MOBA page edit
Yesterday, I've put up a quick edit on the page of MOBA games that was meant to be a basic backbone of a separate topic of information when it comes to that genre. The edit was quick and dirty, so I have no problem with it being removed, however, I'd still like to add a section to that page about this topic, this time, hopefully, for good.
Thus I came here asking for a guideline. My edit was shut down stating: "...provide reliable non-primary sources covering this," as a basic area it needs to be better in to be accepted. After some thinking about it, I've still got problems settling on what exactly was meant by that. Do I have to find references from gaming journalist sites to legitimze my edit (like this one: "Gamasutra Q&A with Gabe Newell", Gamasutra.com, 3. question and the response to it), or is there something else in particular that needs to be done to make the edit fit your idea of a proper way of putting the topic to the public?
- Hi. What you need are reliable, secondary sources covering the exact material you add. I'm afraid MOBA and the naming issue is a contested area and high quality sourcing is expected to make broad changes or bold statements. For example, "There is a persistent naming issue when it comes to this genre of games, which splits the general public into two groups" is a very big statement and it should be trivial to find dozens of sources to support this if it is indeed accurate.
- Interview with Newell is a primary source and not a secondary one, because he himself talks about something his own company is making and promoting. This is a serious conflict of interest, and we cannot use his Q&A to source anything but the fact that he "calls the game ARTS" (he doesn't even say "genre"). In the end, we go by what the media (such as WP:VG/RS) says. A good rule of thumb is to first find a source and then add the material from it instead of thinking up material and then finding sources for it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Your definition of producer
As stated on the Template:Infobox VG documentation, the producer field is for:
The popular name(s) of the game producer(s), who were in charge of the overall production of the game. The name(s) can be wikilinked.
- List only the person credited specifically with the title "producer"
- Do not list the "executive producer" or other "sub"-producer credits, as they are not generally as intimately involved in a game's development
- If three or more people are credited as "co-producer" discuss who is the "main" producer and list that person
- List the "creative producer" only if said person's involvement in the game is discussed in the development section
Seeing as Mark Morris is the producer of the game, and he fits in with criteria 1 in the above list, I have a hard time seeing why you feel it is not. Osarius - Want a chat? 14:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad, I was thinking publisher not producer. Yeah, producer can have known/notable persons listed. I'm not sure Morris fits the "popular" part, but I won't argue about that. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed this addition to the Reference Library and wanted to say thanks. Non-English sources are relatively rarer and WP:VG could stand to see a lot more diversity of its sources. Early Russian sources in particular are fascinating to me due to their guileless coverage of obvious pirate material. You get the same thing to a lesser extent in early Portuguese sources. And I'm guessing older Chinese sources may be the same but I have no idea if sources like that even exist. Anyway it was nice of you to offer to share this source. -Thibbs (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I noticed the lack of foreign language sources and I happen to speak Russian, so I can review those, Igromania being the largest (although they have many of the reviews online). And yes, they were ridiculously non-caring about pirated games. But then again, you could hardly buy any full legal games short of importing; everything was sold on cheap CDs in actual stores with cracks included. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)