Talk:4X/Archive 1

Stupid, bureaucratic use of Notability tag
Who put a Notability tag on this article? Most of the literature about computer games consists of the game manuals, reviews, publisher's Web pages and enthusiasts' Web forums - and the Web pages are usually available online for only a few years. So it's unrealistic to expect the same level of references as for a scientific, literary or historical topic. Very often the rules of the game as stated in the manual are the ultimate authority, i.e. the games is its own citation. Nevertheless computer games sell many more copies than scientific journals, and "4X" is a term which the great majority of game-players recognise and which describes an important genre. Some one needs to re-think the Notability criteria for computer games, and possibly for other rapidly developing, technology-driven aspects of popular culture - otherwise Wikipedia risks looking like a stuffed shirts' club.

There's a related problem in the definition of "expert" in relation to computer games, since there are no recognised academic bodies in this field. In fact most players would recognise as an expert someone who has a good track record in tournaments (mainly online) and / or made several well-received contributions to forums, FAQs or strategy guides. That does imply a degree of peer review, but not as formalised as the "apostolic succession" system of academia. Philcha 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, and yet, I see McKay's point too. I believe what McKay is asking for is something like a well know computer gaming magazine (preferably one that distributes on dead tree's) that did an article on "The history of 4X games" or "Everything you ever wanted to know about 4x games" or something. I do know there are gaming magazines that did such articles on God games or TBSG's  and some of them mentioned the term 4x in passing. (Though I think 4x has become more widely used since most of these articles where written) From that perspective, the sources McKay asks for aren't an unreasonable request! In other words, not exactly "academic papers" just something that can serve as a powerful verification.
 * On the other hand, most "gaming magazines" nowadays just review/preview/hype games and rarely bother with extensive articles on the history of a certain genre, though it does happen, but not to often. In this case, I wouldn't vote against lowering the threshold to simply proving that the term is widely used and well known, using dozens of references where the term is mentioned, even if only in passing. SevenMass 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Seven sums it up nicely. The term must be notable. I think showing that the term is in wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable. Dozens of references would be required. McKay 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dozens of references to what? Emerich defined the term, everyone accepted his definition and there's been little debate about it since.Philcha 01:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I could understand tagging the article with a maintenance tag of the "article lacks sources" variant, but calling the noteability of a popular genre into question merely spells our the ignorance of the user doing so. I know Wikipedia is based on the idea that anyone can edit articles, but for the love of human intellect, I don't edit articles if I don't know what I am talking about. 82.135.13.29 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's harsh. Please be WP:CIVIL.
 * For the record, I wasn't saying that the topic wasn't notable, I'm saying that the article doesn't pass the notability guidelines established for Wikipedia. Either the topic is notable or it isn't. If the topic is notable, then references need to be added to pass the notability guidelines. If the topic is not notable, then the article should be deleted. The presence of the tag doesn't mean the latter has to occur. If you don't want the latter to occur, then add sources which show notablity.
 * You propose adding a maintenance tag of the "article lacks sources" variant, but the problem isn't that the article lacks sources, but that the article fails to pass the notability guideline, which is a different problem. McKay 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't say that the topic wasn't notable, but you called the notability into question. Doing so demonstrates your ignorance on the topic. Besides, your argumentation is nonsense as the reason why the article doesn't pass the guideline is the lack of sources meeting the criteria of the guideline.
 * It's not that I don't understand what you're trying to say, it's just that what you're saying isn't sensible. Using Template:Unreferenced could easily have served the same purpose without causing any controversy. Also, I doubt your alignment is lawful good. It's clearly lawful asshole. 82.135.13.29 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, please try to remain civil. Second, the article has sources, so it obviously doesn't qualify for the Template:Unreferenced tag. This article doesn't meet the WP:Notability guideline, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." specifically the "significant coverage" phrase, which WP:N shows as meaning: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. That is the criterion not being met. Is something about this not sensibile? McKay 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While I deplore 82.135.13.29's incivility, he / she makes a good point. The Notability tag paves the way for deletion of an article, and deletion of an article about a popular computer game genre would be ridiculous. The WP:Notability guideline also states that there may be exceptions to the requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and I believe 4X is such an exception because of its importance in computer gaming and the difficulty of finding independent, reliable coverage.
 * Even so, there are authoritative sources for individual games, namely the games' manuals. They don't need to contain the label "4X" any more than a picture of a cat needs a caption "cat".
 * The definition(s) of "4X" are as well referenced as they are ever going to get. I searched the Web for "4X game" before editing the article and found only vendors' promotional pages. I suspect it's much the same for many aspects of popular culture. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia should exclude them.
 * It's harder to find references to support other generalisations about "4X" games, for example about their length, size and complexity - the manuals don't usually mention such things, reviewers often don't play games for long enough before publishing, fan forums take them for granted. I suggest we simply wait and see what comments and / or changes are presented by other readers.Philcha 01:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This Google search might provide better results. SharkD 01:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "I searched the Web for "4X game" before editing the article and found only vendors' promotional pages." -Philcha and "I think showing that the term is in wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable. Dozens of references would be required." -McKay. (in reply to my earlier proposal to lower the requirements even more in this case) While a single use of the term in some random add probably doesn't count as a reliable source, the fact it is used in many adds, in many discussions, on forums, but also in columns in tech- and game magazines, (always only very shortly, and in passing) should prove the term is in wide use, and well known. A single Google search comes up with many results... SevenMass 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have a proposal on how this proof should be used in this Wikipedia article? Does the Wikipedia, or maybe even other encyclopedia, already has a precedent? SevenMass 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there is no precedent for things like this. The policy WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we don't really have a good guideline for terms, except for the general notability guideline. Most other categories have alternate criteria. If they've received major rewards or something, they're generally considered notable. I did say "I think showing that the term is in wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable. Dozens of references would be required." and I think that that's a good guideline, but ads don't qualify as reliable sources. Discussions, forums, and similar "user postings" shouldn't help for notability. Usage in dozens of tech and game magazines should suffice. Because of forums and discussions, a google result shouldn't be trusted. Just my thoughts on the matter. McKay 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How many dozens of references? 2, 3, 4? Even two dozen means the bottom of the page is going to have over 20 references doing nothing more than demonstrating that the term is in wide use. Three dozen or four dozen and the list of references is going to start rivalling the length of the article.124.183.60.249 16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, there's over a couple dozen games in the list of 4X games at the bottom of the article. I do think finding articles about 4X games would be a better solution.


