Talk:Fields of Glory

Untitled
The page seems broken (there's a /gallery without a ).. I tried reverting via history but it seems that I failed.

Third opinion
I request a third opinion on the classification of this game. Gamespot lists it as a real time strategy game here. This was rebuffed in this revert, with the reason given that Gamespot doesn't have the appropriate classification. I'm not sure what that means, so I'd like a third opinion on a citeable claim (mine) vs an uncited claim. Alastairward (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for checking this for us. I would prefer to leave it unclassified, or as a strategy game in general rather than guess a classification for this game. Alastairward (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

About the topic: It is highly relevant, since the use of (or rather the way you use) the template seems from your edit history and style to be in preparation for purging information, that is, as a strategic tool or weapon. About cites: Uncontroversial information, that is, information that is trivially or obviously true and will not be contested or will be easily affirmed by experts or the majority need not be sourced, WP:Citing sources: "The need for citations is important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. ... Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text". Information that is not going to be challenged (as per above) has no burden of proof and need not be cited. In this case, we could make a cite to the game itself, I suppose, that is using a primary source to illustrate the nature of the game, something that is done in articles on books and films. However, it feels slightly redundant, since we're talking about uncontroversial facts that do not require rigorous sourcing in the first place. I appreciate the discussion, though. Miqademus (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The RTT classification has been part of Wikipedia's Strategy Game portal since 2006, and is considered an article and category of high importance. Both RTS and RTT are recognised classifications among gamers, press, publishers and in Wikipedia itself, and the distinction known. The RTT classification is today quite clear and uncontroversial, unlike "RTS" which is surrounded by much confusion, and all kinds of games are willy-nilly termed as such, examples are economic simulators and city builders such as Railroad Tycoon and SimCity, both of which has been called "RTS" games in reviews. That is one reason we seldom classify game's categories based on reviews. To mention precedences, In some borderline situations we mention this and provide both categories. Miqademus (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is going to be something of a problem. I'm not talking about whether or not RTT is a valid classifcation (which it appears to be). I'm asking whether it is a valid one for this particular game. Alastairward (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no problem whatsoever. It fulfils every single characteristic of the RTT definition, and at the same time is clearly not a RTS game (per definition of that genre) or a grand strategy game, or a turn-based tactics or strategy game, etc etc. Simply calling this a "strategy" game or something is a slippery slope and soon all games will simply be classified as "games" . In essence: We will not find a reference defining this game as "rtt" simply because of its age and relatively marginal nature in the history of video games. This does not in any way preclude it being recognised and classified as such (rtt), just as we can call zombie splatter movies just that even if no reputable source has mentioned it. Since the "citation needed" marker is purposeless I'm removing it. I hope you understand. Miqademus (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is illogical (I should have earlier explained the readdition of the tag). You say that the tag is purposeless, well its not. It has a definite purpose, to alert readers to the fact that there is a statement in need of citation. All information, regardless of how "true" an editor believes it to be, must be verified. If you doubt this, the matter can also be taken to the OR noticeboard. Alastairward (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I indented your post for you to keep the conversation track going, as per normal WP discussion style.
 * So you're going to cite it then? The information (not facts) is important to the article. It's in the info box and there's precious little else in the article besides a rough description of the game itself.
 * Also, using primary sources is a no, that's just your own analysis and opinion. And a majority opinion is not the way citations work, if there's no reliable third party source, it can go.
 * Considering the third party opinion suggested leaving both or removing both classifications, I think I'm stretching here to even leave it in. How's about you provide some good faith editing yourself and cite it or suggest a way to move on. Alastairward (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside comment
I don't want to engage in lengthy discussion about the wording of this article, but I would like to point out that the RTS moniker is used by GameSpot as a blanket denomination even for games that are widely known as RTTs, for example Myth: The Fallen Lords.

With that said I'm editing the article to suggest a compromise solution in light of this being part of a larger disagreement which has also involved the main article real-time tactics.

Peter Isotalo 12:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. What you've written is still unverified and can still be tagged. Alastairward (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for trying to mediate, Peter. Since it unfortunately didn't help I restored the previous version (with only RTT). I appreciate you helping us in this situation! Miqademus (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Miqademus, you're happy with the version that contains uncited material? How odd. Alastairward (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The version I reverted from was equally uncited, as per your understanding of the concept. It was made by user Peter as an attempt to accommodate the differences of perspectives in the discussion here. Since it didn't help and since the altered version didn't provide additional value I restored the simpler version. I kindly request you to leave strawmen and other ad hominems from article discussions. Regards, Miqademus (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "I kindly request you to leave strawmen and other ad hominems from article discussions". No strawmen here, why do you beleive that an uncited version should be created, pretty simply question. Again, we're stuck, I would like a cited version of the article, Miqademus is adamant that an uncited version with extra OR should be retained. Alastairward (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastair, since I've already been involved in a dispute with you, I'll try to phrase this as neutrally as possible: the "how odd"-reply above will make you look sarcastic and unfriendly to any outsider regardless of how heartily the two of you have disagreed with one another.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is odd that Miqademus would find an uncited (and so tagged) article preferable to one that consisted only of cited information. Was it simply because it fitted most closely their own synthesised view of the subject matter? Alastairward (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastairward, you are bringing a debate from the RTT talk page here, and also doing so without giving context. There I argued and showed that no synthetic conclusions are drawn. It is a common trend in your replies to take specific words from the prior post and just argue its opposite. So for context, and as was indicated by the admin commenting in that talk page, no synthetic claims are made. Miqademus (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment refers to this article and this revert. Instead of moving forward with the discussion, you preferred to revert to an older version of this article, with a an verified bit of information at the start of the article.
 * Since there is precious little to this article as it is, why start pushing unverified information? Alastairward (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also did a little check, on the RTT talk page there was only one person who seemed to be talking about synthesis, you Miqademus. An interesting assessment of the article was provided by another user though. Mentioned sourcing a lot... Alastairward (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)