Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 5: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:23, 8 November 2013

< November 4	November 6 >

November 5

Template:Video game requirements

Template:Video game requirements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template should no longer be used on VG articles per consensus. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#System_requirements and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_100#System_requirements ) In short, WP:NOTFAQ Soetermans. T / C 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if specific requirements are important (which does happen) they can be discussed in prose, but the table/template is no longer needed for this. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/keep -I recommend a removal of the templates data from the articles linked to the template before a removal. However I think a template protection would be better with the source code removed and on the doc page a link to the consensus for the removal. A lot of IPs are requesting for system requirements left and right on the feedback forms, so for wiki editors that do not know about the removal of the template this would be the quick answer for why. —CKY2250 ^ταικ 20:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per arguments at Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_11#Proposed_removal_of_requirements_section. Relevant to small section of reader, the exact kind of reader who doesn't pay attention to specs because they already have a custom rig, for anyone else it's a trivial shopping guide, which will be on the box/page it is obtained in/from, but it serves no encyclopedic purpose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the arguments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_100#System_requirements quoted above conclude "to only include System requirements if they are notable", why would we then delete the template? - hahnch e n 23:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a mention in a sentence like. Battlefield 4 utilises all 8 cores of the cpu of an AMD FX series. And not a list of everly limiting factor the game requires.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 00:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if they're all notable? - hahnch e n 18:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can make a table for the page. You don't need a template since it wouldn't be used on other pages.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and WP:GAMECRUFT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technical keep. Hello, guys. Transclusion report shows that this template is used outside video game articles, so its point-blank deletion without appropriate mitigation is detrimental to software articles. Extending consensus obtained in WikiProject Video Games beyond its purview requires a discussion that represents consensus from outside editors, because this hazardous area has adopted its own style in defiance to the broader manual of style used by the rest of Wikipedia.