 * Bit of a break here: I remember some years back there was a PC Gamer article on 4X. I haven't had any luck finding it.-Wafulz 13:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * cool, if you could find the article, that would certainly help its demonstration of notability. McKay 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The notion that the 4x genre isn't notable is depressingly ignorance. Civilization, one of the premier 4x games, is also one of the most famous computer games of all time. Wikipedia needs to get a clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Note the discussion isn't that the 4X genre isn't notable, but that it doesn't currently demonstrate its notability. McKay 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then I'm not sure that the "notability" tag is appropriate. In particular, if the problem is a lack of documentation, then cite that as the complaint.  Consider the article on Spam (electronic).  That article has been criticized for lacking sources, but its notability certainly isn't in question.  --Alan Au 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SharkD, thanks for suggesting the alternative search. It gave me 6 good refs to vendor-independent online articles which make it plain what "4X" stands for. I have therefore removed the "Notability" tag.

I have also removed the "Sources" tag since, as I said above, the ultimate authority for each game is the manual and the name of the game is usually sufficient citation.

I have put this article on my watch list and will remove the the "Notability" tag if it is re-applied, and will remove the "Sources" tag if that is re-applied without an adequate explanation in the Talk page about what kind of references are allegedly needed for which parts of the article.Philcha 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On Spam:
 * Spam (electronic) didn't deserve the "no sources" link, because it had over two dozen sources.
 * Even if it didn't, this book is enough to satisfy the notability guideline.


