Talk:Command: Modern Air Naval Operations

moving thr page - title change

how can I move the page to Command:Modern Air Naval Operations? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot the title was wrong, I'll move it now. For future reference it's Move in the drop down menu in the top right next to View History :) Samwalton9 (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow I didn't even remove your username. Sorry I really mustn't have been paying attention! Samwalton9 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

haha no worries, looks like its all fixed now! thanks again for your help! PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

also, I was wondering if you had any suggestions for how I can bump that C rating up to a B? I understand its far from a finished article, and I intend to flesh it out some more from here, but I guess I am overlooking somewhat... PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the Grading scheme! Apart from GA/FA the grading scheme is a little arbitrary and kind of up to the judgement of whoever classes it so don't take my grading it as a C as a definitive thing, it's just the grade I thought it fit in to. For me the the main areas to improve to reach B class are the following:

• Wording the Gameplay section more carefully. Though as a gamer I understand the first few sentences, it might not be that accessible for a non-gamer audience. Terms like "operational control over their units" could do with explaining better. It should also be somewhat broader in the explanation of how the game is played. Don't worry as much about references as the gameplay and plot sections of articles are often hard to source.
• The lead section should be "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" so try to summarise each section in a sentence or two there.
• A gameplay image would be good to include.
• The reception section could be expanded on. You've said the game was received positively but not said why - explain what reviewers said about it!

Those are the main things I think :) Samwalton9 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

orphaned article?

• Harpoon (series) ‎ (links)
• Matrix Games ‎ (links)
• Command ‎ (links)
  • User:PrimalBlueWolf/Command: Modern Air Naval Warfare (redirect page) ‎ (links)
    • Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions ‎ (links)
    • Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent/1 ‎ (links)
    • User:PrimalBlueWolf ‎ (links)
    • User talk:PrimalBlueWolf ‎ (links)
  • Talk:Command: Modern Air Naval Operations ‎ (links)
  • Command: Modern Air Naval Warfare (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • File:Command, Modern Air Naval Operations cover.jpg ‎ (links)

seems like there is a few links already, how many should it really have? if we leave the banner up, is it more likely to have someone add more links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimalBlueWolf (talk • contribs) 05:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any links are enough to remove the orphan tag, but more is obviously better! Wouldn't worry about the tag, you can remove it. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Released updates section

This is not the matrixgames forums, and detailing the exact reasons for each patch is not within the scope of wikipedia. Given that the updates are not noteworthy, I am removing this section of the article. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Mention of community mod

@PrimalBlueWolf: In relation to this edit, this content is not appropriate per WP:V in that the source being used is simply a link to a fan site hosting it. What is needed for mod projects like this to be mentioned is reliable, third-party sources, there's none of that here. Eik Corell (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move

@Tookatee: Do you know whether there are plans to release any additional games for this series? If there are, then moving this page might not have been necessary and a separate article about the series could've possibly been created instead. Individual articles about each game could be created (if the games themselves are considered Wikipedia notable in their own right) and then general information about the games could then be added to subsections of the series article.

If there are no additional games scheduled to be released or that's uncertain (there was a six year gap between the release of the first two games), then a page move still might not been advisable since the content about "Command: Modern Operations" could've just been incorporatated into this article as a separate subsection. If there are no plans for any further games to be released, then it still doesn't seem like a good idea to move the page from being one titled about a notable game to one being titled about a notable game and a non-notable game/possibly notable game (i.e. an article about a "series").

The draft you submitted to AfC was was only declined, not rejected outright, which means that the AfC reviewer might feel that there may be some protential for the draft to someday become an article and it's not likely something that's going to end up being deleted asap if added to the mainspace in its current state. If that draft had been approved then there would've been no need to move this article to its current title. So, if this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON and an article about CMO does someday end up getting created, then once again a new article about the series could be created and general content about each game added to that article, with the corresponding individiual articles about each game containing more detailed information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This topic has already been discussed with you, why are you so insistent on continuing the conversation despite it having already come to a close? CMO was deemed to not be notable enough for Wikipedia to exist as its own article, and considering the fact that the game is (in most senses) a UI and quality of life update onto CMANO (in addition to the pure encyclopedic value of the information pertaining to CMO) I felt that it made the most sense for both to exist on one page. If you feel that's not the case, then more power to you, but your opinion on this topic has little to no sway on the course of events and there is no reason to waste more time discussing it when it's already been discussed extensively. Tookatee (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not related to the use of any non-free files. It has to do strictly with your bold page move here which is a separate issue which as far as I can determine hasn't been discussed anywhere else. If there was some prior discussion specifically about this page move, the please provide a link to it for reference. The move does seem to be the result of a draft you were working on about a new game called "Command: Modern Operations", not being approved at AfC, and that's the only real connection between this discussion and the one about the non-free file.

