Talk:Nightmare House 2

Untitled

I doubt notability will be an issue. This mod has only been out a few days and already it has a huge buzz around it. Podcast 17 has called it the mod of the year. Myself, I hadn't played the original but this is clearly head and shoulders above the average mod. It's likely to get a lot more attention as time goes on, so it would be a shame to have it deleted just to get rewritten. I'll add a Reception section, even though meta-scores and formal reviews are unusual for mods, I'll start it with the Podcast 17 reference. Rogdor (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I should also note I'd honestly remove the notability notice but I'm not sure of the proper procedure. I understand the need for notability, but frankly some articles need to get off the ground first before being buried into it. Rogdor (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To address it you need to prove it's notable, usually significant coverage from independent sources is the main way, notability should not be assumed. The podcast is a fansite and cannot be used, see WP:SELFPUBLISH. Rehevkor ✉ 16:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rehevkor: Podcast 17 is an independent mod news site, along with Moddb, etc.. which have broken news covered by professional news sites, interviewed and covered professionals in the industry. They match the reliable sources category more closely than self-published. If I'm not mistaken, reliable sources can (and should) be authoritative on the subject.

I'd like to return the Reception section on good faith, but I'll leave that to you because I have little interest in butting heads. The timing for this notability request was poor, just days before release. I understand that an unreleased and newly released mod may not meet notability standards of Wikipedia, but this mod is gaining attention and the cited source was sound. I'm requesting that the article be given its chance to show content without warning headers taking up the first part of the screen. Removal of the Reception section to me, says that you personally feel this article's subject is not notable, but you've removed a section that will assist in indicating that notability as others contribute.

Excuse me for choosing this as a place to make an opinion: To be perfectly honest, this sort of ill-timed quick-draw wikicop activity is dissuading me from contributing to Wikipedia as a whole. By the time you deem this notable, you may have scared off other possible contributors. Notability is one thing, allowing for articles to grow roots is another. (Note: I have no association with this game mod, nor any of the other sites linked within the article) Rogdor (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the notability request had really poor timing, let the mod grow its roots. Dysprosium (66Dy) (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I may add that this mod was recently featured on ModDB itself as the ModDB Staff Selection pick for August 2010. http://www.moddb.com/groups/spotlight/features/moddb-video-spotlight-august-2010 Dysprosium (66Dy) (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The podcast is a fansite and cannot be used, end of. Describing my edits as disruptive is failing to assume good faith. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which cannot be ignored, nothing personal about it, if being told you cannot ignore them is dissuading you then I can only apologise. Recommended reading is WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VER, and WP:RS, these must be addressed, especially the notability, if an article is to survive. I'm not sure how the timing of the "notability request" is poor, if someone creates an article that does not assert notability it is anyone's right to challenge it. I suggest you try to help find the "significant coverage" required to address it instead of making accusations. I am trying to help the article stay in the survivable state, I could just take the article to WP:AFD where I have little doubt it would be deleted but instead I am attempting to assist in addressing the issues. Rehevkor ✉ 03:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Moddb and Podcast 17 are reliable news sources for this area of interest as per WP:Reliable_sources. These are the experts of this field and I have no doubt they would be appropriate sources for other Wikipedia entries about game mods (Team Fortress immediately comes to mind). I respect Wikipedia's standards but I do not believe you have applied them here as they've been applied elsewhere.

I have asked for good faith from you and I demonstrated good faith with my request to return the section. I did not undo your edits and mark them as vandalism, because I did not believe you intended vandalism. I do believe you are applying standards incorrectly because you are refusing to accept the experts of this particular field as reliable sources.

Requesting notability sources was reasonable, but deleting the Reception section was premature and chills the opportunity for others and myself to provide sources as you've requested. Having the same person who's requested the sources then make speedy deletions of the sources does indeed come across as bias, even if it's just to follow-up your determination. In other words, I don't believe you have anything against the topics of this entry, I just believe you're being too diligent at policing it.

I am again asking that you step back and let this article be edited so that it can meet Wikipedia's standards given a reasonable amount of time. You've made the request, now please allow others to be the judge of these edits. In good faith, considering we have had a differing of opinions on this article, I will also refrain myself from editing it for a time.

