Jump to content

Talk:Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ludoyo's vandalism edits

[edit]

Ludoyo, regarding your removal of the entire Supreme_Commander:_Forged_Alliance#Community support section that has been around for years:

23:51, 20 September 2022‎ Ludoyo 15,543 bytes −5,208‎ Removing the Community support section. Not enough significant coverage in reliable source for both mods

The reason you provided was:

Not enough significant coverage in reliable source for both mods

But when you actually follow the link to significant coverage and do a quick search for "significant coverage", this is what you will find:

  • "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
  • '"significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article."
  • "Why we have these requirements > We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list."

I'll break it down for you:

  1. The guideline you quoted clearly states "significant coverage" is only a requirement for stand-alone articles (A).
  2. FAF/LOUD are sub-sections (B), not "stand-alone article", "whole article" or "its own articles".
  3. A =/= B
  4. "significant coverage" does not apply to the FAF/LOUD in the Community Support sub-section

I can't make it any more simpler.

Read the actual guidelines before quoting them, try it, it's not hard, it benefits everyone if you read them first before using them as the reason to remove entire sections of the article.

Better yet, apply basic etiquette and state your intent here and ask for a second opinion before making big removals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Maintainer (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Units

[edit]

Are people going to add 100 units in this list?. Has this will violate WP:NOT and many others. So i feel the best thing to do is to add all the units and all sort of info which can not be added in wikipedia can be entered here.--SkyWalker 07:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've removed the list. Good call. --Eyrian 10:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"New Race the Seraphim"

[edit]

Is this confirmed somewhere? I've heard this as rumors, but I'm not sure it is established enough to post yet.

Darthirv 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the gamespot interview --SkyWalker 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are rumors on the internets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.161.253.164 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

This should be merged with Supreme Commander until more information is available. Smaller expansions are generally discussed in the parent article, and this expansion is small until we hear more. --User:Krator (t c) 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to redirect until there is enough information, and to keep an eye out for when the time comes to split. References should be pretty clean to integrate.--Clyde (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate - This is not an expansion - it is a completely stand alone game. Fosnez 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate - No Way, This is a expansion set and a standalone game and deserves a separate article. What is this world coming to..?. --SkyWalker 07:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate - Eventually all info regarding this game will become available - if u merge now we will eventually need to split it again. ``Miffy900 09:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

is it possible to include stuff stated in previews, or is that a breach of copyright? Also, how encyclopedic? frankly tired of citing web. Cuo 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can include info from previews. I suggest you visit some featured article to gain more inf such has StarCraft, Supreme Commander and many more. --SkyWalker 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citing web from the start is a good practise. I personally filled in 50 cite web templates on the Supreme Commander article, which ultimately got promoted to FA. Citing sources is important. Note that citing is never a breach of copyright. Copying sentences is, copying information is not - (unless it is patented - does not apply here). --User:Krator (t c) 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone nature

[edit]

The term "standalone" may be confusing to some readers, especially considering what little is known of the expansion pack's pricing scheme and the content it will contain. It makes it sound like the expansion will have everything the original did, which seems like it might make customers who purchased the original more than a bit angry. I'm not sure if there is a page on the wikipedia regarding the computer game industry's usage of the term "standalone" but I think perhaps a section about its content and pricing in regards to its independence from the original game may be warranted. Of course that may be hard if not much is known to the public, so I'm wondering if anybody here has any information or knows of any articles that have any information regarding the more business-related aspects of this product? 69.124.142.33 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you look at Dark Crusade. It is a standalone expansion for warhammer 40K. It can either be installed if you have the copy of Winter Assault and Dawn of War. If they don't have this game there is no problem they can still play Dark Crusade without the need of those two games which i mentioned. Same thing goes for Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. It does not need supreme commander to play this game.--SkyWalker 09:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box Art

[edit]

I do believe that the box art has been released on Amazon.com or the forums. Not sure if u can just take these pics, but would make a nice addition to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjohansen (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forged Alliance has been released

[edit]

As of November 6, 2007, Forged Alliance is avaliable for purchase in the USA. Nov. 20th is the release date for europe. UEF Soldier (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the system requirements? I don't see them anywhere. --Simpsons fan 66 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My minor edits

[edit]

Okay, here's what I changed:

- Clarified the status of a "standalone expansion", to point out that without an installed copy of the original, you can't play online as the Aeon, the Cybrans, or the UEF

- Edited the number of new units. The back of the game box does boast over 100 new units, this is true, but the overwhelming majority of those belong to the new faction (and whether the Seraphim versions of mass extractors, engineers, and walls really count as "new" is debatable). Thus while the "100 new units" claim is technically true, it is somewhat misleading. I clarified instead with a statement that the other three faction get "several" new units. 66.183.197.172 (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Whoops, forgot to log in. The above is me. Will the Great (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Someone really needs to change..