While it's OK to be bold and move a page, I'm suggesting that it might be better to discuss this and possibly get feedback from others per WP:RM#CM to see if the page should've been moved. Any bold edit that is made can be WP:REVERTed (which I decided not to do here) and a contentious page move can be further discussed at WP:RM if needed; however, starting a discussion about it here first seems better. Finally, discussions aren't closed because you unilaterally decide they are. The issues related to that file's non-free image use are not clearly resolved just because you say so. Similarly, with this page move, if any editor feels it was unnecessary, then the move is contentious and disagreements over it are supposed to be resolved through discussion. If the consensus established is that the move was fine, then the move will stand; one person doesn't, however, make a consensus and if the consensus is that the page shouldn't have been moved, the move will be undone. Anyway, my orignal question was whether you know of any plans by Matrix Games to release anymore games in this "series". If you're not sure, then perhaps someone else can clarify whether this is the case which is why I posted a {{Please see}} at WT:WPVG. Changing the article's title from "Command: Modern Air Naval Operations" to "Command (series)" might not have needed to be done in order to incorporate content about "Command: Modern Operations" into this article; for example, Age of Empires (video game) wasn't moved to Age of Empires: Definitive Edition or Age of Empires to incorporate information about other related games into it and this seems to be the case for many video games that ultimately start out as a single game and then become a series. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

As a tool that's updated nearly weekly and while being used for defense analytics, training, and has a general popularity among it's niche gaming audience I can't imagine any reason why this series wouldn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future (although considering the recent release of CMO I would not expect a new entry in the series for at least a few years.) As for you taking issue on the transformation of the page to its current state and the resolution of the other discussion, that is purely your opinion and until an administrator says it to be otherwise (something I'm still waiting on) there is no problem with the page the way it is. The content about CMO adds encyclopedic value that would otherwise be lost if it was not present on the page, furthermore, to be blunt, it would probably be a better use of all of our time if you left the responsibility of managing the actual administration of articles to the administrators, whose responsibility is to be properly versed in said guidelines and enforce them accordingly. All you're doing is serving as a vessel for misinformation in addition to threatening to enact widespread changes to articles based on your opinion, without any authority, and without any credence to what one might have to say to you. Finally, your reasoning for disagreeing is just restating what was already argued and countered in [conversation], one where I already mentioned to you that if you're not going to specify what you don't understand (so I can clarify) and just continue to recycle the same reasoning despite what's explained to you that I will not continue to engage in conversation with you (ignoring the fact that any conversation from you on this topic is superfluous to begin with.) Tookatee (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that content about CMO cannot be added to this article, and as I stated above this discussion has nothing to do with non-free content use or the discussion taking place on Explicit's user talk page. These are two separate issues in which the outcome of either doesn't affect the other. I am only questioning why it was necessary to move/rename an existing article about a single game into an article about series when it appears that the only reason you did so was because the draft you were working about CMO was declined at AfC. Why couldn't section about CMO simply be added to this article under its original title?. Would you still have made the same page move if the CMO draft had been approved as its own article instead? The answer to those questions will help clarify things.

Just for reference, an administrator is not necessarily required to discuss whether a page move is appropriate; such a thing can be resolved through article talk page discussion. If you feel a more formal discussion about this is a good idea, then there's always WP:RM.WP:RM discussions (like any WP:XFD discussion like AfDs), however, don't need to be closed by an administrator; pretty much any Wikiepdia discussion can be closed by a non-administrator per WP:NAC as long as they are experienced to do so, uninvolved and in good-standing as an editor; administrators tend to close XFD discussions because they usually are the only ones who have the tools to immediately implement whatever consensus is established (e.g. delete and article or file), but any univolved editor who's in good standing can WP:CLOSE close the actual discussion and the consensus reached can then be implemented after the fact by an administrator. Would you prefer this discussion be moved to WP:RM? FWIW, even if the page is moved back to its original title, either by someone undoing your bold move or through a consensus obtained through discussion, I'm not saying that the text content about CMO also needs to be or should be removed as well; that's a different discussion altogether. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tookatee, the article is not in okay shape. I've removed most WP:PRIMARY sources. That it exists is no reason just to make the article from a single game into a series. A short and sweet sequel section would've been just as helpful. There's very little to go on. You need to come up with significant coverage by reliable and independent sources. Wargamer might be a WP:VG/RS, there are very little other RS'es here. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your most recent edit because all you did was delete large chunks of the text that gave factual, properly cited, details to certain aspects of each game, none of which could be considered WP:PRIMARY sources for that pure fact that: all of that information is a factual description of the game's features and/or citations from marketing material or developer statements on the products that do not require any specialized skills or context (other than the ability to read.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookatee (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No actually, I didn't remove any substantial information, I tagged it with {{cn}}, because we can't just use tons of WP:PRIMARY sources. Of course they are PRIMARY sources, since they're from the developer. If you want to describe the game features, use sources independent of the developer. We can't assume they are factual, because they're not independent. That's how Wikipedia works, that's how this article will have to be written. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That response in it of itself just exposes a massive flaw in your reasoning that I'm not even going to attempt to address (the most glaring of which is your assumption that all the information you deleted is purely personal recollection on my part), these are basic statements of fact about how these video games operate. These are not "interpretations" they are specific and correct statements of fact that can be (and are) backed up by simple examination of the game itself (of which has been done and can be seen through the cited references.) As I stated in my edit blurb, if you continue to go through this daisy chain process of continuously undoing the edits then I will report your account for article vandalism.Tookatee (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

