Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

[edit]

Template:Video game requirements

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep, page moved to Template:System requirements. Due to its use outside of video game articles. —CKY2250 ταικ 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template should no longer be used on VG articles per consensus. (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#System_requirements and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_100#System_requirements ) In short, WP:NOTFAQ Soetermans. T / C 20:33, 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? - hahnchen 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]
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]
@Darkwarriorblake: Hi. There are a lot instances when one'd think "law says so; so it should be so" but after a discussion, it does not happen. For example, compare what WP:NOTDIR says with this AfD. Yes, NOTDIR says it must be deleted, but is it happening?
I am not saying keep it because it is used; I am saying don't take for granted that all its use cases can be removed uncontested. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:27, 9 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:
  1. 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."
  2. 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."
  3. 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]
The problem with this analogy is that 99% of the requirement template use was to paste it into the article without complimentary text to discuss the requirements, whereas we make it a point that VG reviews need to have complimentary prose. This is possible since we can pull from reviews; but with requirements, there is little else that normally can be said besides "well, here they are", and that doesn't work. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your drawing at straws and ignoring my main points again. I'm not going to take the time to address this one. 155.97.192.173 (talk) 22:02, 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. - hahnchen 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]
I'm opposing it a) because I can, and b) because I don't recognise any consensus in the discussions linked. About 4 or 5 wikiproject editors had a brief natter, you being one of them, and someone considers it a "consensus"? There was no true consensus established in that discussion, whatsoever, by any spark of the imagination. I find the claim wholly invalid and so oppose the nomination. Deal with it before making rude judgements regarding my good faith, boy. I quoted a WikiProject parameter, that's not "being difficult" it's showing due respect for established standards, which serves to negate the reasoning behind the nomination. If you find that difficult, you have more problems than I. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is it normal on Wikipedia to flame war on trivial topics like this? I'd understand if its politics or religion, but a little box that people obviously want to see has opponents of this magnitude? Part of the reason why I think this hasn't been discussed until now is in part because I don't follow these discussions until it involves what I see as a serious overstep in authority by a small group of Wikipedia editors. I feel I've been schlepped into making mountains out of a molehills. 155.97.192.173 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Readers may want to see that box, but at the same time, readers also want to see tons of screenshots, full plot breakdowns, tons of character details, and other facts that are not part of what a summary article on a video game should do (and I know this is what readers want as I've read through reader feedback on various game pages). We simply can't support that stuff, and VG requirements are the same time. Unless the requirements are discussed in a critical manner, they are only there to help readers with making a purchasing decision, and that is not our function. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I read WP:NOT (the main policy page) you guys linked to and it doesn't list "system requirements". I addressed how it's not there to help readers make a "purchasing decision" in my original post, which you've ignored at least three times. If all you're going to do is soapbox, fine, I am not longer interested in helping you make a bigger mountain. 155.97.192.173 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @IP 155.97.etc... the case here is not so much "flame wars" as "defending your own corner". I just had a look over the Article guidelines for the VG WikiProject, and get the feeling that it has evolved with conflicts of interests presiding over its format. By this I mean, I'm a member of the Military History project, the standards there are based on the notion of "how to present history factually and without bias" because history affects everyone in the world and everyone has some form of interest in their past or some period and wants to know more about it sometime in their lives. Video gaming is a topic which embodies an industry providing for an entertainment or "hobby", and potentially all video game editors are gamers, with PCs and/or consoles and the games they edit in-depth – in short, it's a "specialist subject" mostly created by and aimed to those who do it. The standards/guidelines presented at the WikiProject feel very tuned towards how gamers want to present that hobby to suit themselves, rather than the more noble cause of presenting the hobby in a more objective manner for this encyclopedia shared with thousands of other subjects and not just dedicated to gaming alone. In essence, some VG editors may be missing the bigger picture and the "flame wars" represent the typical behaviour you see off-wiki on Steam forums and such between keyboard warriors and juvenile gamers who lack emotional control and humility (and respect). And I say this with experience as a regular gamer, who uses Steam, but does not share community or project interests. So please, no BS "personal attack" rebuttals, I'm speaking candidly with regards to why this TfD has lost its credibility due to certain abrupt attitudes between editors, without naming names, not how WP:VG works.