[edit]

..the bit about Forged Alliance being "further optimized for better performance". The original game runs ten times faster on my system than Forged Alliance. Maybe FA was optimized for SPECIFIC hardware/driver sets. And I'm not running exotic hardware by any means, before you ask. 214.13.173.15 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree 100% that the original game runs considerably smoother then the allegedly optimized expansion, the alleged optimizing is documented in many places (such as http://www.games32.com/Supreme-Commander-Forged-Alliance-(PC)-Reviews/p2000_articleid/474/p2000_page/2) and our position that it runs more slowly then the original would be original research. Unless we can get a cite for it being slower, should stay as is for now, IMHO. Ouze (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OP here. So as long as it's quoted on some site (regardless of its reputability), it holds more water on Wikipedia than original research. Kinda silly. Come to think of it, isn't "original research" the only real kind of research? Everything else is plagiarism.... I know I'm arguing for a lost cause, but eh! 214.13.173.15 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forged Alliance runs much slower if you have range circles turned on. Turn them off and you'll see a significant performance boost.Ziiv (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Designer info

[edit]

The lead designer on the project was actually Bradley Rebh, not Chris Taylor. This update was made. Credits will confirm this, and can confirm this as a member of the team (not Brad). Anon66.162.141.145 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic User scores are NOT Reliable Sources

[edit]

To those who think otherwise please read WP:VG/USERREVIEW and discuss why it does not apply in this instance. If a consensus can be reach that it in fact does not apply then, and only then, should the edit warred bit of content can stand.
For the record the I vote it does apply and the content remain out. -Oosh (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A number of problems here.
Oosh has stated that metacritic user scores are not reliable sources, without specifying what this is referring to. In fact, metacritic user scores are the primary source for metacritic user scores. This is relevant because the content removed by Oosh specifically states that the ratings reported are based on metacritic user scores, speficifally "...the second all time highest average user score ..." Oosh would have a point in claiming that "metacritic user scores are not a reliable source", if this source was used to support a statement such as, "Forged Alliance is the second best RTS game ever made"
Furthermore the wikipedia article referenced by Oosh, to support his assertion, establishes the unreliability of user reviews based on the fact that they are a self-published source. This is undenyable, but does not apply to the case in question, since the removed content was not based on one, but on 133 different users. For example, if the removed content was a quote from a single user published review then Oosh would be justified in removing this material, since such a system could be easily abused and wikipedia should be protected from such manipulation.
The second point raised in the wikipedia article referenced by Oosh, is that sometimes average user scores are affected by "trolling" review scores, where gamers assign a low score for a reason not based on the quality of the game. This has not been the case for Forged Alliance and is therefore not applicable to the current situation. If such was the case then it would not be appropriate to use user scores as a measure of the game quality, however the reception section of the wikipedia article would be the approprate place to warn the reader that the user scores available for this game have been subject to "trolling"
There are at least two reasons why inclusion of user scores from metacritic are especially important for Forged Alliance. The fact that the average user score is so unusually high even after 133 user ratings is a statement about the quality of the game and should be made more visible. The fact that these rating are spread out over a period of six years is a testament to the fact they are not the result of organized manipulation attempting to make the game look better than it really is. :Furthermore the available professional reviews for the game are from 6 years ago and are influenced by the fact that computer hardware was not available to run the game smoothly in most situations and a large fraction of potential gameplay had been obscured for years as a result.
To summarize, 133 average user scores do not fall under "self-published source", to date are the best unbiased testament about the game available and will be valuable information to wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One or one million, self-published is self-published, and drawing conclusions from raw data is Original Research (see: WP:OR). If you can find a WP:RS that discusses the game's enduring popularity, a retrospective on it perhaps, that supports the claims then put it in.
Furthermore, this is not the place to discuss the validity of these policies. Take it to the relevant project group if you think it should be changed. Until then they have no place in this, or any other, article. -Oosh (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You misunderstood. One is different than data compiled based on one million, especially when this data is compiled by a reputable source that specialized in such data collection. Please reread the wiki article that you linked about user-review. The content you removed does not come from any single user review. It comes from work done by www.metacritic.com in compiling ratings from 133 separate registered users. This is not original research, this is research done by www.metacritic.com using data collected from its users. The removed content had been correctly cited and does not fall into any offending category that you have suggested, please put the content back into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.34.193 (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say wikipedia is full of spineless trolls. Unsourced or poorly sourced materials... I encourage people to take a closer look at this and see just how pathetic this is. Didn't even bother to read what was stated in the talk page, instead just abuse your power to censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.34.193 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC) To show just how bad this is observe how you can find the source that has been deemed unreliable: Step 1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VG/RS Step 2. In the locating reliable sources section follow the link to Reliable Sources for Video Games, https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq Step 3. Search "Real Time Strategy", the second result is a link to metacritic rating, where you have 4 choices for ranking, one of these four choices is user score. This is precisely what was cited in the removed content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.34.193 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engaging in ad hominem attacks will not further your argument. Metacritic is an agreggator, it does no research or analysis, therefore aggregations of WP:RS are fine for inclusion but aggregations of WP:SPS are not. You do not change the fundamental nature of WP:SPS's by gathering them in large numbers.
If you have a problem with this, or WP:VG/GL more specifically, then there are forums in which to do so. Starting an edit war in the article of your particular interest is not the way to go. Or, as I said before, try to find a WP:RS that discusses the enduring popularity of this game and how it has grown to outstrip what critics initially thought of it (which was high praise already) and add to the article accordingly.
I'm sorry you feel persecuted in this, but I have no more power to request administrator action than you do, the ruling has simply gone against you in this instance.
- Oosh (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not ad hominem" attacks. Specific issues have been raised that were completely ignored. Your statements such as "Metacritic is an aggregator it does not research and analysis" and "You do not change the fundamental nature of WP:SPS's by gathering them in large numbers." are your opinions and are actually false. Taking an average, is analysis. In general objects in large numbers have very different properties than individual objects. If averages were the same as individual values, then there would be no point in polls at all. The biggest problem with what you have done is that you applied an inappropriate reason for removal of the content. You used, 'user reviews' and 'user ratings' interchangeably, then were too stubborn to admit your mistake. Your contribution to wikipedia is to censor, not to protect content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

