Talk:Spacebase DF-9

History
Hi ,

WP:VG/GL does say that the history of a game should be mentioned, but the development is its history. Having "history" as a sectionheading with development, release etc. as subsections is unnecessary. Case in point: BioShock, Fallout 3, Super Mario Bros. or Dishonored; all good articles that do not have a section called "history". --Soetermans. T / C 16:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, no its not unnecessary. Development, release and the support time after are independent phases. "Development" is insufficient term in contrast to the whole "history (of an video game)", which goes far beyond the development phase. (Infact, the prevalence of "development" sections was pusehd by a now banned single author...) Shaddim (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That said, I think here the Development should be an H2, and the Post-release (including the controversy) as a second H2, as in very specifically for this game, it was the sudden cancellation of further development that made it more notable. --M ASEM (t) 17:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , could you explain what you mean with "Infact, the prevalence of "development" sections was pusehd by a now banned single author..."? And, do you think "history" is a good section header? --Soetermans. T / C 13:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Soetermans, while not directly relevant, I refer to Snaaake who made many computer game article edits with limited content but great structural impact, like enforcing a fixed structure on every article he touched. He ignored WP:VG/GL and other authors feedback and as far as I know he was banned for continued policy breaking. Shaddim (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for my late reply. Oh I am very familiar with Niemti/HanzoHattori/SNAAAAKE!!; arguably one of my least favorite interactions with another editor. --Soetermans. T / C 07:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)