I also completely disagree with the sentiment that only Crysis has notable specs and few others do. I think that's a misguided point of view, and not a fact that can be strongly argued per se; it is the underlying reasons, better graphic designs, a complex game engine, improved technologies, that are the notable factors, the means not the end resulted in the need for high specs, and people are confusing the facts – what is more notable, the design of a new road vehicle that can reach 200mph or the law that doesn't allow that car to run? What is also fact is that the specs which we can display here on Wiki represent recognised industrial standards, hardware and software configurations relative to real-world expectations. The things Masem listed above are fancruft, there are infinite combinations of "in game" descriptions and screenshots each title could have but there is only one set of minimum and recommended system requirements. It's no less notable to state that a game needs 8Gb RAM than it is to state that a man needs to be 5'10" minimum to get in the army, because they are constants (mostly) which allow people to do what is meant to be done with an encyclopedia: research, correlate and compare data for a purpose. The info. in this template is data, not trivia. Why members of a WikiProject feel that data doesn't deserve a place on an encyclopedia makes no sense to me. If the box is removed, in, let's say 40 years time, people won't be able to look back from 2050 at games from 2010 and see how things were. All they'll get is a plot, a few reviews and the sales success. I feel the need to avoid oversimplifying content is important here. What may seem commonplace now (i.e. all games sharing similar specs) will become historically relevant to gamers as the articles age, and better recognised from retrospect rather than current day complacency with technical norms. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question of historical context has been considered; the argument is this - if we look back at the initial retail games like Doom, Myst, and others, and consider that, yes, they had requirements then, are those requirements important now? In one case, Myst, yes - but only because that was the game that was considered to drive CD readers for personal computers, everything else about the game wasn't really needed. I do note that in border specs, one can point to improvements or changes in hardware that a game or class of games released near the same time, however, this is generally part of describing the history of the hardware. But take something like Doom - does it help the reader (who we assume is not a video game player) to know that Doom requires "40 MB of uncompressed hard disk space and 100MB of free hard drive space for the Windows swap file (in addition to install space)" [1]? There's no context for that. It's when you compare that on the broad timeline of personal computer growth and hardware improvements when that number actually means something, but if that's average for the time, there's going to be very few sources that call out to that specific point. So basically, system requirements are a historical curiousity and something that game sites like allgame or mobygames do track and we can link to, but it's not necessary for an encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would hazard to suggest that your reply does infer a context. It infers that game development has evolved, so it is speculative to suggest that certain fields of data are irrelevant except for certain games, because gaming is a market, and an encyclopedia either needs to be one-in, all-in or none at all, to be impartial, even if you only present archaic requirements in a table, it meets WP:BALASPS: "...strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". "History of games" was a class as part of my University's Computer Studies degree, I know, because I took it.. very boring, but it did relate to early games with mundane details such as their colour depth and storage media, including cassettes and early console cartridges or 3.5" floppy disks, to CDs and DVDs – downloads via Steam didn't really exist at this time, but in order to be able to take the Game Design course in second year, this history of gaming class was a prerequisite. So yes, I would argue that there is context, and that the historical curiosity has scope for educational purposes. Bores the tits off me, but I'm sure it turns on some people on who love early 8-bit games on computers from the 1980s. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why we do include the computer platforms that games were developed for and its format, which is what you said you were taught. But technical requirements like how much ram is suggested or the minimium video cards, with no other context, are simply points for a potential buyer and has little direct historical context when talking about the video game in isolation. And when we do mention where others have talked about the requirements, we are not talking about using this table, but to talk about the requirements that are actually discussed in the prose of the article. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Platforms are vague. I made this point at the original WP:VG discussion that while a platform label such as "Xbox 360" describes exactly the hardware requirements for a console game, "Microsoft Windows" fails to do so for a PC game. The target platform supplements the development subsection providing historical context, it has nothing to do with buyer FAQs. It's providing the same level of fidelity to PC games as it does console games. - hahnchen 18:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overview: It seems like people want to keep the template with the stipulation that it should not be used on video game articles unless specifically stated to be used. In this case -- what I have mentioned before this Template for deletion -- a notice should be placed on the template stating where and how it should be used. And that it needs to be monitored to not have this template on video game articles.