 * The fact of the matter remains, we have sources, but none of them give "Significant coverage" to the "4X" topic. None of them. No one has even claimed that it does. the Notablity tag is appropriate, and I will re-add it, because it fails to meet that guideline. McKay 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * McKay says "... none of them give 'Significant coverage' to the '4X' topic. None of them." To back up such a claim McKay needs to read all of each of the quoted sources in full and explain why, in each individual case, it fails to give 'Significant coverage' to the '4X' topic. Without evidence of this, there is no justification for for the "Notability" tag and I have removed it.
 * You have also shifted your ground. In an earlier post on this Talk page (15:26, 25 June 2007) you said, "I think showing that the term is in wide use by reliable sourres would be acceptable. Dozens of references would be required" - which is actually a less demanding criterion. The references I added (8? 9?) make it plain that the term is in wide use by reliable sources. The "Classic definition" section alone has 9 IIRC. I can easily add a few more (using the search suggested by SharkD, which provided most of the references in the first 2 result pages, so adding a few dozen more is not difficult, just boring). So now you also have to explain either: (a) exactly how many references would be sufficient and why one less would be insufficient; (b) how the references fail to show that the term is in wide use by reliable sources.
 * In case you hadn't noticed, you seem to be the only person in this discussion who thinks that there is any doubt about the notability of "4X".
 * If you re-apply the "Notability" tag without providing the evidence I have described, all of which is required by the arguments you have used to justify the use of the "Notability" tag, I will initiate dispute procedures.Philcha 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm required to show proof that I've read all of those sources? I've been watching and reading the links as you've been adding them. Would you like browser histories, or should I show packet transmission reports from my ISP? There's a guideline called "WP:AGF". And if you want to know why none of them give "significant coverage", see WP:N, and significant & coverage. But below, I list all of the current sources. I'll give my reasons why I don't think they have significant coverage (in parenthesis and italics). Note that I shouldn't have to, at least partially because you're being a WP:DICK in not WP:AGF. You shouldn't be issuing demands. This is not your article.
 * Sure, wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable to me. Note that even if we do show that it is in wide use by reliable sources, others may come in and influence this decision, and make a valid claim that it doesn't meet WP:N. But note that we don't have dozens of reliable sources where it's used.
 * Also, few of the sources we have are reliable. I know by saying that you're going to claim that more than few are reliable, so I'll enumerate them for you:
 * CGW, reliable. (it kinda feels like a "dictionary entry" which would be trivial, but it alludes to an article that might actually give significant coverage. Can we see that one? September 1993?)
 * Strategy Gaming Online. Probably not?
 * Deaf Gamers. I'm going to say "no".
 * RPG.net. probably not.
 * GamersInfo. probably not.
 * Strategy Page. No
 * Taticular Cancer. No
 * IGN, yes, but we're linking IGN Reviews. It's a user-submitted guide? So I'm kinda iffy on this one too.
 * Gamespot. Yes reliable, but it doesn't mention the term "4X", it's being used in this article to discus RTSs
 * Google search for "4X". No way.
 * MOO2 Guide at Blogspot. No
 * Faqs.org. No
 * Apple. Yes (It's a review, and gives all of its content to the game in question, not the survey of the topic at hand)
 * Gamespy. Yes (It's an interview about one person who likes the term. GS hints at how the term might be considered a neologism. It spends a paragraph discussing what 4x is. 1 out of a hundred? that seems pretty trivial. They spend more time talking about the "5th X" than the "4x"s)
 * same apple link as above. I'm removing
 * same gamespy link as above. I'm removing
 * Rakrent/RTSC. No
 * same faqs.org link as above. I'm removing
 * MobyGames. It's user contributed, sure, it's an established wiki-like project, but using it to establish notability? Maybe.
 * Georgia Institute of Technology. Yes. (While he does mention (and define) the term. The subject of the paper is AI, and Strategy Games.)
 * So, that's 4 reliable, 5 iffys, and 6 maybeys. Any way you look at it, we don't have doezens of reliable sources yet.
