Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/28 July 2011/Games for Windows

Where is the dispute?
Talk:Games for Windows

Who is involved?

 * User:VividNinjaScar
 * User:Darkquest21
 * User:FleetCommand

Acceptance of Mediation
Do the parties to this case agree for Steve Zhang to mediate the dispute? Indicate your acceptance or rejection below by signing your name with agree or disagree. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  22:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - I feel Mouse was fully capable, but whatever works. VividNinjaScar (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept - Fleet Command (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
This is probably the most peaceful case ever: I simply want three additional input from three different Wikipedians into the matter. (More than three is also good.) I could call three friends of mine but the would not be neutral, would it? Especially, since I'd rather have consensus instead of vote. This place seemed to most suitable place.

The dispute is this: I propose that the infobox link to the Games For Windows website, as Manual of Style (Computing) suggests, should be gamesforwindows.com instead of the current marketplace.xbox.com/PC – or at least the former should also be included along the latter. The reason is simple: Ease of memorizing the link! It is easier to remember that Games for Windows is available at GamesForWindows.com instead of "market place dot ecks box dot com slash pi si".

What would you like to change about this?
I prefer having three additional inputs, detailing whether my proposition is good or bad. (Or perhaps propose a third course of action.) That's all. I believe there are more than three mediators attending to this area, so this should not be a problem.

How do you think we can help?
The mediator can supply his own input and then invite two other mediators to tag along.

Mediator notes

 * I've archived all previous discussions to the talk page. I think it best we start off fresh and with a clean slate. I have been asked to mediate this dispute however think it appropriate for the parties to agree to myself mediating it as I have given my thoughts on this dispute previously, and the parties may prefer a fresh set of eyes. If you all agree to me mediating, I will lay some ground rules, which I will also need your agreement to, and then we will proceed. Sounds good? Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ground rules

 * Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature,
 * Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little.
 * MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to abide by the outcome of this case.

Please sign just your username below, with four tildes (~) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.

Discussion
Oh goody. This may have resolved itself but I'll keep an eye out just in case. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  11:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since everything was archived, I take it we should start from square one. My main reasoning for not wanting the Gamesforwindows.com URL to be listed alongside the new Xbox.com URL, is the chance that the redirect will be taken down eventually. Microsoft does have a history of this in cases where the URL is no longer relevant, I have listed Shadowrun.com as an example. If Gamesforwindows.com is what people come to know the URL as, they may think that it was taken down all together when it stops redirecting. I am also disputing his reasoning for it, being that the URL is shorter and therefor easier to remember. While it is indeed shorter, there are other links, owned by Microsoft, that redirect to the exact same place, Gfw.com and Gfwl.com both do this. Those are both shorter than the URL in question.  If anyone were to look over the conversation on the discussion board of the article, they could see that his first reasoning behind it was that the website was still active. I had pointed out how Gamesforwindows.com wasn't listing the new games or deals that were on the Xbox.com domain. Although he could verify these things himself, he claimed it to be origional research, despite coming from a first party. The website was taken down within the week and replaced with the current redirect.  Finally, I've also questioned before as to why this is only an issue on the Games for Windows wiki and not the Games for Windows - Live page. I've not gotten a response to that yet, so I would like one if possible from Fleet. VividNinjaScar (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I could ask that discussion waits until we get agreement on both proceeding and the ground rules that follow, that would be best. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That one single exception should not give ground to such irrational fear from link rot. Windows.com, office.com, hotmail.com, skydrive.com, technet.com, sysinternals.com and foldershare.com are all alive. Why should GamesForWindows.com suddenly die, especially since Microsoft is making money out of it? As for Gfw.com and Gfwl.com, well keep them both! What is stopping you? In fact, WP:GACR says an article must be complete. No one has said "one link to rule them all".  As for Games for Windows - Live, in Wikipedia, we never discuss other stuff exists. Though perhaps I would have paid that article a visit and have changed the infobox URL parameter if I had known that it would not be contested. Fleet Command (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between those links you listed and this one is those sites are actively being supported. As I've said before, and I know you have passed this off as pure specualtion, Games for Window is going to be rebranded. It is currently considered the Xbox Live equivilant for the PC, but not quite the same. Microsoft has straight up said that Xbox Live will be supported in Windows 8, not Games for Windows - Live. That almost guarantees a rebranding is coming. Windows, Office, Hotmail and the rest you have listed are all names for currently supported systems. They have not be rebranded or dropped. I can give you lists of links that no longer work for software that is no longer being supported under Microsoft, if you would like that. For example encarta.msn.com, microsoft.com/windows/plus, microsoft.com/vizact, and, last but not least, shadowrun.com.VividNinjaScar (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are not just dead links; they are dead contents as well. I do not see why Microsoft should keep them. But the similarity of Games For Windows Marketplace with the redirects that I listed (as well as its difference with the redirects that you listed) is that the contents is not dead and is unlikely to die. Microsoft will continue to sell video games in forseeable future and the redirects will be redirected to another site. Besides, there is no mandate to keep links alive. If Games For Windows is a notable topic, then its website domain name must be kept in the article per WP:GACR criteria of having broad coverage. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are part history books too. I believe Encarta, Microsoft Plus! and Microsoft Vizact must keep those links. (Two of them are doing it.) And by the way, Hotmail is rebranded three times. Sysinternals is also rebranded. Fleet Command (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is actually the same situation. Those articles I mentioned were either shut down or replaced. Games for Windows could be considered replaced by Xbox Live. We don't know anything at this point to be honest, so this IS no doubt speculation. Since you mention those articles, I'd be fine if you listed Gamesforwindows.com so long as you note it as a former link.VividNinjaScar (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Condition accepted! Do we have a consensus now? Can I weep tears of joy or do something to that effect? Fleet Command (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)