Talk:The Warlock of Firetop Mountain (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revision[edit]

As stated in the Edit Summaries, this was a simple revision of material that needed an overhaul. Yes, I realize Miremare created the article and may feel there is some ownership (per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles), which is of course perfectly understandable. That said, the article needed to be brought up to encyclopedia standard and read like the other Fighting Fantasy articles.

As to specifics, it is fairly straight forward. There is now a clear, concise lead, tidied infobox and three sections that in succinct and accurate terms explain the game without any weak grammar and repetition. Material is in the correct section and reviews have been revised to both read correctlt and not be repetitive. Given the size of the article, the extra image is excessive and clogs the text. Links have been changed to be consistent with other FF articles and allow easy access to related literaure. All the information is still there with some tweaks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing to do with "ownership", I reverted your changes because I don't agree with them. If it were a few grammar corrections as you claim then fine, but it's not. Firstly there is no need for this, or any other article, to "read like other Fighting Fantasy articles", especially given the standard of most of those. You seem to have the misapprehension that Wikipedia articles have to be as concise as possible, and anything that can be removed should be removed, which is absolutely not true. Look at a featured article. How will a start-class article progress further up the scale by gutting it of relevant sourced content? And why exactly is it appropriate to remove the Crystal Computing template? Or the replace the Mobygames link with an irrelevant one to the official FF site? This article is just as relevant, if not more so, to Crystal Computing and video games in general, than to FF. It's also standard practice to include a screenshot in video game articles, and I find your removing it because it "clogs the text" to be quite bewildering. WP articles should be illustrated where possible, and this is a justified fair-use image. And please use the edit summary box when you edit articles, especially when removing content, and please also don't revert to your reverted version of an article during a discussion. If you want to discuss specific issues, this is the place. Thanks, Miremare 12:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have some ownership issues if you can't see that there is anything in the article that needs correcting. You are also making an emotional assumption if you think what I have been doing is "gutting" the article. There is a place for improvement, and compromise. I will look for this for this from you. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, I have kept the image but at a place where it doesn't warp text and look terrible. Moby Games have been incorporated into the text and I have sought a second opinion on the largely defunct nav box, as half the links are dead and the game designers article page is little more than a list. Retained separate section, and reworded language without questionable grammar (e.g. "as well as") and opinion. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there wasn't anything that needed correcting, and if I'm making assumptions about your intentions it's down to the fact that you have redirected this, and at least two other articles that I know of, on grounds of non-notability despite the articles being clearly notable by WP's definition of the word. "Ownership" is an easy stone to throw when an editor who started an article disagrees with an edit you make, but you evidently have some kind of problem with these articles, and I can't exactly stand back and ignore it just because I was the first editor. However, I have stated above, and will do so further below, why I disagree with your changes as fully as I can:
  • Content: You removed relevant sourced info about the Halls of the Things similarity (which bridges the gap between development and reception, hence why there was one section in the absence of substantial info on either to justify seperate sections), as well as various other things. Like I said above, articles don't progress by being shorn of everything but their bones. Things that are not relevant to the subject should be removed, but brevity for brevity's sake is not desirable and a start-class article will forever remain a start-class article if not expanded. Please do expand the article, that would be great.
  • Image: The image shouldn't be reduced as it makes it unclear – the reader should not have to click on it to see what it is. Again, look at other VG articles and you'll see that there is nothing at all unusual with an image of this size being used in this way. As for "warping", text always flows around the images, if it's not working properly for you then you probably have a browser issue.
  • External links: The MobyGames link needs to be in the external links section as it is not a citable source. MB is a user-generated site like Wikipedia and external links to it in WP are included as "further reading". Again, the official Fighting Fantasy site is not relevant to this game, it's relevant to the book, and the article on the book.
  • Navbox: If you have a problem with the Crystal Computing navbox, and I can't imagine why you would, then you should nominate it for deletion or something (though I'm quite sure you'd be wasting your time) but while it exists, it should appear on this and the other pages that it lists. Links being red is irrelevant – red links simply signify articles that haven't been created yet, and encourage article creation. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the state of the Crystal Computing article itself to the inclusion of the template here.
  • Grammar: It's a bit odd to complain of questionable grammar when inserting a sentence starting "Issue #2 of Micro Adventurer magazine published a feature on..." which has at least two things wrong with it, as well as moving various things into unnecessary parentheses. As far as I'm aware there was no unsourced "opinion" in the article.. what opinion were you referring to?
And once again, please do not try to repeatedly force through your new version of this or any other article while a discussion on it is ongoing, it is not conducive to concensus and, much as I hate the word, is bad "Wikiquette". I know you're pretty new to Wikipedia, but please bear all the above points in mind. Once again, I'm not reverting you because of ownership issues, but because you are unnecessarily removing relevant sourced info and adding nothing, while at the same time rearranging things using (sorry) your own fair share of dodgy grammar. Again, I urge you to engage in discussion here of any issues rather than continually reverting, seeing as there is an obvious disagreement. Thanks, Miremare 21:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will get back to this as there are still some formatting issues and wonky language, but it will have wait as I have to go away for two days. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion[edit]

Hi. User:Thebladesofchaos posted the following message on my user page:

Greetings. I remember you were bold and removed the template from the Fighting Fantasy article, which I agreed with. I'd now like your thoughts on a template at The Warlock of Firetop Mountain (video game), which another user insists is relevant. Peronally, I can't see it as half of the games have no link and the game designers themselves barely rate a mention at their Wikipedia page, which is essentially a list. Surely this is unnecessary?

  • I would be very happy to help in improving this article and building consensus, but unfortunately I'm not sure what template Thebladesofchaos is referring to, and a scan of the article's immediate history has not helped me understand the problem beyond showing that there is clearly some vigorous debate going on. I'll place the page on my watch list, but would anyone care to explain the problem, and the proposed solutions? Clearly no one that loves Fighting Fantasy can be less than awesome, so this seems like something that should be resolvable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. It's Template:Crystal Computing series, the navbox for the developer of this game. The editor concerned, for reasons best known to himself, thinks it isn't relevant. Including the developer's navbox is standard practice in video game articles, and I don't see that there's any special reason to remove this one. Miremare 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, having looked at that template, I can't see any objection to it. Assuming the developer is notable, and that the template contains enough links to non-redlink articles to arguably be a likely aid to navigation within the topic, there is no reason that it shouldn't be included on pages closely related to the developer. It certainly does follow practice across other videogame articles. My only comment would be that I suspect that many of the games listed in the template may not actually be notable, and will therefore never receive articles and should be removed from the template. But that's a matter to discuss on the template's page, not here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A good comment. I suspect the ones in red can go. Graham Stafford might not make the cut either. Many thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look at the red links in the template and sift out the ones that are likely not notable – there is a softography on the developer's page anyway – as of course only the ones that are capable of becoming articles should be in the navbox. Miremare 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. A couple removed, including Mr Stafford. The currently red-linked ones are all potential articles with significant coverage in early 80s print sources such as CRASH (magazine), Your Sinclair, Sinclair User, etc. for the ZX Spectrum versions alone, with the multi-platform ones undoubtedly having others too. Source info from World of Spectrum. Miremare 21:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to one external link on The Warlock of Firetop Mountain (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Warlock_of_Firetop_Mountain_(video_game)&oldid=1201241710"