 * The notability criterion is not a strict criterion, there is a lot of discussion from people who say that the notability criterion is too weak, and allows far too many articles. WP:BLP doesn't apply here, but the discussions about how WP:N is far too lenient abound. I need to give you a number? 24 is the number I give. Why? Because that's what WP:CONSENSUS on the page has determined. Seven first mentioned "dozens" and no one has disagreed with that request. You yourself have even mentioned it on multiple occasions. 24 is the smallest number such that it's amount is a plural dozen. Any less than that and we wouldn't quite have dozens so the WP:CONSENSUS (a wikipedia policy which can supercede WP:N) would not have been met.
 * The references we have don't show that it's in wide use, it's a frindle, definitely a neologism, it's WP:OR until someone a secondary source has written about it. Why is it that MobyGames doesn't have a genre for it? It's just got a group. Criticisms of Wikipedia's validity abound. We should probably come close to emulating following our own rules.
 * Oh, and you're wrong. SevenMass said that "the sources McKay asks for aren't an unreasonable request!" (emphasis in original). Also Wafulz made reference to a possible PCGamer article on 4X, which implies he's in favor of at least supporting the rules. He didn't criticize my placing of the tag at all.
 * Having done all that you request, and more, I'm adding the tag. Please make a better effort to WP:AGF, especially when I'm Ignoring the rules in consenting to allow a more liberal criterion than what's in WP:N. McKay 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason it's not a genre on MobyGames is that it's a subset of the Strategy genre. 124.187.156.150 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The only way I can see to handle this is to reproduce McKay's last post (22:40, 28 June 2007) with my responses in italics.
 * I'm required to show proof that I've read all of those sources? I've been watching and reading the links as you've been adding them. The default behavior in Wikipedia is to accept citations. Refusals to accept them need to be justified. There's a guideline called "WP:AGF". That cuts both ways And if you want to know why none of them give "significant coverage", see WP:N, and significant & coverage. WP:N says, "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I've already stated that I think computer games are an exceptional category and suspect the same is true of other fast-developing, technology-led categories in popular culture. WP:N also links to Notability guides on specific categories, including Notability (pornographic actors)! I think Wikipedia needs a specific guide for computer games, to take accounts of several facts including that some games continue to be played by significant numbers of people after most of the online articles have vanished (e.g. Master of Orion II, Starcraft). But below, I list all of the current sources. I'll give my reasons why I don't think they have significant coverage (in parenthesis and italics). Note that I shouldn't have to, at least partially because you're being a WP:DICK in not WP:AGF. That cuts both ways too, especially following your "Please be WP:CIVIL." You shouldn't be issuing demands. You're demanding the application of the Notability tag. This is not your article. Did I say it was?
 * Sure, wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable to me. Note that even if we do show that it is in wide use by reliable sources, others may come in and influence this decision, and make a valid claim that it doesn't meet WP:N. But note that we don't have dozens of reliable sources where it's used.
 * Also, few of the sources we have are reliable. I know by saying that you're going to claim that more than few are reliable, so I'll enumerate them for you:
 * CGW, reliable. (it kinda feels like a "dictionary entry" which would be trivial, but it alludes to an article that might actually give significant coverage. Can we see that one? September 1993?) So you concede that CGW is reliable.
 * Strategy Gaming Online. Probably not? Not what? Not reliable? Why not?
 * Deaf Gamers. I'm going to say "no". No to what? It's a very competent review, well written and covering all of the standard headings (gameplay in all its aspects, graphics, game setup options, lack of multiplayer option). It's well up to the standard of reviews in the big-name online mags such as Gamespot. And it gives the standard definition of "4X".