—CKY2250 ταικ 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this to be a disingenuous and unilateral overview. The brief natter of 4 or 5 wikiproject editors as Ma®©usBritish pointed out is not the consensus view of how the video game requirements template should be used. 155.97.192.173 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • System requirements aren't an FAQ. FAQs are something you ask of an existing thing, i.e. "what are the specs" not "what will the specs be" as a game's actual system demands cannot be accurately benchmarked until it is complete, only estimated. The requirements of a game are generally released along with the game itself, preceding FAQs for the game, therefore nobody had to "ask" because the requirements were "specified" by the studio/publisher. For example, a micromeal states "5 minutes at 650W, 3 minutes at 800W" – is that an answer to an FAQ or a specified instruction? By the same comparison, is "Game X requires 8Gb of RAM and a CPU of at least 2.4GHz" an FAQ or also a specific instruction? And per WP:WHENTABLE: "Tables are a way of presenting links, data, or information in rows and columns." System requirements fulfil the role of "data" quite splendidly, you'll find. Therefore, by deduction of logic, system reqs are neither FAQs nor easily manageable as prose, without creating a messy arrangement that attempts to string half-a-dozen hardware terms into a sentence, when a table does it far better. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that it is not a FAQ. It is data, but as a tertiary source, we are not obligated to include every piece of data about a game, irregardless of how its formatted. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you mean Wikipedia is a tertiary source? Okay, that's true, but nowhere in our guidelines do I recall reading Wiki's position in the world or our obligations to anyone? We have specific guidelines detailing our obligations to using specific forms of data. Each form of data entered on Wiki must first pass two major requirements: notability and verifiability, as well as being neutral and reliably sourced. You could write about the smell of the Queen's feet if it was felt it met those requirements suitably, so I'm sure plenty of editors could reasonably argue that the system requirements of software also meet them. Though that is a debate separate to this TfD which relates to the necessity of the template, not the data within, as you don't need a template to contribute something of note to an article. I suspect an RFC may be needed to determine the suitability of including system requirements, at a later point, rather than another chit-chat at WP:VG between 4 or 5 opponents on the matter, to prevent further COI issues. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have determines that requirement data is indiscriminate (it is presented without any context), which is another reason to exclude information per WP:NOT. (And no, more than 5-6 ppl have participated, this has been 3-4 times over at WP:VG). If other software products want to use requirements, that's fine, but in the video game project, we've determined this data isn't needed. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which returns me, full circle, back to my first point on this TfD: "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." If there have been a number of discussions, they should all be listed in the nomination, to give us some context and background, rather than the two links which show nothing representing a consensus. Lot of "we" in your reply, how many of your 384 active members constitutes as "we" in order to reach a reasonable level of consensus that can seemingly be dictated to everyone else on Wikipedia? You may not realise it, but that is how it comes across, as though WP:VG have made an enforceable policy, which is not the case. Yes I know there is such thing as consensus, but your reply has a "pick and choose" element to it, which is not consensus, it is "do what you want on your articles, not on ours" which crosses the WP:OWN line, especially with "we" applied so heavily. It's easy to infer things from such a small word. That is why I recommend an RFC be raised next time a template which covers such a large territory is used, as very few editors peruse all the WikiProject talk pages looking for discussions which may interest them. WikiProjects are required to extend invitations across the site, rather than act as closed-communities. Not your fault, I'm sure, but makes sense, does it not? WP:CCC Ma®©usBritish{chat} 03:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not making any "policy". We in the VG group have determined that for articles on video games, it doesn't make sense to include requirements. As a separate issue, it was mistakenly thought that the template was no longer needed on the belief it was only associated with video games. But as Codename Lisa's pointed out, there's other uses of the template outside of VG software, so deleting it immediately will pose issues, so yes, this likely needs to be kept on process. But that's a completely separate issue from the fact that the VG project, for articles within the VG project, that system requirements should not be included. That is absolutely not a WP-wide "policy" decision, and is the type of thing that every WP has options to do with articles within their project in what information they think is appropriate to include or not. Again, to be clear, the VG project's decision only applies to VG articles, if other articles want to include requirements, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I see on this discussion, some members of WP:VG is OWNING VG-related article and determining what should be included though a little-known discussion? So 'We the Reader' would have the right to ignore WP:VG so-called consensus as 1) it is not an official Wikipedia policy and 2) there is no policy requires us to do so. Thank--27.74.16.39 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with changes: I don't really see why people are too uncomfortable with including system requirements even after having gone through a majority of the discussions related to this. It's not like it's disturbing to look at (unlike a lot many other math articles which are plain hideous). It's not like it takes too much space, or is difficult to make. Being a gamer myself, I find it extremely useful. So an alternative approach would be to make it collapsible (with a hide/show button) and make it hidden as the default so that gamers can click on "show" to see it. Given how well formatted, concise and objective the table is, I really believe it is useful and should not be deleted. Tushar Shrotriya (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename – I find it odd that a template called "Video game requirements" is being used outside of video game articles, but it is a valid point that outright deleting it may not be a good idea at this time. I suggest keeping it for now but perhaps renaming it in the process to something like "System requirements" removing the link to video games in its name. Consensus on whether or not the relatively small number of articles outside the VG realm should be using the template can be obtained at a later time. If it's then determined that it doesn't belong in those articles either, another proposal for deletion can always be submitted. For everyone here who is arguing against previously founded consensus to ban the template from VG articles, I suggest taking the debate to a more appropriate venue, such as WP:VG, since this isn't really the place to change it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GameRankings has an all-time list of best-received video games, which can be found here. Note that GameRankings makes the distinction on what platform a game was released, so for instance Grand Theft Auto IV is listed two times. For the first fifty best-received games, PC games listed are The Orange Box, Half-Life 2, Portal 2, BioShock, Mass Effect 2, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and the original Half-Life. In Jane McGonigal's book Reality is Broken she points to a webpage that put all these "best of" lists together, which can be found here. Scroll down to see a summary of those lists. Of those games, a lot of them are console-exclusives, or they were released later on different platforms (Resident Evil 4, Final Fantasy VII), while others have seen numerous re-releases (Tetris, Street Fighter II). The only PC-first release is Half-Life 2. On that page, you'll also see PC Gamer's all-time list, which is as follows: Portal, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Team Fortress 2, Fallout 3, Dragon Age: Origins, World of Warcraft, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, ARMA II, Civilization IV and StarCraft II.
Of the games I have linked here (which for space and time aren't that many to begin with and consider the fact that I also took PC Gamer's list), Half-Life 2, BioShock, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and ARMA II have the system requirements listed. Those are five games, of games that are consider the best ever. So why are system requirements necessary to understand them? Because they have graphics? --Soetermans. T / C 12:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following. I think you've already made your point that there is consensus "not" to use the template in VG articles. I'm not disputing that. What I've said pertains to Codename Lisa's comment, that the template may have already found a home outside of VG articles. My vote to "keep" the template is based on that possibility. Until it can be eliminated, the template in my opinion should stay. Even if the consensus here is to keep the template, the Wikiproject WP:VG can still maintain its consensus that the template not be used in VG articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, let me clarify: MarcusBritish said he thinks games will become historically relevant to gamers as the articles age, but I beg to differ: even games now considered masterpieces, classics, whatever, don't have system requirements listed (and in all fairness, I have removed the template now and then from articles, but not those I mentioned). --Soetermans. T / C 01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That is a worthy study. It seems to me that articles that have ample material do not need to resort to such space fillers as system requirements. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'System requirement' is always an important information of a game as it provides an overlook of the game graphic and its hardware demand. As a game lover, it is one of the most frequent keyword I put on the Google search bar when searching for a game's information. And I see no strong proof to categorize System requirement as a "Frequently Question and Answers" variant. Let me ask you Wikipedians: if 'System requirement' is a FAQ, where is the question (assuming the System requirement is 'the answer')?. Moreover, I don't think a group of editors have the right to make policy for Wikipedia as this action would out-rightly violate WP:OWN.--27.74.16.39 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You gave the answer yourself: You frequently search for "system requirements" in Google, so the question is: What are its system requirements? But in practice, you are just nitpicking at a synecdoche that represent a fundamental law (WP:NOT) about not including contents that lack encyclopedic context or remaining significance. That's not created by a single member of VG. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I can't understand how a piece of infos could be considered a FAQ. If your argument is valid, I could considered Wikipedia is the answer of the question "what is Wikipedia?"?. One of the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide readers like me the information we need. Sorry, but your argument is too flawed and I strongly disagree. And as I mentioned, I don't think WP:VG has the right or the power to make a policy that determine what should be and should not be included in an article. All need to be go through a process of discussion to determine what is the general consensus of editors. I'm sorry but I could not respect that ban until there are some serious talks as many current supporting arguments (including "not all readers play game" and "it's too technical to understand") are insults to WP:NPOV as they look down game players that read Wikipedia.--27.74.22.81 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses, 27.74.22.81, WP:VG doesn't have that power and doesn't own articles (or templates), that's why we are discussing it here right now. WP:VG works together to improve video game related articles, and so there is WP:VG/MOS. But somehow after working together and improving articles, our combined effort and opinion has no place in this discussion. Okay, does my opinion still matter even when I contribute to WP:VG? Or should we ask editors who generally do not edit video game articles to make these kinds of decisions?
