Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games

What is the problem
WP:SYN is unclear. According to User:Father Goose:


 * "I've seen people invoke SYN any time a general claim is made about multiple sources, especially primary sources. That is conceivably OR (if the claim is contested) but not SYN. SYN only applies to when a claim in one source is combined with a claim in another to distort what the first one said. That is clearly what the example provided under WP:SYN is referring to."

I have seen the same problem at many video game articles. Not so much about individual games, but articles about a genre or series. Let me offer a few hypothetical examples:


 * A game series: It might be true and verifiable that the first game in a series has an airship. It might also be true and verifiable that the second game in a series has an airship. But to make an article about the game series that says "all games in the series have an airship" might constitute synthesis. It requires a synthesis of two sourced facts that have not been made by another source.


 * A game genre: It might be true and verifiable that one strategy game has a technology tree. It might true and verifiable that another strategy game has a technology tree. But to say "many strategy video games use technology trees" might constitute original research, because there might not be a reliable piece of research that made this synthesis.

Do these two examples constitute original research? Do they violate WP:SYN? Or are they examples of good synthesis, and good summary?

Examples of problem

 * Space trading and combat simulator - arguably a violation of WP:SYN. But removing the references would result in this article being completely unsourced, and thus deletion fodder.


 * Common elements of Final Fantasy - potential violations of WP:SYN, but absolutely nothing that isn't true


 * 4X - potential violations of WP:SYN, but absolutely nothing that isn't true

I can dig up further examples if necessary. But my point is that these are relatively good articles (sometimes great articles) that might technically violate a policy.

Scope and importance of the problem
This is a problem that affects many articles according to other editors, not just video games as I originally thought. Several disputes have gone on because of differing interpretations of this policy.

However, WP:SYN is generally a good policy. We need to make sure it still weeds out what it needs to weed out.

Proposed Solution #1
Amend and clarify WP:SYN to allow WP:V, WP:NPOV generalizations about multiple sources:


 * Compiling several pieces of research to make a generalization is not a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYN, so long as this generalization involves no inventiveness, interpretation, or insight. This kind of generalization must still meet the standards of WP:V and WP:NPOV. If this generalization is verifiable, then it should also be possible (in theory) that someone can offer a counter-example. Speculation would violate WP:CRYSTAL.

(This is a work in progress.)