But I agree that upon removal from video game articles, it can be trimmed down to fit our need. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Codename Lisa. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. DrNegative (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur as well. Forbes72 (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa makes a good point. I'm not too technical like that, but could we maybe move the name of the template to, I don't know, software requirements or something and further explain on WP:VG that system requirements are no longer deemed necessary? --Soetermans. T / C 08:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to generate a list of articles where the VG template is used but where the article does not fall into the VG Project's pervue per the talk page banner? Scanning the first page of that list, I only see two entries that are non-games (one being Windows 2000). If this works out to be a trivial number of articles (on the order of a dozen), we can fix those others directly. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Soetermans; Hello, Masem. I agree with both of you, in fact, Soetermans, your suggestion accurately reflects what I thought. But Masem, this is template we are talking about, not an article. The fact that it adds maintainability and editing convenience to an article is a very good reason to keep it. Now, I am all heart for a negotiation but do you know what it entail? The act of negotiation! Put it the other way, I think this nomination is premature. First, there should have been a transclusion elimination drive to remove as many of its transclusions as possible, then decide whether a deletion is in order or a rename plus re-purpose. In fact, I think the latter is what should be done now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing about the issues of timing, transclusion checks, etc.; however, I will point out that its use in non-VG articles seems to suffer from the same problems its use in VG articles had - that it is presented without context or reference in the prose, as in the case of Windows 2000, the same reason we have deprecated its use for VGs. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Codename Lisa's argument is keep it because it is used in articles. The point of this discussion is that it is not needed in articles period. The technical hardware specificiations of anything, but particularly the 'requirements' of something, are minutiae and minutiae is not something we are meant to document in Wikipedia. Even if you are technically minded what worth is there in knowing that something at one point needed 8MB ram? Nostalgia? Anything of worth should be discussed in prose where it can be explained appropriately. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa's point is very valid. We as the VG project have depreciated this and no longer see the need for the template version. However, for some reason, other pages outside the VG project have used the template for their own purposes. What we have decided in the VG project does not apply to them (though I would argue the same logic should apply, that slapping up a list of requirements without discussion is not helpful or needed), so their uses of the template may be valid. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was reading the article Call of Duty: Ghosts, after hearing it on the news and I saw the "The template below (Video game requirements) is being considered for deletion." I followed the links here, and I don't agree that it should be deleted. The system requires aren't anymore technical in my opinion than the "Reception" template in the reviews section below. I don't agree with "for anyone else it's a trivial shopping guide". If that were true, the "Reception" template below should be deleted for the same reason. In my opinion, it's notable and objective information with respect to the constraints these games was developed in. What the news reports were reveling about was how these games are becoming increasingly "realistic", and part of the reason why this is possible is by increasing the system requirements. I came to Wikipedia because I was curious about this aspect of games. Finally, this information is something I'd much rather see it in a table form rather than worked into the prose as some have argued. If it were worked in the prose, I don't think it would be "easily understandable" to even technical people. Anyways this is just my thoughts and opinion. 155.99.180.65 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For how much I agree I would like to see the reqs on the games articles. I do understand why it is bad. This information can be outdated without changes easily when a game has a patch and whatnot. I use steam myself to see the reqs of the games, or the gamebox if I have the physical copy. This template is also not the same as the receptions template, the purpose of the receptions template is to remove the scores from the paragraphs and have the scores in the table. If the template would be removed then it would be in long sentences within the paragraph and could lead to the reception consisting of only scores. This would not be the problem with the video game requirements template, since there is no need to include the requirements unless it is absurdly different from other games at the time of release.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point: "This information can be outdated without changes easily when a game has a patch and whatnot." So could the reception of the game, as some news outlets review patches as well. "there is no need to include the requirements unless it is absurdly different from other games at the time of release." So if the reviews for a game are not "absurdly different" from other games, the review scores needed not be included as well? 155.99.180.65 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment, what I stated was clear enough.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 00:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if this is your argument: I find it quite flawed. 155.97.192.173 (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't agree with your comparison between VG requirements and reception, 155.97.192.173. Couple of things: the way a game is received can be easily understood by anyone, not just people with computer technical insight. Take me for example, I am console gamer. I honestly have no idea what the information in the template means. But I do know what it means of a game is critically panned or receives praise. Those technical information is also variable: highest or lowest settings, patches, updates, DLC etc. An opinion at a certain point can still mean something years later. But don't get me wrong, if you feel that the template does communicate valuable information, your opinion is as important as anyone else's. --Soetermans. T / C 14:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your opinion as well, but I don't agree with it. When you say "easily understood by anyone", you should exclude me. When a review gives a game "four stars out of five", what does it mean? The criteria is never discussed and is rarely linked. One might as well work the receptions template into the prose saying it's "well-received" rather than including this four star out of five or nine out of ten jargon. As for the technical information, the video game developer provides what is considered minimal or recommended. It's verified and not "original research", which as I've read is one of Wikipedia's policies. However, this is a tangent, are you going to address my latter three points in my original post or are you going to stop at the second sentence? 155.97.192.173 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, more often than not are receptions sections neatly sourced. You can easily see for yourself, including Ghosts, which led your here. I'm not sure whether you're serious or not about scores. 9 out of 10 means on a scale of 10 points, it received a 9. 4 out of 5 stars means it received 4 stars on a scale of 5. What other points you are making, could you maybe rephrase them? --Soetermans. T / C 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every entry in the VG reception must include the source to the review, and we further highly suggest/near-require that every entry included should be a source in the body of the reception (either calling out to the specific review: (x of y said...) or including the review as part of a general appreciation/criticize for some aspect of the game. One does not load the review table with every possible review and not use those reviews otherwise. This is the same logic on requirements which typically are presented via press without comment. In the rare case of a system requirement having some noise (eg, the latest Sim City requiring an always-on Internet connection), the reasons why that stands out, and thus that requirement, can be discussed in prose. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans, 9.4/10 is jargon the same way 6 GB RAM is. In fact, I'll go as far as to say 9.4/10 is worse: an ambiguous quantity that delivers little value. It's like saying it's "9.4/10 good". Wikipedia doesn't discuss how these scores are developed or what they even mean, so they might as well be meaningless to the reader in addition to not easy to understand. At least "GB" and "RAM" is jargon that have their own article. However, as I've said before and I'll say again: this is like the first point out four total. Spelling it out for you:

Rebuttal to one of your points: "I don't agree with "for anyone else it's a trivial shopping guide". If that were true, the "Reception" template below should be deleted for the same reason."
Why it's relevant to the gaming industry and not WP:NOT: "it's notable and objective information with respect to the constraints these games was developed in. What the news reports were reveling about was how these games are becoming increasingly "realistic", and part of the reason why this is possible is by increasing the system requirements."
Why it doesn't belong in the prose: " Finally, this information is something I'd much rather see it in a table form rather than worked into the prose as some have argued. If it were worked in the prose, I don't think it would be "easily understandable" to even technical people."

