Talk:Quake III Arena

Cleanup of OR and POV in Techniques section

I have reverted the massive removal by TTN[1], and instead just cut the Techniques section from the article - this is the only bit that I feel needs serious cleanup, and it really does need it. It is rife with POV, OR and God knows what else. We can work on it on the talk page and then reintroduce it into the article when it is ready. It is located at Talk:Quake III Arena/Techniques. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What you want to do is chuck that section and just work on the gameplay section. If you intend to keep it in that list format, it is definite game guide material. Nemu 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, with the rest of the junk, do you see any of it on Halo: Combat Evolved? It, like this, is a shooter. It doesn't have anything like what I have removed. Nemu 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I say we had to model this on Halo? This is a completely multiplayer game - multiplayer topics are more important to the article. You have preiously been warned about mass removals without consensus and taking WP:BOLD too far - we need input from others before deciding either was, so for now, leave it as it was. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need more people. You need to provide an actual rational as to why this should not follow the format of the featured game articles (e.g. Halo, seeing as you didn't get the point of it). It has been half a month, and still, only you care. You are just wikilawyering by saying that it needs to go back because "the discussion isn't over." I have disputes over content often, but only do to stuff like this. Nemu 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Summary - The removal of large amounts of content was good.

This is a response to a request at WP:3O for a third opinion on a dispute. The dispute was summarized on the 3O page as the contested removal of a large amount of content. Please be aware that 3O is a non-binding informal process. It may be relevant to know that I answer a lot of requests for assessment at WikiProject:Video Games, and as such know quite some relevant "case law" to the issue.

An issue very common in those assessments is the prevalence of so-called game guide information in an article. Usually the game an article writes about is an obscure game, for example web-based MMORPGs or an arcade game from the 80s. These articles are filled with lists of weapons, lists of characters, lists of game modes and ten thousand methods to obtain points in a platform game.

If I would have assessed the pre-removal version of article, I would have most certainly written that the maps table, the Items section, and the Special Awards section should be removed without salvaging any content. Including the same sections for the expansion pack, of course. This was done without having a reviewer tell editors to do so on the article talk page, and I appreciate that. The main argument for this is found in a Wikipedia policy:

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Lists weapons, power-ups, and maps are called non-encyclopaedic content. A rule of thumb to self-assess if something is non-encyclopaedic content, is to ask yourself: "If this was a separate article, would it fail WP:N?" Note, there is an exception by consensus in the case of films, games, etc, and that is the exception of the plot summary. WP:NOT states: "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

We can now conclude that 90% of the removal was right. The nitpicking starts, because two small points remain:

• Removal of not only the maps table, but also of the maps section. A maps section should most certainly exist, but it should not list the maps. It should write about general characteristics of the maps (Urban, Desert, Forest?) and about notable user created maps (akin to DoA in WC3, which has had multiple newspaper articles covering it following Bassunter's dance track). I think deleting this section was not nice (though not bad either) - see also Balancer's excellent essay "Deletion is not a substitute for tagging".
• Removal of the comparison with Unreal Tournament section. I think this section has some merits, but that it should not exists if no reliable sources can be found. The above essay applies here too, that is true. But, whether reliable sources even exist is questionable here. Also, if a source is found, it may not support what is written at the moment, and a complete rewrite is needed anyway. Deletion is a good solution here I think.

Related to the above, remove the current Mods section, with the same WP:NOT reasoning. Keep the following three, as they have been covered by reliable sources: Weapons Factory Arena, Rocket Arena 3 and DeFRaG. Write a new Mods section, call it "Modifications" (Mods is Jargon, see WP:JARGON) and explain briefly the modifications, citing the three notable mods as examples. Find sources for it, too! Check the reliable sources the three have been covered by. Listing the other mods articles for deletion would be appropriate.

If further comments on how the article can be improved are wanted, please list it for WP:VG Assessment

--User:Krator (t c) 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The map section looked too "fanish" to bother keeping. I'm not against an actual section for it. The UT section seemed to have been tagged for a bit, and there wasn't even one source. It's just plain old OR. Nemu 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --User:Krator (t c) 09:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Krator, Thanks for your detailed Third Opinion. If you have noticed, there are separate articles for BFG 10K, Quad damage, Rocket jumping, Strafe running and techniques like that. Doesn't that too fail WP:N. These techniques, are atleast for me, a sort of original research. I understood your point. It seems that a lot of clean up is required in a lot of article on the video games portal, including articles on Unreal Tournament, for, I was shocked to find cheat codes!, (which I later removed). The best option I would see is that, there should be an article/essay elaborating on "how a video game article should be?" in the video games portal. This article should link each and every criteria/rule of wikipedia so that it's a becomes a one point reference. The article could detail about what all should be there and what all should not be there in a Video Game article based on the different criteria of Wikipedia. To assume what is non-encyclopedic based on rule of thumb is quite difficult, as people who contribute to a game are always so obsessed on it that, they try to write a "game guide" sort of article rather than the one like Halo: Combat Evolved. Now, Let's discuss on what should be done for articles like BFG 10K, Quad damage, Rocket jumping, Strafe running etc., Should that be marked for deletion? I don't think they qualify the WP:N. What do you people have on this?

TTN, I did not note the featured article Halo, when I first saw your purging. But any way it was quite informative, and hope it'll help in purging a lot other "un-wanted" stuff from many other video game articles.

Mugunth 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• The four articles named above should be listed for deletion, of which the result will probably be either delete or merge with First person shooter. I'll try to list them now.
• Most video game articles could indeed use a lot of work. I actually started working on writing an essay exactly like proposed above. See: User:Krator/VG Game Perfect Article. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you want to cooperate in writing this.

