Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This page in a nutshell: Clarify or amend WP:SYN to allow summaries of multiple sources. Ensure that these summaries must still meet standards of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and are subject to further research that may show the generalization made is false. Alternatively, clarify WP:SYN to state that these summaries are wholly unacceptable.

The problem

What is the problem

WP:SYN is unclear. According to User:Father Goose:

"I've seen people invoke SYN any time a general claim is made about multiple sources, especially primary sources. That is conceivably OR (if the claim is contested) but not SYN. SYN only applies to when a claim in one source is combined with a claim in another to distort what the first one said. That is clearly what the example provided under WP:SYN is referring to."

I have seen the same problem at many video game articles. Not so much about individual games, but articles about a genre or series. Let me offer a few hypothetical examples:

A game series: It might be true and verifiable that the first game in a series has an airship. It might also be true and verifiable that the second game in a series has an airship. But to make an article about the game series that says "all games in the series have an airship" might constitute synthesis. It requires a synthesis of two sourced facts that have not been made by another source.

A game genre: It might be true and verifiable that one strategy game has a technology tree. It might true and verifiable that another strategy game has a technology tree. But to say "many strategy video games use technology trees" might constitute original research, because there might not be a reliable piece of research that made this synthesis.

Do these two examples constitute original research? Do they violate WP:SYN? Or are they examples of good synthesis, and good summary?

Examples of problem

Space trading and combat simulator - arguably a violation of WP:SYN. But removing the references would result in this article being completely unsourced, and thus deletion fodder.

Common elements of Final Fantasy - potential violations of WP:SYN, but absolutely nothing that isn't true

4X - potential violations of WP:SYN, but absolutely nothing that isn't true

I can dig up further examples if necessary. But my point is that these are relatively good articles (sometimes great articles) that might technically violate a policy.

Scope and importance of the problem

This is a problem that affects many articles according to other editors, not just video games as I originally thought. Several disputes have gone on because of differing interpretations of this policy.

However, WP:SYN is generally a good policy. We need to make sure it still weeds out what it needs to weed out.

Proposed Solution #1

Amend and clarify WP:SYN to allow WP:V, WP:NPOV generalizations about multiple sources:

Compiling several pieces of research to make a generalization is not a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYN, so long as this generalization involves no inventiveness, interpretation, or insight. This kind of generalization must still meet the standards of WP:V and WP:NPOV. If this generalization is verifiable, then it should also be possible (in theory) that someone can offer a counter-example. Speculation would violate WP:CRYSTAL.

(This is a work in progress.)