....what? I am assuming that the information is a "purely personal recollection" on your part? Are you the developer? Do you work at Warfare Sims and/or Matrix Games or something? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No... I don't know how you could connect that assumption of yours with that statement of mine, but maybe that just proves my point about your basic assumption (which seems to be that you think that I'm somehow employed at Matrix Games in any capacity) in addition to what looks to be selective attention/interpretation to my own words in an attempt to twist them to fit your own narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookatee (talk • contribs) 09:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I quote, bold my emphasis:

That response in it of itself just exposes a massive flaw in your reasoning that I'm not even going to attempt to address (the most glaring of which is your assumption that all the information you deleted is purely personal recollection on my part)

I said WP:PRIMARY sources, like the ones by developer Warfare Sims or publisher Matrix games can't be used. You say I am assuming that the stuff I took out was "purely personal recollection" on your part, which I haven't said. If the PRIMARY sources would somehow be your "purely personal recollection", that sounds like you are part of the developer or publisher. But hey, I'm just trying to twist your words to fit my own narrative. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

One: that's not what that page indicates in the slightest (it merely identifies what qualifies under primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and to avoid original research in articles; something that has zero applicability here as the information describes basic, easily verifiable facts about the game mechanics and structure), and two: the information WAS supported by other credible sources (and your fixation of the invalidity of game developers and/or publishers as sources is rooted in a flawed logic that I will, once again, not even attempt to rectify on your end.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookatee (talk • contribs) 11:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you try to rectify my misunderstanding of Wikipedia's guidelines? I'd be interested to see how my logic is flawed in this matter and change it accordingly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Taking it back to basics, the vast majority of sources are from the developer, this remains the main problem and makes improving the article difficult. What I mean is that a lot the details are very obscure and don't really mean anything to the average reader. For example, in the "CMO" part, the text talks about how the integration of "Tacview" is a feature that differentiates it from its predecessor. I have no idea what a tacview is, and the source, which is a "features" tab on the developer website, simply states "Support for real-time Tacview 3D view (NOTE: separate purchase of Tacview Advanced edition required)", so I'm no closer to understanding how or why this is notable. It seems like we're simply adding detailed information indiscriminately, when brief summaries would be much more appropriate, i.e instead of listing every expansion pack, simply state that new scenario packs are available. Articles aren't supposed to parrot primary source like this, especially for confusing or obscure information like what I mentioned. Eik Corell (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think it might be best to keep the discussion about the page move and the discussion about primary sources separate from one another since they are about different things. —- Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Eik, Tacview is a separate piece of software that records a 3D visualization of game scenarios (most notably for games like Digital Combat Simulator.) Currently a Wikipedia page is missing for Tacview, so if you feel like you can get enough notable sources to create an article that passes the notability guidelines on it then that would be great (as it could then be directly linked to to inform those ignorant on the topic like yourself.) Otherwise, as is the case in most scientific and/or articles on a niche topic one cannot always go into explicit detail defining something that isn't mentioned on the article as it can detract from the main topic of said article (For example, an article on geology not explicitly defining what the Earth or rock is. In this case however I was able to find an additional source that would help to inform people as to what Tacview is in relation to CMO and have added it accordingly (it has to be their Steam page as, oddly enough, on their official website they have not updated their documentation to reflect the fact that they're compatible with CMO, possibly because of the inability to use the software to its fullest capabilities in conjunction with CMO at the moment.) Furthermore, you've been removing sources without replacing them with any superior ones therein by leaving the information un-referenced and of less encyclopedic value than it was before. If you don't have a suitable replacement then readding those citations would be very helpful as it's better to have something rather than nothing.Tookatee (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)