 * RPG.net. probably not. Not what? Why not? This is an extremely thorough review. And it gives the standard definition of "4X" (last paragraph).Philcha 03:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * GamersInfo. probably not. "Probably not" means you're not sure. Since the Wikipedia default is to accept citations (WP:AGF), the burden of proof is on you and you've failed to carry it. The article is a conversation by two people who plainly know what they're talking about, there's an explicit discussion of the meaning of "4X" and Ironclad Games feels so confident about the widespread understanding of "4X" that it calls Sins of a Solar Empire a "RT4X game".
 * Strategy Page. No I'll concede that one, it's a sales page.
 * Tacticular Cancer. No No to what? Why not? It states that the games compared are 4X games - no definition, but that implies that the term is widely-understood. At various points in the text it refers to typical features of 4X games, e.g. "Apart from building and deploying fleets and using diplomacy, the economy is another cornerstone of the 4X genre." The article is clearly written by someone with considerable knowledge of 4X games set in space.
 * IGN, yes, but we're linking IGN Reviews. It's a user-submitted guide? So I'm kinda iffy on this one too. Iffy? You're not sure? If this is a user-submitted guide, I hope they paid the user well because it's the work of a pro - thorough, well-structured, and concise but clear (which requires real skill in the use of English, plus quite a lot of hard work).
 * Gamespot. Yes reliable, but it doesn't mention the term "4X", it's being used in this article to discus RTSs You missed the point of this ref. It's purpose is to support a statement about the historical context in which "4X" was first defined, not to say anything about 4X per se.
 * Google search for "4X". No way. Can you suggest a better way of showing how the term is currently used?
 * MOO2 Guide at Blogspot. No You missed the point again. This ref is purely to support a point about the length of 4X games. Or do you not like the fact that it's hosted by Blogspot? Look around masteroforion2.blogspot and you'll see that it's probably the best centre of MOO2 expertise in the world. I said earlier in this discussion that "expert" in the context of computer games means winners of tournaments and writers of well-regarded guides, and by those criteria most contributors to masteroforion2.blogspot are demi-gods.
 * Faqs.org. No. You missed the point again. This ref is purely to support the point about the number of colonies / settlements / bases you need to build in 4X games.
 * Apple. Yes (It's a review, and gives all of its content to the game in question, not the survey of the topic at hand).This ref was included by someone else to illustrate a point about "multiple layers of gameplay". It's irrelevant to the notability of 4X.
 * Gamespy. Yes (It's an interview about one person who likes the term. GS hints at how the term might be considered a neologism. It spends a paragraph discussing what 4x is. 1 out of a hundred? that seems pretty trivial. They spend more time talking about the "5th X" than the "4x"s) And provides a first-hand account of the origin of the term "4X". Maybe I should link to it in the "Definition" section.
 * Same apple link as above. I'm removing. Yes, I should have removed it when I changed all the refs to inline.
 * Same gamespy link as above. I'm removing. Ditto.
 * Rakrent/RTSC. No. Why on earth not? It defines "4X" quite thoroughly, and makes some very valid points about aspects of gameplay nd about gameplay takes priority over eye-candy in 4X. It's an under-used resource in the 4X article and I'll remedy that - thanks for drawing my attention to it.
 * same faqs.org link as above. I'm removing. Another casualty of my re-organising the refs. But this one may be better as it's to a specific location in the FAQ - I'll check.
 * MobyGames. It's user contributed, sure, it's an established wiki-like project, but using it to establish notability? Maybe. Maybe - so you're not confident about rejecting it. In fact this page contributes to the definition of "4X" by using the presence / absence of victory conditions other than total conquest to exclude some games discussed (and excluded) in the "Difficulties of definition" section of 4X. Thanks for making me read this one in more detail - the article should make more use of it.
 * Georgia Institute of Technology. Yes. (While he does mention (and define) the term. The subject of the paper is AI, and Strategy Games.) Yes.
 * So, that's 4 reliable, 5 iffys, and 6 maybeys. Any way you look at it, we don't have dozens of reliable sources yet. See my comments above on your assessments of reliability. My analysis: 11 support notability; 1 should be removed as it's a sales page; 4 are irrelevant to notability  but support other points in the article; 3 are duplicates; and the  Google link will be contentious but what's a better way of showing how people are using the term currently?