Wikipedia is aimed at a very large audience, not just gamers. We have to keep that in mind when writing or editing video game articles. As already pointed out, there are lot of games that either will never have the system requirements template (console-exclusives, iOS) or PC games that are too old and that information becomes obsolete. You already brought up Google: all the information you would ever need is out there, but that doesn't mean it should be here too. Also, WP:NPOV means holding a neutral point of view in an article, not whether or not having system requirements on video game articles. --Soetermans. T / C 20:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if WP:VG write 99% of this Wikipedia's AG-related article, it still has no right to ban anything from being included in Wikipedia articles. So if you want to do so, please bring it to the village pump and ask a greater numbers of Wikipedian so that you could have a solid consensus. May your consensus matters in WP:VG it IS STILL NOT general Wikipedia community consensus so please don't be angry if someone ignore it.
And let me ask you, what would you do with many opposing views here. Would you consider them to rewrite the ban or just ignore them as they are not voiced in a proper way (on WP:VG project page)?
You know, gamer is a unseparatable part of the audience who use Wikipedia as their primary source. Why should you treat them as a very minor group that is not worth being served? It is very NOPV argument! AFAK, Wikipedia should not be use to project a obsolete of any kind of information so I cannot agree with you. And the availability of information thorough Google has no role to determine what is suitable to Wikipedia, it's just my 2 cent.--27.74.20.146 (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VG's consensus would not override a broader consensus outside of the wikiproject. I don't think you're going to find much argument there. However, since a consensus has been established by the project, the burden of obtaining a broader consensus would be on any editor that disagrees, not the other way around. Until then, the wikiproject's consensus should be acceptable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem with this reasoning is claiming that gamers use WP as a primary source for video games. That's not WP's purpose or goal by design of the larger work (due to aspects like verification, notability, indiscriminate information, non-free content, etc.); we are here to write about video games in the context of the world-at-large, a step removed from the VG industry. There are plenty of other wikis out there that are much better suited towards video games that can go into details we are simply not able to as a general source (And as I write this, I'm aware that one of the more popular ones, MobyGames, has had some falling-out issues, but there still remains Wikia, Giant Bomb, etc.) When I look through reader feedback for video games, there are too many requests that simply fall outside the scope of what WP can provide. And this happens on a lot of other articles too. Readers have come to expect Wikipedia to be Google, but we're not, we're a tertiary source and can only do so much to cover a topic in that manner. To the point of this, only a small subset of readers will get value out of system requirements presented without any additional context, while others will simply be confused by them, and hence our choice to remove them. Again, there's technical reasons that the template has to stay presently (due to use outside VG articles), but within VG, we'll still be prescribing the avoidance of requirements. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't realize that I was actually supporting you, did you? (And you didn't bother to see whether my !vote is keep or delete.) Now, if you are asking yourself "what kind of support was that" (probably because you are assuming that it could have not been the case), the answer is: The type of support that let's you fix superficial mistakes in your POV and better expose its core argument that is valid. We're here to read, analyze and discuss, not attack blindly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no reason why the information would not be useful to the reader in the form of a template, even if it can be offered in a textual form such as a paragraph or a blurb. Additionally, much like cars would have templates to describe their technical specifications, (see Bugatti Veyron for reference), I see no reason why a video game should not have a template to describe its technical specifications. It's easier to use the template than to have an entire section dedicated to detailing the specifications of a game. I think the template is definitely an asset for video games and other software, especially as a gamer and IT major. Lastly, for the reason that Wikipedia is for everybody and the information in the template may be too technical for your average Joe Soap, it can be hidden, so that anybody who is actually interested can just click on the "Show" link... that's my 2 cents at least. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You brought up a car for comparison, but a video game isn't a machine or a device. To understand a car or machine, yes, you would need to know their technical specifactions, even if it were to compare it to other cars. But as have pointed out repeatedly, not all games have system requirements or have those listed, because you can understand a video game without the technical details. No-one would describe Super Mario Bros. as an 8-bit video game, even though it is one (and one of the most well-known at that). System requirements are only mentioned for the top of the line, system requirements-heavy games. If I would compare this discussion about system requirements and video games to books, that "requirements" information would be how much space you would need in your bookcase, what kind of reading glasses you would need or on what kind of sofa it would be best to read it on. --Soetermans. T / C 13:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I mentioned before, system requirement is needed for people to determine the graphic of a game. To understand a game, it is one of the most popular method of many gamers. If your argument is valid that the general audience don't understand what the heck system requirement is so we should not include it, why should we list technical specifications of a car, or a gun. How many people could under stand what "2.2-liter inline-four" is or how many reader could understand "Cyclic 600 rounds/min"? But we still include it because all kind of infos have its own audience and you has no right to tell which audience is more important. You know, this Wikipedia is created to be a sum of human knowledge and I see no reason to consider video's game "system requirement" not a kind of human knowledge.--27.74.20.146 (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is most definitely not true, "system requirement [sic] is needed for people to determine the graphic [sic] of a game". Even if you would be very into the technical part of video games, you can't conclude what the graphics are or what the game might present to the player. Again, we are talking about games, not machines or devices. Also, just because other articles on different subjects are like that, doesn't mean this template should be the same. --Soetermans. T / C 16:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "[sic]" by @User:Soetermans is nothing short of WP:BITE-like behaviour, because it isn't needed here. I suggest you grow up and stop trying to take cheap pot-shots at those who oppose your views, in an effort to skirt the spirit of WP:NPA. Don't attempt to refute me with petty excuses either, just pack it in and drop the hostile attitude, now. WP:INDCRIT would make healthy reading for you. I'd expect better of someone who claims to study pastoral care, instead of reading and supporting people, you're making underhand replies towards non-English IPs. Where's your self-respect? WP:INDCRIT would make healthy reading for you. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me?! This is definitely not okay, @MarcusBritish! It's great that you took the time to read my user page, but what my studies have to with this here discussion are completely beside the point! That is simply ad hominem! I could've been a carpenter or a psychology professor, whatever, outside of this discussion that holds no ground! Also, you could've noticed that I am from Amsterdam: I am neither English nor is the language my native tongue. If anything, you are acting the very same way you are accusing me of, telling me I "have to grow up" and asking me where my self-respect is. I am not taking cheap-shots here, because the IP argument holds no ground, you simply cannot conclude what the graphics are by knowing the system requirements. And where else in this discussion have I been hostile? I haven't, not even once. I am reading other arguments and just because I disagree doesn't make me a bad person. I agreed with Codename Lisa to just rename the thing. Also, sic is a perfectly normal way of trying to point out that what I cited was the exact same thing. If you think that it is not necessary, you could've assume good faith and just said "hey Soetermans, just so you know, you don't need to use that" and THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FINE. --Soetermans. T / C 13:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Soetermans, I don't assume nor am I required to assume good faith when signs of bullying are evident. Virtually all kids in the Netherlands speak English these days, 80–90% in fact, the same cannot be said of the Vietnamese, which this IP relates to, so your defence is a moot and over-invested point. This is no ad hominem, you were bullying, your tit-for-tat table-turning exercise only proves that; I didn't even mention his argument with regards this TfD, it seems that it is your intent to keep on bashing it – just had to get that extra jab in, didn't you? "[sic]" is not required unless you're formally quoting a source, not a person in a general discussion, the fact you used it twice for emphasis raises my concern that you were simply aiming to embarrass the editor to discourage their continued posting, per Sic#Form of ridicule. I think I've made my point, like it or lump it, either way you can WP:DROPTHESTICK I won't be wasting more time on this matter or with you. I didn't WP:AGF because you didn't demonstrate good faith to him nor in your self-defeating reply to me. Good day. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Soetermans wanted to address the exact quote and wording from the IP (grammar aside), the use of "sic" in that context is perfectly fine. Yes, "sic" can be used on talk pages in derogatory ways (I've seen it), and one has to be careful with its use, but it is not a banned term from talk pages and its use her was to help identify the exact quote from an IP user to further discussion. You cannot assume that by using "sic" to address a previous discussion's quote is automatically a sign of bad faith (That assumption itself is bad faith). --MASEM (t) 15:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for, as much as anything else, a lack of a valid deletion rationale. One linked-to discussion is still ongoing, so there's no way you can call a consensus on that. The archived one does have a consensus, but it is that the system requirements will need to be notable for them to be included in an article; no consensus about the validity of having a template or not. I'm not remotely buying into "the information may become obsolete" argument, as that simply makes no sense and seems totally irrelevant. Also, as previously noted, non-Video Game articles are using the template; so I would also support a sensible rename, to something like "PC software requirements" or similar. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Computer requirements". I would assume further in the future if not already, it would be used for MAC, LINUX or other OS platforms not made yet.—CKY2250 ταικ 13:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find the technical information very useful; in fact, a computer game article seems incomplete without it. Also, this is not the sort of information that can easily be completely incorporated into the body of the text. I realize that Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide, but, realistically, most people who would look up a computer game title on Wikipedia are probably at least potentially interested in obtaining it, and the knowledge of whether or not it would work on their existing computer system is crucial information for their understanding of the game and their own particular relationship to it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template name change
[edit]

Discussion for name change, since there is a dead halt on the mention of video games.

I suggest switching the title to the template to Computer requirements or System requirements. This will allow for a more broad use of the template.—CKY2250 ταικ 14:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Algeria Portal

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Can't retire

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure). Mentoz86 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 07:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WLeague NUJ

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2013 December 13 by User:Jax 0677. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:EU dependencies

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • Oppose as per CyberFour. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the template could be designed with a purpose similar to a Venn diagram, without becoming too complicated -PC-XT+ 08:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So if I understand correctly, you suggest combining them into one template containing three groups "Dependencies in Europe", "Outlying dependencies" and "Other outlying territories"? If it's useful to show which outlying territories are dependencies (or which dependencies are outlying), these can also be marked with italics or colors within each template. I think these templates just differ too much to be merged. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically. I don't care if it is done by colors, images, grouping, or some other method as long as it doesn't duplicate information, yet keeps the different inclusion requirements without being confusing. The color idea does sound the most promising. I doubt it will happen, but it's what I require before I change my !vote, short of a flaw in reasoning. -PC-XT+ 01:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not clear to me whether you want to color-code both the EU dependencies and the EU outlying territories templates, or you want to merge them into one color-coded template. It may be useful to distinguish dependent territories from integral parts of countries within the {{Outlying territories of European countries}} template by using italics or (possibly) colors. The dependencies in {{EU dependencies}} may be grouped by continent as well as by sovereign state, if it's helpful in navigating between articles. Though I still don't think it will be an advantage to combine the two templates, mainly for the reason given by CMD. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't think about changing the existing templates, only merging. The only way I can see the possibility of merging is to complicate the display as we are discussing. I would prefer to keep them separate, though, to avoid confusion. Your suggestions to organize the existing templates do sound like they could be useful. -PC-XT+ 23:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ "Call of Duty: Ghosts PC Minimum System Requirements". Call of Duty Community. 2013-10-23. Retrieved 2013-10-24.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_5&oldid=1259694209"