--User:Krator (t c) 09:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Right, I am indeed wholly repentant. I should probably join WP:CVG actually, to help do this kind of thing in an organised way... I'll work on the Mods section tonight. And could we at least just have a small list of the maps, maybe only in a table in an appropriate section - a single box with just a plain list, no descriptions? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The only mod with its own article that's been removed from that section is Urban Terror... which actually looks only just good enough for the article to exist. If someone wants to AfD it, please do, but I think it just about scrapes into the safe zone. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• What would be the purpose of a table with names of maps? Does it provide any useful information to a reader? See also Wikipedia:Listcruft. I am in favour of a maps section (or paragraph if too small) that includes the variety, scope and quantity of maps, but just listing them serves no purpose. Stating "Maps can range from forest to urban environment, and from small rooms to whole cities" is useful information on maps, for example.
• Urban Terror is a long article, but contains no independent reliable sources. If you can find any, feel free to include it as an example. Same applies for Instagib, which is still listed and should be removed. --User:Krator (t c) 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of modifications

I disagree with Krator's revision and statement that these mods are not notable. I have divided mods which notability is disputed into two groups:

Those we have an article in Wikipedia and debate of its notability should go to its talk page.

• Urban Terror Note: Article passed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Terror
• Orange Smoothie Productions

And those we have no article in Wikipedia and debate of its notability should go here.

• Challenge Pro Mode Arena (formerly Promode):

1. Promode physics became a default in several major professional competitions and leagues; there are also promode only professional competitions and leagues. [2] [3] [4].
2. Since it allows not only promode but also VQ3 physics and ruleset, and sinve it became a successor of OSP [5], CPMA became a default mod in some major vanilla Quake 3 competitions [6] [7].
3. Furthermore, the best proof of promode (and also osp, ra3) notability is tons of articles and discussions in Quake 3 related websites. It had also a strong community which can be seen in number of custom created videos and clans.

• Seasons Forever – MOTM ModDB
• True Combat – MOTM ModDB
• Western Quake 3 – MOTM ModDB

Comments:

• Instagib is not a mod, but the mode. This mode can be available by server settings or by _one of_ the Instagib mod. I have deleted Instagib from Modifications section and I suggest to add informations about Instagib in Game modes section. —Visor (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, then. The current section looks fine. Challenge Pro Mode Arena needs to be written though. --User:Krator (t c) 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the latest anon addition? Is that Mod notable? --User:Krator (t c) 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been featured as a Mod of the Week on Planetquake [8], although in my opinion is not enough to be notable. I couldn't find other proofs of this mod's notability so I've deleted it. —Visor (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mod of the week must mean that over a hundred mods have been featured that way - not very notable --User:Krator (t c) 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I PWned the mods section without reading the talk page first :) I didn't erase any of the mods that were there already, but I erased most of the description of their gameplay. Although some of that information is interesting, I couldn't figure out how to state it without being a list. I added three mods: Tremulous, World of Padman, and Western Quake 3. I think any total conversion mod is notable-- I don't know if you will find many newspaper articles on the subject though. WQ3 has few players, but it is under active development with a Stand Alone version forthcoming. Furthermore, as in Tremulous the players are VERY dedicated. I think they are notable because they are free and open source and cross platform unlike 99 percent of video games. Tremulous is more popular today than Quake 3 is today in terms of players. People will probably still be playing some descendant of Tremulous long after Quake 3 has been forgotten. But I may be biased because I like WQ3. As for mods vs. modifications -- if its not in the dictionary yet, it should be. I hope the articles on the individual mods stay--I think it can slide in under notable in its specific context. An argument for the notability of strafe jumping etc.: This applies to so many games based on the Q3 engine, everything from Jedi Knight to Wolf ET, I think from the pure number of games it might just become notable. Well, thats all (play WQ3) Puddytang 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of bots

I have removed from text bots added by Mister Krubbs [9]. However, Mister Krubbs claims there are notable because of Google results [10]. Get a reference and proofs of notability before adding. See also WP:NOTE and WP:NFT. —Visor (talk · contribs) 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See also: WP:BIGNUMBER. --User:Krator (t c) 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is nice to see how user Visor whose name suggests his is an author of some bots for Quake censors his rivals in Wikipedia. WP:AUTO?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Krubbs (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored. Assume good faith please. The bots/mods removed were not notable and had not been covered by reliable sources, and were removed per policy, not because of censorship, conflicts of interest, or anything like that. --User:Krator (t c) 15:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm not an author of Q3 bots. —Visor (talk · contribs) 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bots

About how the bots can chat to you, if you say certain phrases to some of them, they will respond. I'm going to add this to the section and you can edit it if you wish. ☺Efansay^T/_C☺ 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I forgot to mention, can someone add a list of the bot that are availible.☺Efansay^T/_C☺ 11:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Bots - No. --User:Krator (t c) 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Quake Zero

Does a seperate article for Quake Zero, where we can add more information as we learn more about it, appeal to anyone? --69.122.5.180 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Software Render?

The article says that OpenGL is required to play and there's no software renderer. This isn't true; there is a software mode. However, the mode is so slow as to be useless, so OpenGL is de facto required. Should this be mentioned? ASWilson 09:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Development

I'm the one who created the development section. I've played q3 since the IHV was leaked by ATI. I played it for 5 years solid so this game holds a special place in my heart. I found the development details in a cached google page from Firingsquad. I can no longer find the cached page. I will look for other sources in order to verify the information. I have very nostalgic memories of Quake 3, it is a beautiful game. areseepee 16 November 2007 (UTC)