 * The notability criterion is not a strict criterion, there is a lot of discussion from people who say that the notability criterion is too weak, and allows far too many articles. WP:BLP doesn't apply here, but the discussions about how WP:N is far too lenient abound. I need to give you a number? 24 is the number I give. Why? Because that's what WP:CONSENSUS on the page has determined. Seven first mentioned "dozens" and no one has disagreed with that request. You yourself have even mentioned it on multiple occasions. 24 is the smallest number such that it's amount is a plural dozen. Any less than that and we wouldn't quite have dozens so the WP:CONSENSUS (a wikipedia policy which can supercede WP:N) would not have been met. I understand the reasons for WP:N and agree with its objectives. But I've already stated why I think the basic WP:N criteria don't fit computer games and a category-specific guide is needed. Your reference to WP:CONSENSUS re "dozens" is correct but, as 124.183.60.249 pointed out (16:50, 27 June 2007), too many references just to establish notability would be silly. I suppose we could create "Further reading" for offline refs not used inline and "Other links" for web pages not cited inline - but that would make the page less useful by swamping any useful additional material in items included just to satisfy a notability criterion. And under WP:CONSENSUS there is no doubt that the topic is notable.
 * The references we have don't show that it's in wide use, it's a frindle, definitely a neologism, it's WP:OR until someone a secondary source has written about it. Why is it that MobyGames doesn't have a genre for it? It's just got a group. Criticisms of Wikipedia's validity abound. We should probably come close to emulating following our own rules. "Frindle" is a neologism I haven't heard before. "4X" is 3 years older than "frindle" and 12 years older than "iPod". You'll have to ask MobyGames why they don't have a genre for "4X" just a group. It may be a consequence of their taxonomy, a bit like some of the classification dilemmas in biology (see Species problem). But the citation from MobyGames gives the classic definition of "4X" plus a criterion for excluding some of the games discussed in the "Difficulty of definition" section of 4X. While I was drafting this 124.187.156.150 (02:09, 29 June 2007) said 4X is a subset of MobyGames' "strategy genre.
 * Oh, and you're wrong. SevenMass said that "the sources McKay asks for aren't an unreasonable request!" (emphasis in original). Also Wafulz made reference to a possible PCGamer article on 4X, which implies he's in favor of at least supporting the rules. He didn't criticize my placing of the tag at all. After ".... the sources McKay asks for aren't an unreasonable request" SevenMass said, "In this case, I wouldn't vote against lowering the threshold to simply proving that the term is widely used and well known, using dozens of references where the term is mentioned, even if only in passing." The only point where this differs from what I've been saying is "using dozens of references". I'd like to know whether SevenMass really does want to see useful references outnumbered by refs added solely to establish notability. If you want to count heads: I'll count SevenMass, Wafulz and SharkD as neutral; 82.135.13.29 and the anonymous author of "The notion that the 4x genre isn't notable is depressingly ignorant ..." plainly think the use of the Notability tag is wrong and 124.183.60.249 supports the use of a MODEST number of references to establish notability.
 * Having done all that you request, and more, I'm adding the tag. Please make a better effort to WP:AGF, especially when I'm Ignoring the rules in consenting to allow a more liberal criterion than what's in WP:N. As I said before, WP:AGF cuts both ways. Ignoring the rules takes precedence over all other rules, including WP:N. We've already discussed the "more liberal criterion" and I agree with it except that I share 124.183.60.249's reservations about adding too many refs just to support notability. Unfortunately I don't agree that you've done all that I requested, because you didn't read the 4X article or the references carefully enough. You went though the references mechanically without considering their context, and therefore commented on 4 which are not relevant to the notability of 4X; and you missed key points of or simply did not appreciate the credibility of several which are relevant.

