Talk:Photopia

Untitled
I think this article needs to be completely rewritten or just scrapped. From what I've found on the web about this game, there doesn't seem to be enough to say about it to warrant an entire article. Maybe there is an existing list with which this can be merged? Aidalgol (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't defining this game "a piece of literature" inherently non-NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.221.30.243 (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Puzzleless, or not?
This page states "While Photopia is not a true example of puzzleless interactive fiction, it is regarded as a pioneer," while the Inform article lists "Photopia, by Adam Cadre, is generally credited as being the first truly puzzleless work of interactive fiction." I would presume one or both articles needs to be changed, or more information needs to be given to contextualize the various points of view. Jdavidb 19:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm changing this article to be in line with Inform.   &mdash;  Adam Conover &dagger; 21:44, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Quotemstr (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Photopia is a landmark in IF an won several awards for its groundbreaking narrative structure. It's a notable work and its page should stay.

Quotemstr (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot tag
I've added the Template:More plot tag to the article because I think the current plot is more of a teaser than a plot; it does not explain the whole narrative. As per Wikipedia's guidelines please discuss this issue here so we can reach a consensus rather than just removing the tag because you disagree with it. Freikorp (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not improve it instead of tagging it then? Tags are annoying and just make an article uglier, I'd sooner remove the whole paragraph than have that ugly tag on it. I don't think it's necessary or desirable to give a full narrative of every scene, and excessively detailed plots are not encouraged either. I know there is no prohibition on spoilers, but there's also no requirement that they be included. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be able to improve it myself as it has been years since I've played the game. I really think you've missed the point of tags. They are not a badge of shame. They might be annoying to you but to most editors they are helpful. It's a way of letting other editors know an article needs improving. They are one of the cornerstones of improving Wikipedia. I see tags on articles all the time and if it is within my capabilities to fix the issue, I take it upon myself to do so. In this case it is not; I don't have the time to play the game again just to write a plot. The tag was supposed to let someone who has played it recently know that it could use improvement.
 * Your plot was five sentences. There's an extremely big gap between five sentence and "excessive detail". Personally I would consider a five sentence plot to be extreme under-detail, but that itself wasn't the problem. I don't think it needed a full narrative of every scene either, I just thought it needed a full narrative. Plots need to let readers know how the narrative ends, not just say it is a 'tragedy' or a 'happy ending' and let them guess the rest. Freikorp (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeahh, I gotta agree with Freikorp here. The 'plot' earlier isn't a summary of the whole story, it's more or less a plot teaser which can be found behind a CD box for the game. If you were to write a proper plot section, please fill it in with the whole story from A-Z, albeit it be short. A tag won't harm your contribution though, other editors can use what you have written as a backbone for further plot expansion, so don't take it so hard. aNode   (discuss)  11:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Problem is just slapping a tag on someone's content contribution almost immediately after they make it doesn't come across as "friendly" at all. It comes across as sneering, lazy, negative, and unappreciative of others' efforts, like scribbling "please print more clearly" on a kid's essay. I am sure you can rationalize it away and cite this or that policy or guideline, but the fact remains that slapping a tag on someone's contribution while making no effort whatsoever to improve it is never going to be taken well by any editor, regardless of what policies you cite. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't just 'slap' the tag on there, I also left a detailed message on your talk page about why I put it there, encouraging conversation on the issue. I didn't need to to that. I would have been completely in my rights to just slap the tag there, but I didn't. I tried to communicate with you, though in your extremely rude reply on your talk page you made it clear you weren't interested in discussing the matter. You've chosen to take it badly. I don't take it personally when other people give me feedback on what needs improvement. The tag wasn't just for you, it was for the Wikipedia community. You might not have been interested in fixing the plot, but someone else might have been in the future. Freikorp (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Max, you do know right that tags aren't meant to degrade one's work. If your contribution was really as bad as you have seemingly described due to the tag addition, Freikorp or I would have immediately removed it from the page. Yet he still gave it a chance by tagging it for improvement, which means your initial work still has credit though it can be further improved. I suggest re-adding the plot section there with what you wrote,but keep the tag. I'll see what I can improve, alright? Just remember to add some sources with your plot due to WP:OR policies. aNode   (discuss)  02:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have at it, I'm done. The article may be better without a plot section anyway. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)