@Masem, you typically only need to specify six requirements to adequately describe the system requirements, which typically all comes from one source. You can load reception with as much non-notable reviews as there are blogs. You're also ignoring the fact that requirements differ vastly, your "noise". 155.97.192.173 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use blogs for reviews. We actually have a limited set of sources that we consider as reliable reviews (outlined at WP:VG/S) to avoid people pushing their favorite blogs. And to the fact that something like "9.4/10" or "4 out of 5 stars" is mysterious doesn't work - since such numerical or quantitative sources are used across several industries, it is considered common knowledge that if we say a soruce gave a title "9.4/10" that they know that's a point system. On the other hand, "6 GB RAM" is not a common phrase outside of computing, and that's the tip (let's talk about CPU and GPU naming schemes). More importantly, reviews are part of what makes a game notable, while rarely the system requirements are brought up by sources as impacting the game. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me then, "reliable gaming press source" that use blogging software. I'm not addressing what makes a game notable in this argument, that's my second point (see prev. post). You seem to really like this tangent. This argument wasn't my main points in my original post, which you still haven't addressed. Look, if you're here just to pick apart posts in order to ignore my central argument, fine. You win. 155.97.192.173 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument falls apart 155.97.192.173 because Template: VG Reviews is there to compliment prose not replace it. You don't need to understand the score (though I don't believe for a second you don't understand what 7/10 means. Users are very lazy and keen to post a score without adding content, but the template is not for that, it specificially states that in the description. The two templates are not comparable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, equivalently "Template:Video game requirements is there to compliment prose not replace it. You don't need to understand the requirements. Users are very lazy and keen to post a requirement without adding content." You're right: it's not that I don't understand what 7/10 means, I understand now that it is meaningless after reading through reasoning I have been provided. 155.97.192.173 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and disagree that it falls under WP:NOTFAQ. This is no different than electronic device pages (i.e. PlayStation 4, iPhone, etc) listing the specs. It provides an informative overview of how computationally demanding the game is and what the target player base is (i.e. a game targeted at 'hardcore' gamers will likely have higher requirements than a game targeted at 'casual' players). Also, as mentioned, the template is used for articles other than video games. - EvilHom3r (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi EvilHom3r, thanks for your input. Three things: 1) system requirements practically only are needed for PC games (the occasional console peripheral aside, like the N64 expansion pack). 2) I think the distinction shouldn't be made what is an electronic device and what is a piece of software based upon its capabilities or requirements. First and foremost, PCs, consoles, smart phones are devices. A game, again with its exceptions, are to be played, to entertain. Games can also be works of fiction, conveyors of narrative. I think you can easily understand a game without knowing how it can be run. 3) I think that your assumption whether or not a game is aimed at hardcore or casual gamers based upon system requirements is WP:OR. And how will the average reader (which we should always go for on Wikipedia) make the distinction whether or not the target group is 'hardcore' or 'casual'? To go even further, what makes hardcore and what is casual? --Soetermans. T / C 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To make another point, here are the system requirements for Call of Duty: Ghosts, which was released November 5.

System requirements
	Requirements
Microsoft Windows^[1]
Operating system	Windows 7 64-bit and Windows 8 64-bit (Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP/Vista are unsupported)
CPU	Intel Core™ 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHz or AMD Phenom X3 8750 2.4 GHz processor or better
Memory	6 GB RAM
Free space	40 GB of free hard drive space
Graphics hardware	Nvidia GeForce GTS 450 Ti or ATI Radeon HD 5870 or better
Sound hardware	100% DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
Network	Broadband connection required for multiplayer connectivity. Internet connection required for activation

Platform: Microsoft Windows. Sure, the platform. Nothing to technical. I think most readers know about Windows and Mac (or just Apple).