OK, I'm speaking as myself now. I'm removing the Notability tag, and will raise this matter as a dispute if the tag is applied again without better reasons. Sometime in the next few days I will also review this discussion as it's made me realise that some of the resources are underused.Philcha 03:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "4X" is a dictionary-like term. I definitely think that 4X meets the wikt:WT:CFI, the term probably should be added there. It's a means of categorization.
 * You continue to fail to WP:AGF . I have read the 4x article, and all of the references. The intent of my reading through the sources was to determine if any of them assist in establishing notability. Yes, I commented on 4 that are not relavant to the notability of 4x, I also clearly stated that I did that. You keep putting the onus of burden upon me ("prove this", "read all of X"). The Burden should not lie upon me, it should rely upon you. I claim that none of the reliable sources give significant coverage to the term in question. When I do go through the sources, at your request, and say why I don't think they're reliable or provide substantial coverage, you criticize me for being mechanical. If you think any of the sources are both reliable and give substantial coverage to the topic, please tell me which ones, I honestly can't find any in the list that meet the notability criteria.
 * Based on your last posting, it appears as if we don't really have consensus on the "dozens". The more I do research, the more I think that, given the current state of the article, it is not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. Yes, WP:N is a guideline, but as I've mentioned above, most think that the guideline is too loose. Making it more loose in this case seems to violate WP:NOT, specificially that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "proving that the term is widely used and well known," does not show notability. It satisfies the criteria for inclusion at wiktionary, but not here. Many people think that the Pokemon is an area where the WP:N criterion is being thrown out the window. I tend to generally agree, but I think it's a great thing for comparision. Personally, I hate pokemon, but I'm familiar with "Grass-type" pokemon... Does it have an article? No, it's included in the Pokémon types article.
 * So, I think we should revert to at least satisfying WP:N. Games like StarCraft and Master of Orion have no problem meeting that criteria. If this term is so widely used, maybe we should find someone who has written about the "genre". McKay 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4X is no more a dictionary-like term than First-person shooter or Tactical role-playing game. It is a video game genre, a subcategory of strategy games, just like FPS is a subcategory of action games and TRPG is a subcategory of role-playing games. SharkD 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, all of those terms are dictionary terms. Some dictionary terms are suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, WP:N is the current guideline for inclusion. McKay 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being civil about the discussion, but at the same time I find the whole thing rather absurd since my impression is that "4X" is being held to a higher standard than articles about other similarly-notable topics. In the interest of moving forward, I'm sending this to WP:CVGPR so we can generate more discussion. --Alan Au 21:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're mistaken, I'm not holding it to a higher standard than other similarly notable topics. I'm just enforcing the guidelines presented by the community. Sure, I'll bet that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I can't possibly patrol all two million wikipedia pages. I'm doing what I can to make these articles better. The existence of another page that doesn't properly satisfy the notability criterion, doesn't mean that this page should exist. Also, now that the notabiltity tag is gone, no one seems to care about asserting it's notability, so I'm going to re-add it, as that's the only way that the issue will be resolved. McKay 17:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying this isn't notable is pretty ignorant. I'm not sure what kind of sources you're looking for. This terminology is widely used in the community, among the gamers themselves. It's even used by the developers! If you're expecting us to find a New York Times article with the headline "4X Games Revolutionizing Video Games" or a book called "4X Games inside and out", yeah, fine, this isn't notable. But you're essentially recommending this article for deletion on what's starting to look like a crusade. Do we need to get a moderator? 69.158.140.52 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like you need to take a nice read through WP:N. I'm not on a crusade, I'm trying to follow the rules. Please stop the Personal Attacks. While I admit that the term has been used before. Saying it's widely used is probably not correct. It isn't nearly as widely used as it's peers (FPS, Platformer, Shooter). Feel free to get a moderator. I don't regret any of my actions here. The burden of proof lies upon those who wish to keep the article. McKay 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Saying it's widely used is probably not correct." Uhoh. Of course you will always just adjust your cardinal notability measure. You are just trolling, when you don't propose a cardinal notability measure for ALL game genres. Your othercrapexist excuse is just a red hering.McLar eng 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is "troll" a personal attack? The burden of proof has been met: the genre is in wide use in the strategy gaming community, and has been used by one of the founding fathers of the genre! I'm not sure what your beef is. Perhaps one of your articles got deleted for its lack of notability and now you're taking it upon yourself to ruin the hard work of other people. I do not car.Either way, please leave this article alone, or we'll be forced to contact a moderator. 69.158.140.52 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have proposed a cardinal notability measure! WP:N. The primary notablity criterion. gamespot writes articles about RTSs "has been used by one of the founding fathers of the genre"? What you mean, is that the guy who coined the term has used it on multiple occasions. That's not widespread use. All that shows is that he loves the term and uses it. That's hardly independant, but it's a good source. Can we find more reliable sources that use it in this manner? Yes. Let's do it. McKay 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What's exactly cardinal there??? So Gamespot itself has to write articles about a genre? Have you checked about how many other genres it wrote? You can find the other video games genres here pretty easily. You won't have to read millions pages. So with gamespot article it is notable here? Sounds so absurd. It actually has RT4X as tag for the next forthcoming 4X strategy game. Note that RT4X is a subset of the 4X genre. McLar eng 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if reliable sources write an article about a topic, it becomes notable. That is the Wikipedia definition of notability. McKay 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

