Talk:Star Wars: Rogue Squadron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Star Wars: Rogue Squadron is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 14, 2010.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 15, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
January 6, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
February 21, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Third party mods and sourcing[edit]

@Torsodog and LukA YJK: Wordpress blogs and the like are definitely unreliable sources. Several of these are clearly personal web pages or primary pages for the mod in question. We're lacking any secondary reliable sources. In light of this being a featured article, new content needs to be carefully considered and ensure it meets policy. As for discussing sources BEFORE reverting... That's not how it works. The sourcing has been questioned. Per WP:BRD, if you boldly make an edit and it is contested or reverted, you discuss before readding it. -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Torsodog and Ferret:I am new to Wikipedia, so thanks for notification. However, two secondary sources that are NOT wordpress are boldly ignored again. The Rogue Squadron modification efforts are very limited, if you would be a player you would test the utilities and be assured that the sources are true. So please return back the additions.LukA YJK (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Which two sources do you consider secondary and reliable? Please post them here so they can be discussed specifically. You may also find this guideline useful as it outlines some of the content we avoid on Wikipedia. Often times, things like modifications or instructions for them are outside our scope and better suited for Wikia or Gamepedia. (Friendly note: I've linked several policies in these, please read before replying) -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The quoted DarkSaber site is secondary and it is a reputable website by Tony Denton (UK), which lists all the utilities. There is also another source about two of the utilities: Also if petition news are not considered reliable at that time there were other reputable gamer sites posting about it e.g. As for David's page it is unfortunately original work, but this is widely unknown as there is no big modder community.LukA YJK (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
GameFAQs is unreliable, as the content is user generated. Unseen64 is also unreliable, with no reputation for fact checking and the blog post is in direct response to a forum post you yourself made. (This is not particular to Unseen64: Most fan sites and communities are unreliable for the purposes of Wikipedia). The DarkSaber site itself is simply a host for various mods and utilities, and doesn't serve to provide any content we can source (I.e. it can't "prove" any facts like who released the first utility). This content is best done on Wikia, such as Wookieepedia (SW Wikia), or other independent Wikis such as pcgamingwiki. -- ferret (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
However DarkSaber site "prove"s that the utilities are released, it is not only listing utilities it is a reliable source for the history of XWA modding. Check out several news: or YJK (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "proving" anything. Some things simply aren't notable enough for Wikipedia to include. Remember we are building an encyclopedia, not a help guide or player guide. DarkSaber is not really a secondary source on the topic in this case, since it is being used to collect and provide downloads for the topic itself. As for whether or not it is a reliable source, that is based on Wikipedia's standards, not whether or not the third party modding community trusts the site. DarkSaber has no reputation or history for fact checking, nor does Tony Denton. You would need coverage in established publications, for example such as IGN (But not their Wikis), Polygon, PCGamer, etc. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret, please do not propose a false argument to disprove it. I for one did not claim that wikipedia is a "player guide", quite contrary exactly and precisely for the reason that "we are building an encyclopedia", which literally means "complete knowledge", information about Modding should be added. As for the sources, they are what they are, but you act as a final authority to decide if DarkSaber website is authoritative or not, at least it is are secondary source, isn't it? "Tony Denton" is a name which is widely known in XWA modding community, but you choose to ignore it. Check this RELIABLE SOURCE if you do not believe: YJK (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I feel I already addressed your points, it's simply that you disagree. If you believe either DarkSaber or Tony Denton is a reliable source, you may request additional opinions at WT:VG/RS. I believe you will get the same answer, but if you're looking for more than just my say, that is the route to go. The PCGamer article provides a link to DarkSaber as a place to get mods, but doesn't add anything that can be used at this article, or back DarkSaber as a reliable source. -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I feel you choose to ignore the facts, however it is quite educating. There are actual player videos showing how they use the utilities. Do not they count as reliable sources? Check this one for example LukA YJK (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
No, they don't. Not ignoring any facts, this is why I have been linking you to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:Secondary and WP:USERG. And just below WP:USERG is a section about self-published content, WP:SELFSOURCE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is true and a webpage talks about it doesn't mean it should be included on Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret, let me disagree: Youtube videos are being used as reliable sources in many reputable articles. It is not surprising that Youtube videos are mentioned in the guidance for Verifiability. So, should I refer to videos confirming the facts then?LukA YJK (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Besides, I believe this is the exceptional case, which makes it valid to refer to primary sources. Modification tools were released, primary source describe their use and effect. Doesn't it make sense?LukA YJK (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