Operating platform: Windows 7 64-bit and Windows 8 64-bit (Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP/Vista are unsupported). No surprise, but apparently it won't run on old computers, but why not exactly? And 64-bit is...?

CPU: Intel Core™ 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHz or AMD Phenom X3 8750 2.4 GHz processor or better. This is all very technical, and can PC gamers only pick between two manufacturers? Also, what's with the trademark sign?

Memory: 6 GB RAM. You need at least this much RAM. Okay, easy.

Hard drive space: 40 GB of free hard drive space. Sure, you'll need at least 40GB, gotcha.

Graphics hardware: Nvidia GeForce GTS 450 Ti or ATI Radeon HD 5870 or better. Just two options again, or better. What then, is better?

Sound hardware: 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card. What does that mean, 100% compatible?

Network: Broadband connection required for multiplayer connectivity. Internet connection required for activation. That's easy to understand.

How is this not WP:NOTFAQ? To me, this is all very technical and not at all easy to understand. With stuff like this, you have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, hoping to spread information for the largest audience possible, and not a tech guide. --Soetermans. T / C 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether or not you understand the technical details. Wikipedia:TECHNICAL#Audience states the levels familiarity readers may have of the subject, we shouldn't remove sections for expert readers just because its difficult for the casual reader. - hahnch e n 14:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that, hahnchen, EvilHom3r claimed it was NOTFAQ, to which I was arguing against. We are not talking chemics or quantum physics here. You can understand a game without knowing about its system requirements. For a whole bunch of games there are no system requirements at all. Console-only games, PC games a couple of generations ago, indie games, browser or mobile games, you name it. The guideline you cited also says "However, effort should still be made to make the article as understandable as possible", so when certain video game requirements are notable (per the WP:VG discussion) it can be mentioned in prose. --Soetermans. T / C 14:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument isn't about removing it because it is too technical alone, even if you are familiar with the technical aspects, as I myself am, what value is there in this information. What ENCYCLOPEDIC purpose does it serve and how is it not minutiae detail? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, if you own the game it is where you purchased the game from, it could be a physical box or on steam. Only people that would come here are people that don't know how to find the specs that don't own it; they either are viewing for historical reasons, want to see if their system can handle it-- which there are far better sources then wikipedia, or they pirated the game. And for historical reasons that is where if the game is demanding it would be in the article, if it was some unknown title like Euro Truck Simulator it shouldn't be needed, since if you're a gamer your system would more then likely be able to handle the game.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 14:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can name on exactly one finger the only game for whom specs are notable. Crysis. And the specs themselves are not informative. "The Geforce whatever was available at the time and the game just shredded it". That is worthless. "The game was not able to run smoothly at maximum whatever until nearly 8 years after its release when the appropriate hardware became available". I don't know if it was 8 years, it might still not run smoothly for all I know. But still, the individual hardware specs do not improve understanding of the topic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The reason this template was nominated begins "Template should no longer be used on VG articles per consensus." That apparent consensus was only made on Wikiproject Video Games. Firstly, neither of those discussions amounts to "consensus" as no !vote or absolute determinations were made to satisfy my belief that there is good cause to delete the template. Secondly, I'm going with WP:WikiProject which clearly states: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." No consensus evident, no rights to claim there is, no reason for this nomination to be based on a false premise. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're opposing it to be difficult basically? Ignoring consensus at that project, the reasons WERE given and the reasons were FOUND to be VALID, that is a consensus of opinion that justifies opening the discussion here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algeria Portal

Template:Algeria Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Algeria topics. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Can't retire