If language like "spineless trolls", accusations of censorship and attempting to cast doubts on my motives, are not ad hominem then I don't know what is. This argument has become circular in nature, it seems we will never agree, I tried to educate you but have little interest in engaging further esp. with someone hiding behind anonymous IP edits.
The fact remains this recent kerfuffle has seen the article locked for "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content", which kind of speaks for itself, there really is no further debate to be had IMO.
- Oosh (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOG FAF GAMERANGER AND SQUAREENIX

[edit]

https://www.gameranger.com/games/


https://www.faforever.com/2020/06/bad-news-for-gog-users


FAF requires steam, GOG doesn't get FAF, gog talks to square, maybe it happens. until then GOG supcom can play on gameranger. someone else write it though i've already been shat on by an admin who deleted my contribution so this is as far as im going. 2006 wikipedia was way less bureaucratic and IT GOT SHIT FUCKING DONE Mirddes (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"LOUD Project"

[edit]

To Winner 42: Regarding your decision to repeatedly remove the "LOUD Project" section, I see 3 main problems:

1. Who gets to decide what is a reliable source, why you, what is your background and credentials? Did you visit the website referenced, and do your own research with the vast amount of information on it, before deciding it's not reliable? Have you even played the game? The project has been around for a decade, it's well known within the FA community.

2: Unprofessional and vague description of your actions. It's not helpful to others who has to clean up your mess when you walk around Wikipedia and throw WP:RS around randomly removing stuff then call it a day. Be more thorough with your description, do you believe the official website is not a reliable source? Why? Does it have a bad track record? The paragraph you removed is just a standard description of the mod, you'd know the accuracy of it if you follow the website referenced and do your own research, or simply play the mod. Or watch some videos of it.

3: Double standard. Let's assume we have noting better to do, so we go around the net with an pedantic attitude, and arrange the world into our comfort zone of rigid orderliness, out of the irrational fear of chaos, slow intuition and the inability to quickly adapt to unknown situations, then instead of admitting it's not really necessary, we virtue signal and tell everyone, including ourselves, that what we're doing is for the betterment of mankind. Let's go with it, and remove all paragraphs on Wikipedia that are not referenced by famous, powerful, reputable and "reliable" sources (Subjective, but let's just pretend our standards are objective universal truth).