mckaysalisbury's position
I'm leaving this article because it's getting too contentious. Here's my stance. Feel free to take it or leave it.

WP:N is primarily what I'm discussing. Philcha has stated that 11 articles help to establish notability. I strongly contend that. Most of the sources are not reliable sources as per WP:RS. DeafGamers is not "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." DeafGamers does not have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." IGN, GameSpy, GameSpot, CGW, these are reliable sources.

There is the interview with the guy who coined the term. Is it independant? Maybe. They were doing this interview with this guy who used this "4X" term so they figured they should let him define it. Substantial coverage? maybe. While I'm willing to say that we should let that count, WP:N states "sources" in the requirement, and later "Multiple sources are preferred." I don't think that that one source is enough to establish notability. Do we have an argument for notability? Yes. Is the topic clearly notable? Definitely not. Can we improve this? Yes.

Other genres get full treatment in articles, I referenced RTS above. I'm not asking for a different standard, I'm merely asking that the wikipedia guidelines be considered.

There has been some discussion about the use of the term. Use of the term is part of Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, and shouldn't really be discussed in Wikipedia, while several sources use the term, it is not in widespread use. The Civilization article has the 4x appelation, put there by anons, But as far as I can tell, none of the reviews I could find really refer to the game as a 4X game. Not even for the most recent civ3. Sure, some developers use it, but it's not universally used to describe the genre.

Admittedly, this is OR, but none of my gamer friends had even heard the term, most of whom have played a lot of 4x games. I loved MOO, and have played quite a bit. But I hadn't heard the term before I saw the Wikipedia article on it. I think that if this article were put up on AFD, that there would be a large majority of people (even gamers) who would mention that they hadn't heard the term. Whether they say it's notable or not is a different story, but I think it stands a decent chance of getting deleted on AFD.

Should the topic be in wikipedia? I'm not sure. I go back and forth on it. It reeks of neologism, some people use it, but not many. It's not widely used. Is it a useful term. Yes. I'm probably going to even use it from here on out, but being useful doesn't mean it's notable.

But does the article deserve the notability tag? Yeah, I think it does. Articles get the notability tag when they don't properly assert their notability. (Booster Juice clearly doesn't meet the notability criterion, and the article remains while the information gets added.)

What I'm not a fan of is people saying "there is no justification" for the tag, or that I'm trying to push an agenda, or that I'm on a crusade, or that I'm holding this article to different standards than others, or saying that putting the tag on is "Stupid" or "Bureaucratic", or calling my actions "trolling". I'm trying to make Wikipedia better. This article has improved because I put that tag up, and I'm being the one criticised here.

Have fun. McKay 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good riddance. A term like 4X is notable, not because there's a top-down authoritative book on it, but because it's common vocabulary. The fact that the term is used by the creator of a 4X franchise is just a bonus. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 69.158.140.52 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)