Template:Can't retire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, unlike {{Retired}} and {{Semi-retired}}, is more for humor and has no real use. It is used on less that 15 unique user's userpages. It's more like a giant, humorous userbox than a useful maintenance template like the two aforementioned. As such, I am nominating this for deletion, but I am open to a move in to userspace. CRRays Head90 | ^#OneMoreGame 07:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You don't like it, but it's not harming anything and fifteen people are using it. I'm not opposed to userfying this, but I don't think that it should be deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 16 people are using it now. I just added it to my talk page. Seriously, things like this and trouting are for fun....William 15:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see no proper rationale for deletion. "I don't like it" is no argument. KonveyorBelt 17:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say that I didn't like it? CRRays Head90 | ^#OneMoreGame 20:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
s more for humor and has no real use....It's more like a giant, humorous userbox than a useful maintenance template like the two aforementioned. All templates need not be maintenance and the like, there is room for humor on Wikipedia, particularly in the userspace where this template is used. KonveyorBelt 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't mean I didn't like it. Please don't put words in my mouth. My rationale was about what I think was an improper use of Template namespace, not that I didn't like the template. And yes, I know there's plenty of room for humor on Wikipedia. CRRays Head90 | ^#OneMoreGame 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WLeague NUJ

Template:WLeague NUJ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague AU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague BR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague CCM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague CU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague MV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague PG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague QR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague SFC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague WSW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates only contains a piped wikilink, it is better to actually write the piped wikilink then to use these templates. Articles that use these templates could substitute the templates, and the templates can be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 11:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. these template are used very frequently --> on all the pages of players who play (currently or in the past) in the W-League, as well as W-League pages, and W-League teams' season pages. They are typing-aid templates, and function like the A-League help templates. --SuperJew (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of the A-League help templates, but those should be deleted as well if the WLeague templates are deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete all per nom, and redundant to {{fb team XX}}, which is also now deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it better to actually write the piped wikilink then to use these templates? the templates are first of all shorter, which is important, as they are used in many pages. secondly, it is easier to update the links if a page is moved for a reason (for example: Queensland Roar became Brisbane Roar, Newcastle United Jets became Newcastle Jets). Think of it as the principles of code reuse in programming - you don't want to type the same things a million times, but rather use constants or classes, so that if you make a change you only have to make it in one place. --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is no need to update the links after a page is moved, that is what we have redirects for, and WP:NOTBROKEN actually discourages to do so. For instance, Template:ALeague QR produces [[Brisbane Roar FC|Queensland Roar]], but the readers would have gotten to the same page if the template was replaced by either [[Queensland Roar]] or [[Queensland Roar FC|Queensland Roar]]. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, redirects mess up bolding in templates and also when linked to a section anchor in an article. And anyway, I think the most important function of the template is the typing-aid it gives. --SuperJew (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These templates do absolutely nothing other than replace simple text/wikilinks. – Pee Jay 13:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to ask you people who are for deletion what the reason really is? to clear room on the server? I doubt that is the problem.
How much have you edited season pages of teams? It is a very useful typing aid which helps a lot, and it has also been around for a long time. --SuperJew (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep - they could be substituted but why delete them if they help write articles? Christian75 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These templates are used and maintained by editors of the W-League articles. With no WP guideline presented in support of the deletion nomination, I see no valid reason why they should be deleted. Hmlarson (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EU dependencies

Template:EU dependencies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Outlying territories of European countries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:EU dependencies with Template:Outlying territories of European countries.
EU version of the template is redundant to the European one. If there's a strong need to reflect EU membership in this template, footnotes or highlighting can accomplish the goal more effectively than another template. Fitnr (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — One sees the motivation but it’s not so simple. The two templates are based on different principles as a result of which none of them is a proper subset of the other. In particular, the EU dependencies template entries Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Gibraltar, and Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not on the European outlying territories template. Apcbg (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The proposed action is a merge. Is there a reason why the territories you mention wouldn't fit on a combined template that included all dependencies of European countries? Fitnr (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — You speak about "all dependencies of European countries", but "dependency" is a particular constitutional status and not all the outlying territories are dependencies, e.g. Reunion, Mayotte, French Guiana, Caribbean Netherlands and all the Italian, Portuguese and Spanish outlying territories are not dependencies. What might be the title of a merged template, and what would be its inclusion criteria? Apcbg (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One's a geographically determined template and one's a politically determined template. Gibraltar is a dependency but not an outlying territory, Guadeloupe is an outlying territory but not a dependency. CMD (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As the other users said, these two templates have different inclusion criteria and can't be merged. The first lists dependent territories of European states and includes several ones located in Europe (e.g. Faroe Islands, Gibraltar). The second lists all territories of European states that are not in Europe, and includes areas that are actually part of their associated sovereign states, not dependencies (e.g. Bonaire, the Canaries).