In that case, after we remove half the pages on Wikipedia, we arrive back to this page, and the first thing we'll do is remove the entire "Forged Alliance Forever" section, (which sits above the Loud Project paragraph you removed). Why? Because in the FAF section, the part "The client features many upgrades to the official one" is not backed up by any sources, let alone "reliable" ones, next, the part "the FAF community has continued to balance and patch the game" is also not referenced, where is the link to the patches? How can we tell it's the truth? REMOVE. The part "Several new modes are also available" is also not referenced, REMOVE.

Then we remove half of the rest of the page for the same reason.

You may think you're helping but you're not, the original game runs extremely slow an hour or 2 into a large game (that's usually when things get really interesting), the LOUD mod solves that problem, and offer a good game play experience for those who want to play a long game with large number of units.

You are reducing the chance of those who came to this page looking for nostalgia finding the MOD and relive a good experience.

Like I said, STOP FKING AROUND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Maintainer (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki Maintainer: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia does not include every mod of every game that's on moddb. A reliable source from a third party is necessary to establish inclusion of material like this. The section on Forged Alliance Forever has reliable sources from both PC Gamer and Eurogamer. If the LOUD project is covered in sources like these, it may also merit inclusion in the article, but you have not provided those. I'll also caution you to avoid personal attacks as they are not constructive and can lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'd also advise you to read the policy on No original research as it may clarify some of your questions about how Wikipedia uses sources. W42 22:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I repeat: Over half of the Forged Alliance Forever section is not referenced by anything, and are "unreliable" and has "no original research" by your definition, which you clearly decided to ignore over and over again, double standard.
And PC Gamer and Eurogamer as "reliable source"? LOL
Quick look up:
1, PC Gamer, well known to be biased, 1.7 star on trustpilot [1]
2, Reddit: Why is PC Gamer's glaring conflict of interest with Epic not widely condemned? [2]
3, Eurogamer Exposed: Bias Journalist Hurts The Game Industry[3]
4, NintendoToday: Eurogamer lied about SEGA's Wii U graphics quote[4]
5, The Contemptible Games Journalist: Why So Many People Don’t Trust The Gaming Press[5]
There are more.
Your so called "Reliable Source" in the end are nothing more than subjective opinions backed by financial interests.
Hiding behind words like "authority" "reliable" while applying double standard based on personal preference and siding with the "bigger guy", ignoring the actual effect in reality is why people can't take you seriously.
"Oh this is not cited, that is not cited, this is not reliable, that is not reliable", but the entire paragraph above for another mod is full of 404s and statements with zero reference.
Of all the things in the world you can do, of all the text in the article, you made the choice to nitpick on the LOUD Project section and ignored everything around it?
Be consistent or be quiet.
I'd advise you to get off that imaginary ivory tower, people choosing to nitpick and go heavy hand on the underdog, while turning a blind eye on the big guy and their friends, is why the world in in shambles.
This is the truth and you know it. Wiki Maintainer (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Existing consensus is that PC Gamer and Eurogamer are reliable sources. You should consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for what sources are acceptable to support inclusion. If you want to argue that PC Gamer is not reliable, that is the place to do so, but it's extremely unlikely that you'll get consensus to change it.
Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." So simple statements of fact about features or dates can be supported by such sources. Although the section definitely needs some work with repairing deadlinks and such.
What you need to do if you want the section to remain on the article is to find a source similar to the PC Gamer source for FAF to support the section on the LOUD Project's inclusion, two random blogs will not be sufficient. The source should be listed here. W42 16:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To (User:Ludoyo and User:Winner_42):
You two kept citing the same rules over and over, but none of you have cited one of the five pillars of Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia has no firm rules"

Nor two of the most important fundamental principles of Wikipedia:

"Use common sense"

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

I'll apply patient and spell it out to both of you, again.
This is where all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines begin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

Click on it to find this right at the top:

"Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules"

"Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."

Scroll down to the Role section:

"Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules"

"Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow."

"Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

"Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more."

Scroll down to the Adherence section:

"Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; Rules have occasional exceptions."

Now go to the Use common sense section of What Ignore all rules means:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means#Use_common_sense

Read:

"Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules"

"Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing."

"Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective"

"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule."

"The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both."

Then read:

Q: Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy?

A: It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

Then read the diagram and flowchart of ignore all rules:

Suppose you have an idea…

  • Are you sure that your idea is a good one by common sense and that it improves the encyclopedia?
    • No: DON'T DO IT
    • Yes:
      • Does it break the rules?
        • No: DO IT
        • Yes:
          • Is that because the rules are wrong?
            • No: Ignore the rules and DO IT
            • Yes: Change the rules and DO IT
Take note that "common sense" and "that it improves the encyclopedia" are the ultimate considerations above all else.
Now go to Wikipedia:Understanding IAR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR

Read:

Two important implications of this policy are:

  • "You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are."
  • "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way."
Now go to the "Wikipedia:WIARM" version of Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIARM

Read:

"Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind."

"Rules are for fools."

"By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist."

"The rules are only barriers to keep children from falling."

"Give me the judgment of balanced minds in preference to laws every time. Codes and manuals create patterned behavior. All patterned behavior tends to go unquestioned, gathering destructive momentum."

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."

Then read:

"You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating."

"Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below)."

"Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors (see also Wikipedia:Consensus)."

"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles)."

"Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you."

Now go to "The rules are principles":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_rules_are_principles

Read:

"Wikipedia rules are principles, not laws. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles."

"They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some common sense and discretion."

Then read "Purpose of the principles":

"The principles, and accompanying rules, on Wikipedia are solely intended towards creating and distributing a free, quality encyclopedia to everyone. The requirements of verifiability, reliable sourcing and other content rules seem the "most obvious" to many contributors. However, all the principles are equally central to this goal. The principle underlying the behavioral rules allows us to work towards a healthy collaborative environment for contributors. The principle underlying our non-free content criteria is intended to ensure we protect the mission of a free encyclopedia. The rules exist to support Wikipedia's mission and should be interpreted in that context."

Then read "Context is everything":

"Each individual case will have its own context. While the rules are useful for the most common circumstances, often there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied. For example, whether a small press publication can be considered a reliable source depends on a number of factors. Does the publishing house have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is the author a notable or respected expert in relation to the subject of the work? There are many other factors that could be considered. We cannot absolutely determine whether such small publishers (as a single group) are reliable or unreliable, so it is unlikely that the rules will specifically address such a group. Context and editorial discretion are essential in such judgments."

Then read "Ignore all rules":

"Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia. In those cases, we should be bold and do what is best. In the same spirit, the letter of policy will always fall short of completely encompassing the spirit of policy. We should feel free to do whatever is most faithful to the spirit of the policy, whether or not the specific circumstance is spelled out in the policy. Nobody owns articles, so if you see a problem you can fix, do so."

Now repeat after me:

Principles of common sense and the interests of the encyclopedia > specific rules and policies.

Are we clear?
If not, read everything above again, I'll wait.
It is important that you actually read and understand what the Wikipedia's principles are about before continuing, or you may keep swinging the same rules over and over again like they are the only things that matter in the universe, not realizing that's not what Wikipedia is about.
Moving on, here is an existing Wikipedia article in similar context, the "The Settlers II" article:

The_Settlers_II

Read the Legacy section:

"Return to the Roots (originally Settlers 2.5), also written primarily in C++, is an attempt to recreate the original Settlers II, whilst introducing elements not found in the original game, such as online multiplayer..."