In the case of Youtube, it is simply the host. When a video is valid or not depends on who posted it. The issue is that you are doing OR with them. You are not covering the existence of mods, but details about them as as "The first ever was...", or "Most of the mods were released by...". Essentially, most of the text you inserted represents WP:Original research as the sources are primary, not secondary. So I'll ask again: Is there any solid reliable secondary sourcing about modifications for Rogue Squadron? You can use the custom google search at WP:VG/RS to try to locate them. -- ferret (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I can omit this particular sentence about "the first player profile editor" although I corresponded with the gentleman personally and he works for IBM currently. Is the rest alright? Do we go for primary sources as an exception?LukA YJK (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Torsodog and Ferret: What is the consensus? The rules are clear that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So we can state the fact that there are tools available to modify the in-game performance, also there are effort to understand the game data and alter it. I also refer to the exceptional case i.e. scarcity of information about modifications, to justify use primary third-party sources.LukA YJK (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The consensus right now would be for it to be inserted, due to a lack of reliable secondary sources. Note that your message on WT:VG received a similar reply to mine from @Czar. Sometimes scarcity of information is due to a lack of lasting importance. Either way, the text you wrote before is not suitable to be supported by primary sources. It would have to be completely rewritten. You are free to propose new text here but please be aware that it is likely to still be opposed. -- ferret (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you please instead of ranting just edit it as you see it? I really do not understand. I removed any text which is not directly mentioned in the sources and put it back. I did not see what @Czar: wrote. Please help.LukA YJK (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I had answered your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Reliable sources for edits at Star Wars: Rogue Squadron. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 18:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret:Could you please help with understanding what are the exact statements that are referred to in "This still makes a lot of statements that can't be backed by primary sources."?LukA YJK (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I will break down a few examples. There's no ranting here, I'm doing my best to clearly and patiently outline the policies.
  • "There have been limited efforts in developing modifications for the PC version of the game." No source at all. WP:OR, especially with the rest of the paragraph made up of primary sourcing.
  • "The early player profile editor Rogue Editor was developed by Lee Lorenz, while most of the utilities were released by Araz Yusuf through The Secrets of Star Wars®: Rogue Squadron™ website" - This essentially states that Lee Lorenz made the earliest, and that most of the rest were made by Araz Yusuf, despite the word tweaks. Statements like these, that try to date or quantify things, cannot be attributed like this to primary sources. Primary sources can claim anything they want, or omit things. This is why we use reliable secondary sources that we trust, with an expectation they have done research and vetting on the information. Additionally, this isn't really a primary source, but an unreliable secondary source in this context. The source is not Lorenz or Yusuf, but just a site listing utilities with some secondary information.
Thanks @Ferret: you did a great job. But you disagreed when I put a reference to website by Araz Yusuf and I can pull out the original website by Lee Lorenz from web time machine. Would that count?LukA YJK (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Next is a list of various utilities, sourced to a single site that lists them. We don't normally need to list individual examples like this to begin with, as there's little context. Same source as mentioned in the above bullet.
  • Next is the fan petition. This is actually the most interesting part, and the closest to be accepted. The issue is that moddb is considered an unreliable source, due to being user generated.
By the way MODDB is used a reference in other articles e.g. I would say that it is an important source of news about game modding.LukA YJK (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Finally, we have what is basically a shout out to David Pethes' site. While very interesting (I'm a gamer and programmer), it doesn't add anything to the article of encyclopedic value to know that David did this research.
I can add more general details of what David did, would that make sense?LukA YJK (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
We need reliable secondary sources covering this for it to be deemed important enough to include. I've spent some time digging, and I haven't been able to find anything else. My advice remains the same: See about adding this as a resource to other wiki sites such as Wikia or PCGamingWiki. It doesn't pass the bars set for Wikipedia content. -- ferret (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Replied beneath to try to keep stuff organized better. Replying in mid-response can get very ugly. For the first point: Adding more primary sources doesn't resolve anything, as I already noted (And has Czar), we need secondary reliable sources. Adding more information about what David researched doesn't help. We aren't writing an article on David. As for the fact that Moddb is used in other articles, approximately 30: That doesn't make it reliable, it just means it's snuck into a few articles. There are 10,000s of video game articles and unfortunately sometimes improper sources or sites sneak in. Rogue Squadron's article however is a "Featured Article", the highest designation an article can receive as being in-depth, well sourced, well written and recognized as some of the best work Wikipedia has put out. Even beyond normal policies, this raises the bar for anything new being added. If it's not at an FA level, it's bound to be opposed. Leaving inappropriate content in the article could result in it being demoted from FA status. -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: Rogue Squadron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)