That doesn't mean both templates should be left as is though. There are other templates listing all dependencies for each country, such as {{British dependencies}} and {{French overseas departments and territories}}. The {{EU dependencies}} template could also be expanded to include dependencies of all countries, including the U.S. insular areas, the Chinese SARs, etc. I doubt how useful {{Outlying territories of European countries}} actually is, but it is used in the articles of nearly all of its entries. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Call of Duty: Ghosts PC Minimum System Requirements". Call of Duty Community. 2013-10-23. Retrieved 2013-10-24.

[SR-1] "Call of Duty: Ghosts PC Minimum System Requirements". Call of Duty Community. 2013-10-23. Retrieved 2013-10-24.

[1]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 :::::@Soetermans, 9.4/10 is jargon the same way 6 GB RAM is. In fact, I'll go as far as to say 9.4/10 is worse: an ambiguous quantity that delivers little value. It's like saying it's "9.4/10 good". Wikipedia doesn't discuss how these scores are developed or what they even mean, so they might as well be ''meaningless'' to the reader in addition to ''not easy to understand''. At least "GB" and "RAM" is jargon that have their own article. However, as I've said before and I'll say again: this is like the first point out four total. Spelling it out for you:<ol><li>Rebuttal to one of your points: "I don't agree with "for anyone else it's a trivial shopping guide". If that were true, the "Reception" template below should be deleted for the same reason."</li><li>Why it's relevant to the gaming industry and not WP:NOT: "it's notable and objective information with respect to the constraints these games was developed in. What the news reports were reveling about was how these games are becoming increasingly "realistic", and part of the reason why this is possible is by increasing the system requirements."</li><li>Why it doesn't belong in the prose: " Finally, this information is something I'd much rather see it in a table form rather than worked into the prose as some have argued. If it were worked in the prose, I don't think it would be "easily understandable" to even technical people."</li></ol>@Masem, you typically only need to specify six requirements to adequately describe the system requirements, which typically all comes from one source. You can load reception with as much non-notable reviews as there are blogs. You're also ignoring the fact that requirements differ vastly, your "noise". [[Special:Contributions/155.97.192.173|155.97.192.173]] ([[User talk:155.97.192.173|talk]]) 19:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 ::::::We don't use blogs for reviews. We actually have a limited set of sources that we consider as reliable reviews (outlined at [[WP:VG/S]]) to avoid people pushing their favorite blogs.  And to the fact that something like "9.4/10" or "4 out of 5 stars" is mysterious doesn't work - since such numerical or quantitative sources are used across several industries, it is considered common knowledge that if we say a soruce gave a title "9.4/10" that they know that's a point system. On the other hand, "6 GB RAM" is not a common phrase outside of computing, and that's the tip (let's talk about CPU and GPU naming schemes). More importantly, reviews are part of what makes a game notable, while rarely the system requirements are brought up by sources as impacting the game. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
+:::::::Excuse me then, "reliable ''gaming press'' source" that use blogging software. I'm not addressing what makes a game notable in this argument, that's my second point (see prev. post). You seem to really like this tangent. This argument wasn't my main points in my original post, which you still haven't addressed. Look, if you're here just to pick apart posts in order to ignore my central argument, fine. You win. [[Special:Contributions/155.97.192.173|155.97.192.173]] ([[User talk:155.97.192.173|talk]]) 20:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 ::::Your argument falls apart 155.97.192.173 because [[Template: VG Reviews]] is there to compliment prose not replace it. You don't need to understand the score (though I don't believe for a second you don't understand what 7/10 means. Users are very lazy and keen to post a score without adding content, but the template is not for that, it specificially states that in the description. The two templates are not comparable. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 :::::I don't think so, equivalently "'''Template:Video game requirements''' is there to compliment prose not replace it. You don't need to understand the '''requirements'''. Users are very lazy and keen to post a '''requirement''' without adding content." You're right: it's not that I don't understand what 7/10 ''means'', I understand now that it is ''meaningless'' after reading through reasoning I have been provided. [[Special:Contributions/155.97.192.173|155.97.192.173]] ([[User talk:155.97.192.173|talk]]) 19:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)