Rogdor (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The exception for experts in a field is for things like the personal blog of an experienced professional game developer or respected game journalist, not fansites. Allowing them to be used will only harm the article. If you want further input on this specific link try the reliable source noticeboard. You're basically asking me to step back and allow the article to ignore policy and guidelines and this is not something I am willing to do, Wikipedia is not a fansite. Rehevkor ✉ 08:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for further input as suggested. I'm confused by what definition are you declaring the reference as a fansite? Podcast 17 follows all SourceSDK mods, as well as other games, as a podcast panel made up of a variety of experts in the field, including but not limited to members of Moddb and various respected members of various game mod teams (professional and amateur alike). Also, are you also disputing that Moddb is not a reliable source (noting again that it's used as such for Team Fortress)? Moddb is certainly well-associated with Podcast 17: Dave Traeger (Moddb editor-in-chief) is a semi-regular co-host of the podcast. Honestly, I'd be hard-pressed to find people more expert in the field of game modding.Rogdor (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source noticeboard is the best place for input on specific sources. Would certainly need more than that to address the notability issue. Also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Checklist which lists it as unreliable. Rehevkor ✉ 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if Moddb is listed as unreliable editorial content for having no editorial policies, I'm still confused how that would disqualify Moddb's editor-in-chief from having an expert opinion? Also, Podcast 17 does cite references in detail as an editorial policy. I'll wait and see on additional comments from Reliable source noticeboard. So far within this context, I believe I'll be correctly returning the source link and hopefully others won't be so dissuaded to add more once the section returns. Rogdor (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If Moddb is not reliable I don't see how the editor would be too. Especially just his opinion. Rehevkor ✉ 14:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is part of our dispute again. Do you not take things in context at all? Frankly, the bureaucratic to-the-letter-ignore-context rule enforcement is exhausting. Rogdor (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't force you to assume good faith here. But if you can't produce reliable sources there's not much more to say. Rehevkor ✉ 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not giving good faith toward the context, despite explanations that you're editing things that you have miscomprehended. Could you please apply these rules under the context of this entry and the area of interest it is in. Moddb is a user-content generated site and the unreliability is noted for not having editorial policy in that context. You did not answer my question, how does that bring dispute over the knowledge of the area of interest that the editor-in-chief has? If you are editing without proper frame of reference on the content, why are you editing at all? The nature of context of this sort was actually addressed on Reliable source noticeboard and I've clearly said within that context. Rogdor (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, may I add one thing... if you go down to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Checklist and follow the link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_1#MobyGames_and_ModDB you'll see the reason ModDB was rejected as a reliable source was because it provided information about games that can edited by everyone, without editorial control. However, given the fact that the notability source I posted earlier was in fact a written article from the STAFF of ModDB itself (which CANNOT be edited by anyone but the staff) and given the context that the staff (who wrote the article) picked it as August 2010 ModDB Staff Selection, I think it's safe to call this a reliable source. It's an official newspost from the staff calling it Mod of the Month, not some random-guy's review / mod page comment. Dysprosium (66Dy) (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article is currently featured on the ModDB homepage itself, which AFAIK can only be edited by the staff. Dysprosium (66Dy) (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the editorial pieces have not been established as reliable either as far as I can see. Does Moddb have editorial oversight? it's still a long way from addressing the notability though. Rehevkor ✉ 21:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

<Being the editor-in-chief of a website that is not considered a reliable source does not make him an "expert" by virtue of his position, no. However, that is not the issue as such here, since the "award" is given by the podcast, not the individual afaik. Rehevkor ✉ 15:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You have not read the context in Reliable source noticeboard as I noted, since the individuals are exactly the context I am talking about. Nor are you aware of the context of the particular sources noted.

Please, if you have a failing to understand the content, do not perform destructive edits on it.

For the rest, please see your own talk page because I've moved my dispute with you there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogdor (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are failing to assume good faith once again. Please refrain from making such accusations. There's nothing more I can say until you do so. Rehevkor ✉ 15:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith when you contradict the context? Either you did not read it, or you misread it. Please redirect the rest of this dispute to your talk page or mine. You failed to read that request as well, or ignored it. Rogdor (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for consideration

Searching for sources doesn't bring up much:

• golem.de Foreign language, can't tell if it's reliable, or what it says.
• planethalflife.gamespy.com Passing mention with trailer.
• gamekicker.com Passing mention, dunno about reliability.
• n4g.com Same again. Scratch that, both the above just link to an Examiner article.
• gamershell.com Pre release bit

Rehevkor ✉ 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I just thought I'd leave this source for notability here -- eXeC http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/25/mod-news-news-mods/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.70.4 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, but still doesn't cover the "significant coverage" required per the general notability guideline. Rehevkor ✉ 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.moddb.com/groups/spotlight/features/moddb-video-spotlight-august-2010 More notability stuff -- eXeC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.70.4 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A review that looks fairly reliable: http://gm3r.com/blog/2010/09/10/mod-review-nightmare-house-2/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.70.4 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot

Do we really need the whole plot to be there in the first place? It is way too detailed and completely ruins the game experience. Even by having a first glance at the article I immediately noticed the spoilers on the mod's multiple endings. Also, according to Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Spoilers, "Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers." I fail to see how spoiling the plot substantially enhances the impact of the mod, it is quite simply ruining the experience. I think the section should either be deleted, or replaced by a shorter, less-detailed version, but I'll leave that up to you. Dysprosium (66Dy) (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For an article to be comprehensive, you'll need to explain the plot, spoilers and all. If people are worried about spoilers, they shouldn't read a section titled "plot". But overall, compared the rest of the article the plot probably is too long, although I've not yet completed the mod to really judge on the plot text itself. Rehevkor ✉ 21:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Explaining the plot ≠ spoiling it and giving lots of details. The article can be just as comprehensive without the spoilers and without all the details, and as I quoted, spoilers should "be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers." I can't see how spoiling the plot would make the article any more comprehensive than a shorter, spoiler-less synopsis. Dysprosium (66Dy) (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but be aware spoilers shouldn't be omitted just because they're spoilers. Rehevkor ✉ 21:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with the spoilers if it weren't for the fact that I can read them all by simply taking a quick look at the article. They're on their own, 1-to-2-line paragraphs, they completely stand out from the rest of the section - which in turn is already on the top of the article (which means that I almost don't even have the need to scroll down to see them). I don't see why do they have to be on their own paragraphs at all. I don't see why they have to be on the article at all, since it isn't even that big. If, however, the plot had any major symbolism that ought to be explained or was of relevant significance to the article, then I would be totally fine with the section and the spoilers and even write it myself. But it's not the case. Dysprosium (66Dy) (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Best bet would be to write a short summary of the overall plot to replace the current text with. Rehevkor ✉ 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it as soon as I finish the mod if noone else does it in the meantime. Dysprosium (66Dy) (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear that a plot from myself is unlikely to be forthcoming. Christ this game is annoying. Rehevkor ✉ 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)