Talk:List of pinball machines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Indexes
WikiProject icon This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.
 


WikiProject Pinball (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pinball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pinball and Pinball-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Redundant?[edit]

Is there anything that this page does that the category for the same does not? Seems redundant to me. Fractalchez 03:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this page provides a number of broken links that are a great jumping-off point for the creation of articles. The category only includes games that have articles. While they do have some overlap, they are both useful an necessary. We have many lists on Wikipedia that overlap with categories, for the express purpose as a repository of topics that should, but don't yet, have articles. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I read up a bit more and though I still have some minor concerns, there seem to be enough unique qualities to each approach that I'm more satisfied than I was before with seeing a dual-method approach. Appreciate the fast feedback. Fractalchez 20:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note that the following comment is not intended to be mean nor insult the people who have worked hard to put it together: Although I understand the goal of Wikipedia is to be a complete resource, in cases like this, I cannot help but wonder if users would not be better served by just making a page like this a link to the more complete resources already on the Internet. This page can never hope to be as complete and informative as the Internet Pinball Database. So, despite the best intentions, why bother? Other than to have links to other games specific pages within Wikipedia, I do not see this page as serving any particularly useful purpose despite the best and well intentioned efforts of the contributors. Or am I missing the point of this page? Lhammer610 01:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comment as it's intended. The brief answer is that I disagree with the assumption that this cannot eventually be an equal and someday a better to the existing resources. The IPDB is an outstanding web site run very well with many years ahead of us, all no question. At the same time the internet is full of web sites that were once considered to be unapproachable resources for their field that have since fallen as new formats have come into existence.
I believe this to be one such example where we might see it. While the IPDB is excellent (and note that there is a link to that web site at the bottom of the page), it doesn't have the versatility of editing that Wikipedia does. Also, while the IPDB has been around for a while and there is no reason right now to believe that it won't, it does ultimately depend on the effort of a small handful of volunteers. While the pinball pages of Wikipedia also do, Wikipedia on the whole has far more support, and as long as we have a functional internet I really don't ever expect it to go away.
In short, the answer to your question is long-term thinking, redundancy, and healthy competition. At the very least, I can say that as much work as these pages still need, I don't feel like I'm wasting my time. Fractalchez 01:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Great answer!
I am planning on working on a pinball repair page. But I have to admit that I do not see any way that I can do much more than point to some great other sites and give some general hints. Maybe others will be able to build on it. Best of luck with this page. I am looking forward to it. Lhammer610 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing instructions[edit]

After adding a line about how to add new entries the page was reverted back with these intructions from User:Frecklefoot: "(DO NOT put editing instructions in article, put it on Talk page if you must)"

Unnecessary shouting aside, Wikipedia is replete with pages that include on the page itself instructions on how to best edit the page. I believe this one needs some kind of instruction somewhere given the problem not only with machines that have different names than the common wisdom suggests, but also machines sharing the same name.

If the instruction you feel is out of place, how would you feel instead about something like:

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it. Please see the article's talk page for suggested guidelines.

I think giving some simple guideline will create much less work for us than having to move pages later will. Please let me know what you think. Thank you for the good faith, returned in kind. Fractalchez 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't shout for the whole comment. 0:) I don't think our articles should include, in the body, instructions for editing or creating articles. If we have articles with such comments, they should be removed. I know we have several with invisible instructions (i.e. they are inserted as comments in HTML — i.e. <!-- this comment is invisible until a user tries to edit the page -->), and these are fine. But if a user comes across an article for information, they shouldn't be blasted with information on how best to augment the article. That's what Talk pages, like this one, are for. I'd find it very odd, for example, to be reading the Encyclopedia Brittanica and come across a statement such as if you know anything more about this topic, send it to Encyclopedia Brittanica headquarters at....
I think what you need is a Pinball games WikiProject. With such, you could pass guidelines and criteria for article creation, naming and so forth. You could even create some cool templates for pinball articles to use. Then you could stamp this list's Talk page with a template saying it is part of the Pinball games WikiProject (like this one for the Computer and video game WikiProject). Then users could go there to find out what guidelines are in place and how to create a pinball article.
That being said, moving and renaming pages isn't all that hard. If someone misnames an article, it's usually pretty easy to fix. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I was actually considering making a Wikiproject out of this, and I think I'll take this disagreement as impetus, although the solution it would create of having a template link to the project on appropriate pages would work just fine for me. I will evidence with some amusement that one of the articles containing editing instructions at its top is the article on instruction creep.  :-) But this is fine for now. I'll not suggest any major design changes until we have a Wikiproject in place for consensus building (which in turn I won't jump at starting until I have a little more experience/confidence). Much thanks all around. Fractalchez 17:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding more machines[edit]

I'm adding more pinball machines to the list, because I want to expand it with help from other websites. 200.89.33.137 16:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Years[edit]

Having years after each machine not only seems unnecessary, but seems to violate WP:MOSLINK's "Overlinking" guide in two separate ways (low-value links, repeated links). While there seems some small value for having the year next to the machine, at the very least just making it text-only seems an improvement. Either way, right now the list needs to be fixed somehow, as only half the machines listed have this after the name.

I wonder if there might be some value in breaking the list up into years or decades or eras as opposed to simply straight alphabetical. I haven't yet entirely gone through WP:LIST, though, so I am open to ideas. Much thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, there's no feedback on this, so I'm going to do this. I'm going to go simple and just leave it alphabetical for now, and probably just remove the years; I don't see any need to have them there. Fractalchez (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You could put the titles into a sortable table. That way users could sort by name or date. Just a thought. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that sounds great. Except... I don't know how. :-} If you happen to have a pointer to instructions I would take this on. Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I think I found it. Fractalchez (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Far to many redlinks[edit]

I find it highly doubtful that the majority of these will get their own articles, so I'm removing them. If and when a machine gets an article, would be a good time to add it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, red links are a great jumping-off point for the creation of new articles. Furthermore this list is an overview even when there is no article to a title but it is no overview if titles are removed. --Fluffystar (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, Wikipedia would not need lists at all if there is no more information on a list than in a category. --Fluffystar (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I unlinked all red links until they get an article but the information should stay in the list as black entries. Nobody is harmed by it but the information is very usefull for many. --Fluffystar (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)