Take note that "Return to the Roots" has no reference to any reliable source (video games).
How the Settlers_II article is similar to the Supreme_Commander:_Forged_Alliance article:
  1. Both are games released over a decade ago.
  2. Both have become classics in their own genres.
  3. Both still have very dedicated followings today.
  4. Both have community created, free and open-sourced improvement of the original game.
  5. Both have Wikipedia articles.
  6. Both articles have a section which mentions the open-sourced continuation, with no reference to reliable source (video games) (at least for "Return to the Roots").
  7. Both sections have remained for years informing readers where the modern community continuation of the game is today.
You two (User:Ludoyo and User:Winner_42) are now advised to:
  1. Stop swinging that rule book around like nothing else matters and learn why the rules were created in the first place (read above).
  2. Stop leaving garbage and threats in my talk page, I am not interested in what you think or what you want people to do, until you've demonstrated basic etiquette and that you actually know what you are doing, for example show me you've actually read and understood the basic principles of Wikipedia (read above), not just a specific rule somewhere.
  3. Show basic etiquette and respect towards others, use the talk page to state your intentions and ask for opinions before making big moves such as removing entire sections that have been around for years. Work towards reaching consensus and mutual understanding, instead of seeking immediate control over everything and everyone. Things would have been very different if you two have simply chosen to post here first and ask for a second opinion.
  4. Understand the fact that in life, if you walk around repeatedly hitting people in the head with the rule book that don't even apply, eventually someone will call you out. Don't then turn around and complain about being treated with the same level of disrespect you've been dishing out. Try to appreciate the fact that someone, despite disagreeing with your decisions and your methods, actually had the patient to think in your point of view, identified the flaws in your thinking, and then spelled it out to you. Like it or not, it took time to write, and these chances don't come often, you always have the choice to double down, or use this chance to transform into a better version of yourself.
  5. Know that this is a game article, consider letting people have fun and enjoy a bit of nostalgia, live and let live. The fact that people are still writing review and making video of these game mods so many years later, should be a strong enough indication of their relevance to the original game.
  6. Understand that, even if you really don't like the section, or at this moment you truly believe a few select rules are the only things that matters, or someone or something somewhere have hurt you and made you feel powerless, and now you need some control back in your life, whatever your reasons are, only you will truly know, but removing an entire section of Wikipedia talking about an old game, and then insisting it stay removed, does not really help you or anybody, think outside the box, explore different perspectives, start by asking yourself why are you really removing the sections, what made you decide that a single rule is more important than the whole, and what made others think otherwise.
  7. The sections you two repeatedly removed aren't of some random mod someone created and then abandoned within a month, they have been around for a decade and are still actively being developed, they are actually carrying the torch for the original game. People are still making videos and writing reviews and blogs for these mods (referenced in the sections). It would not be fair, based on Wikipedia principles, to discriminate against them for no longer being relevant enough to draw the attention of "video game reliable sources". Some people visit this article for the nostalgia of the original game, it may interest them to know that not only are there still communities around the game all these years later, but people have actually created open-sourced improvements of the original game, and they may want to check them out. Remember, "common sense" and "that it improves the encyclopedia" are the ultimate considerations above all else. "Legacy" sections (or their equivalents) are common amongst classics, having "reliable source" or not.
  8. Understand that I've already made multiple edits to improve the "community support" section as close to the policies as possible, and have explained in the talk page why the section is beneficial for Wikipedia and its readers, while all you two have done are, 1) Ignore them 2) kept swinging a few rules around as if nothing else mattered, and 3) removed entire section(s) while showing no regards for the basic principles of Wikipedia, and the negative impacts your actions will have on others.
  9. Understand that this article is not your own backyard, don't remove entire sections that have been around for years without seeking consensus, and stop your tit-for-tat section removal, until you can explain why, based on common sense Wikipedia principles, it is more beneficial to Wikipedia and its readers to have the entire "community support"/FAF/LOUD section removed, instead of keeping it around.

Wiki Maintainer (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Maintainer, read what is not vandalism if you're going to name a section this. Ludoyo (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are making this vastly more complicated than it has to be. You just need to find 1 reliable source that covers this mod and then it will merit inclusion. Citing WP:IAR to include material not reliably sourced is clearly not in the interest of Wikipedia and definitely not the purpose of WP:IAR. You claim I haven't cited the pillars, but I already cited WP:NOT and you seem to want to cited IAR in order to ignore WP:V which is a core principle of Wikipedia. I did go ahead and remove the section on Return to the Roots though in Settlers II, that paragraph also did not merit inclusion because it lacked a reliable source.
Try to look at this from the perspective of Wikipedia, if we allowed every mod that exists to have a paragraph or section, the encyclopedia would be flooded with unreliable information of dubious usefulness. Wikipedia is a not a directory of non-notable mods to videogames, it is an encyclopedia, so please provide a reliable source covering LOUD or content covering it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. W42 14:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "1.7 star on trustpilot".
  2. ^ "Reddit: Why is PC Gamer's glaring conflict of interest with Epic not widely condemned?".
  3. ^ "Eurogamer Exposed: Bias Journalist Hurts The Game Industry".
  4. ^ "Eurogamer lied about SEGA's Wii U graphics quote".
  5. ^ "The Contemptible Games Journalist: Why So Many People Don't Trust The Gaming Press".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Commander:_Forged_Alliance&oldid=1205515844"