's article: "Reviewers found its Library level to be tedious, confusing, and detrimental to the game's pacing.123" And if warranted, perhaps a sentence or two of clarifying criticism, but only if needed. We don't just rip every mention of a concept from game review articles and call it an independently notable concept. We are a general encyclopedia, writing for a general audience about general concepts. czar 21:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
My views on these small, independent level/character articles made by Zxcvbnm should be known already, but these sorts of articles should not be done. Place any of the actual relevant information (dev and reception) in the game's main article instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Cortana (Halo) is a Featured Article. What exactly is the difference between it and the articles I created? The Reception section is still primarily just critics saying she is "sexy", with some light commentary about her appearances in various games. There is also no information about any works or characters that she inspired, or outside influence that Cortana made that would "qualify" her for an article, it's entirely focused on her development for the game itself and reaction by game critics. By your standards it should be deleted, not a Featured Article, because it's "puffery". Or do enlighten me about how that article is different and doesn't fall into your criteria.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned that people are suggesting to place critical reception of specific levels in the main article of the video game. I personally think it is very easy to run into undue weight issues when you try to do that. I don't believe these articles are of the level of significance as Cortana (who's "promotion" section and impact on the Windows software makes it more notable), but at least the articles Zxcvbnm is creating have the decency to be completely sourced using realiable independent sources (unlike Cortana's practically unsourced "in video games" section). Moreover, I find it very odd that people are suggesting that Kotaku is the only website to have praised "The Silent Cartographer". Hardcore Gamer, for example, calls it "one of the most iconic missions in the entire series." The lead section, claiming the level "has received critical praise and recognition," doesn't seem out of place at all (though perhaps a bit inflated). Whether these sources are enough, I don't know. I think all of these articles are a bit on the edge, but they don't seem nearly as unnotable as some of you make them out to be. ~Mable (chat) 08:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_137
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.


Navigácia: Veda >

Analytika
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika
Metodológia vedy
Náboženstvo a veda
Náučná literatúra
Podvody vo vede
Popularizácia vedy
Potravinárstvo
Prírodné vedy
Pseudoveda
Scientometria
Spoločenské vedy
Teórie
Teatrológia
Technické vedy
Technika
Terminológia
Umenie
Výskum
Veda
Veda a technika podľa štátu
Veda a technika podľa kontinentu
Veda a technika podľa roka
Veda v kozme
Vedci
Vedecká literatúra
Vedecké databázy
Vedecké experimenty
Vedecké konferencie
Vedecké metódy
Vedecké ocenenia
Vedecké organizácie
Vedecké parky
Vedeckí spisovatelia
Vzdelávanie
Záhady

Príbuzné výrazy:



Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

Your browser doesn’t support the object tag.

www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk