Talk:Shockwave Assault

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge. Apparently there's no objection to my proposal, so I'm going ahead and performing the merge. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

---

I propose that Shock Wave (video game) be merged into this article. "Shock Wave" is simply an alternate title for Shockwave Assault (specifically, the title which appeared on the 3DO version), so having it as a separate article is patently unnecessary and confusing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article blanking and locking

Okay, so what exactly is going on here? I see above that we have a completely unopposed consensus to merge Shock Wave (video game) to Shockwave Assault. Makes sense; the two are the same game, and "Shockwave Assault" is a name unique to the game, whereas there are multiple games called "Shock Wave".

So why the heck is editor Stormwatch repeatedly blanking this article, while an incomplete and poorly written version of the article is at Shock Wave (video game) - which is in turn locked so that neither I nor anyone else can make improvements to it? I have reviewed the edit histories for the articles but still cannot make sense of why this article is being assaulted (pun not intended) like this.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum, Stormwatch ignored my directive to use the talk page, reverted my restoration of the article (like all his edits, no justification was provided), and posted a cease-and-desist note to my personal talk page. Pretty clear by now that Stormwatch is not acting in good faith. Since he's been at this for well before I came along, I think it's time we reported this to administrators; unless someone posts a better idea in the next three days, I'll go ahead and do just that.--NukeofEarl (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... I have to say at this point, I have no better ideas, and indeed I must apologize for allowing Stormwatch's nonconstructive editing to go this far. It was actually pretty clear from the beginning that he was acting in bad faith: Note that while he didn't participate in the merge discussion for the month it was up, he reverted the merge within mere hours of my performing it. Also, you may have to review the article histories carefully to see this, but he actually shifts positions mid-dispute. First he was saying that Shockwave Assault should remain as two separate articles (see his posts on my personal talk page - nope, you're not the first editor he pulled that on), but now he's pulling for a single article at Shock Wave (video game). Reading his posts, he shows no awareness of having changed his mind - he just flat-out forgot which excuse he was using to antagonize other editors.

Even on Wikipedia, I have better uses of my time than butting heads with guys like Stormwatch, and I figured that so long as I didn't rise to his bait, he would eventually get bored and leave the article alone. Instead, he persisted with his edit warring and reported me to the Administrators' noticeboard. Here's where it gets bizarre: Stormwatch didn't even bother lying about my behavior. He just posted an argument for why my edits are wrong. Despite this, the responding administrator, Darkwind, opted to preserve Stormwatch's version of Shock Wave (video game) by blocking all editing from the article for six months. That's why you (and every other editor) has been locked out from improving the article. I posted this message to Darkwind's talk page, requesting an explanation for his blocking of the article and indications on how I was supposed to proceed with the dispute. He never replied. Odd behavior for a Wikipedia admin, to say the least.

So I thought if I just let Stormwatch have his little victory, he would allow me to restore this article so that other editors could improve it. My mistake. Before you report him, though, I'm going to try one last revert and posting a warning to his talk page. Virtually no chance of this doing any good, but it's best if you can say that we really have tried making every effort to get through to him.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this: Seems Stormwatch reported me to the administrator's noticeboard a second time. Why "just stumbled"? Because this time, he didn't post a note to my talk page informing me of this. Luckily, the administrator responding this time (slakr) behaved less sketchy than Darkwind, and gave the standard "work it out amongst yourselves" response. Stormwatch has dug quite a hole for himself here for when his behavior finally gets reported.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you two are in the wrong here.

Let me explain this again: the game's original release is called Shock Wave (not Shockwave, that's a different game). The expanded re-release is called Shockwave Assault. By logic, it is Shock Wave - NOT Assault - that should get an article.

Martin, your behavior is irrational. The articles must be named after the original game, not some expanded version. It would be like moving Unreal to Unreal Gold, or Rune to Rune Classic.

And the page is only locked because of your tomfoolery, Martin. --Stormwatch (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll be doggone. Stormwatch just went crying to the Administrator's noticeboard for a third time. Apparently no one ever told him that Wikipedia administrators, as a rule, don't like editors who waste their time with petty disputes. He also posted more flamebait to your personal talk page, Martin.

And holy cow, he's finally learned how to use the talk page. Too bad he apparently has yet to learn anything about Wikipedia naming conventions or about the game he's edit warring over. Ordinarily I'd provide a polite rebuttal to his argument, but his behavior clearly shows that would be a wasted effort.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal is the opposite of what anyone with common sense would do.--Stormwatch (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, the report on the Administrator's noticeboard has been closed, so this seems like a good time to try a fresh start. My approach to communicating with Stormwatch is overdue for an overhaul; his initial behavior led me to believe he was a straightforward troll, and so I kept my replies to him at a minimum. Clearly that was a mistake on my part. From this point I'll try assuming good faith with him.

Stormwatch, I recommend that you get rid of your imperious attitude. Wikipedia is not your personal web page; it's a collaborative effort. If we don't work together, nothing gets done. Also, stop the posts to NukeofEarl's and my personal talk pages. Posting to someone's talk page during a dispute is rarely a good idea; it tends to feel like you're trying to intimidate the other person, and gives the impression that you're afraid to let your thoughts be seen in a public Wikipedia space. If what you want to say is not something you'd like the rest of Wikipedia to see, then don't post it at all.

Now on to the actual issue. Stormwatch, your argument has two fundamental flaws:

(1)Shockwave Assault is not an "expanded re-release" of Shockwave; it's the same game. I can only assume your confusion on this point stems from the fact that the name coincides with the inclusion of the expansion pack "Operation Jumpgate". We have no reason to believe there is a connection between the inclusion of this expansion pack and the new name, and very good reason to believe it is a coincidence. First of all, the inclusion of an expansion pack does not dictate a renaming. Magic Carpet, for example, was not renamed when later editions included the expansion pack "Hidden Worlds". Second, if they were to rename it according to it being an "expanded re-release", they would have chosen something like "Shockwave Deluxe", "Shockwave Complete", or "Shockwave: Expanded Edition" - not Shockwave Assault, a name which gives no indication to the reader that it is an expanded version of Shockwave.

(2)Even if it were an expanded re-release, that would have no bearing on the article's naming on Wikipedia. The main policy to refer to with names of subjects like video games is WP:COMMONNAME. The game was titled "Shockwave Assault" for its releases on Saturn, PlayStation, and PC; the name "Shock Wave" only appears on its release for the 3DO, an extremely obscure and poor-selling system (and this is coming from one of the 3DO's biggest fans). There is simply not going to be even a tenth as many people who know the game as "Shock Wave" as there are who know it as "Shockwave Assault". Moreover, we need to back up the commonality of the name with references. I'm still doing digging up references for this article, but I'm confident that the Saturn version alone is going to have more references than the 3DO version, simply because there are more Saturn-specific gaming journals than 3DO-specific gaming journals. The PlayStation and PC versions will have more references still. We can't have the article at "Shock Wave (video game)" when more than 80% of sources refer to the game as Shockwave Assault.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

First off, I apologize for the snappishness of my previous post. To add to Martin's first point, if we go by Stormwatch's argument that "Shock Wave" and "Shockwave" are completely different titles, then the name "Shockwave Assault" not only does not suggest "expanded re-release", it doesn't suggest any connection to Shock Wave at all. Which may indeed have been the reason for the change in title; the marketing team for the game would probably have seen it as wise to distance the game from its origins as an exclusive for the failed 3DO.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been well over a month now without further discussion, and checking Stormwatch's contributions I see that aside from a single edit (reverting some vandalism on an unrelated article), he's been inactive since then. Presumably he's abandoned this issue, but even if that's not the case, obviously we can't wait around for him indefinitely. So I'm going to go ahead and restore Shock Wave (video game) to a redirect.

Also, Stormwatch's posts here have drawn my attention to another point: this article spells the game's 3DO title inconsistently (both "Shock Wave" and "Shockwave" are used). It seems like most sources use "Shockwave", but the cover art does at least stylize it as two words, and since Stormwatch clearly favors that as the official spelling, I'll go ahead and use "Shock Wave".--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. If evidence later emerges indicating that "Shockwave" is the official title, we can easily change it, but in the meantime consistency is the most important thing.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it's lonely on this talk page. Six years since the last post, yet in that time editors have moved the article four times using arguments that have already been refuted here, and just this month someone usurped the article to use as a series article for Shock Wave. Yeah, an article about a "series" consisting of a game and its sequel, with neither of them having their own articles. To add insult to injury, he didn't even bother to add any sources discussing the series rather than Shockwave Assault, or even move the article from its current title. He just saw an opportunity to bypass both AfD and draftspace in one stroke and he took it.

Sorry, I just had to vent a bit. How has it been with you, NukeofEarl? Martin IIIa (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been pretty well. Not much time to edit on Wikipedia lately, as you can see from browsing my contributions page, and when I do get on I naturally prefer to spend my time adding sourced content rather than monitoring articles for unconstructive edits, hence my not contributing much to stopping the poorly reasoned article moves and such. Sorry about that. However, I do want to advise you that venting on an article talk page is a bad idea - as seen by Mabeenot's response, it can be taken the wrong way. Keep it on the discord or your personal talk page - or my personal talk page, if you like. NukeofEarl (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sage advice. I will endeavor to follow it (which shouldn't be hard, since this is the first time I've gone against it).--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Series

Hello Martin IIIa, I apologize. I had no idea I was wandering into a turf battle from half a decade ago. I just saw that the only coverage of the sequel on Wikipedia was the couple sentences in the last section of this article, and since it was doubtful there'd be enough to build a standalone article for any of these titles, was WP:BOLD in expanding this article like we'd do for any other series. Yes, even the ones that have only a couple mainline titles and an expansion. I don't think your reversions are justified, but I'm not going to fight you. Do what you want. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not just a matter of what I want. Contrary to your claim, it is not standard practice to convert articles on notable video games into articles on non-notable series, essentially replacing an article which meets WP:NOTABILITY with one which does not. It is also consensus that a game and its sequel does not constitute a series (and indeed, as you have already found if you did the appropriate research beforehand, there is no mention of a "Shockwave series" in reliable sources). If you don't believe me, go ahead and ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Martin IIIa (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Mabeenot - Despite Martin's venting in the above thread, I'm sure he doesn't believe editors should not be WP:BOLD. However, when you boldly edit, you have to be prepared for your edit to be boldly reverted as well, certainly when doing something as drastic as changing the identity of the article. Using a talk page first is not required, but it is certainly prudent in such cases.

I don't know what the consensus is for the definition of a series, but referring to a game and its sequel as a series is awkwardly pedantic at best. Your alteration of the article was also inexcusably lazy and sloppy - you didn't replace the infobox, you didn't get a new infobox image, you didn't add any sources referring to a "Shockwave series" or even the pretense of original commentary on the "series", you didn't remove every reference to the article subject as an individual game, and you didn't even change the article title. You just changed the opening sentence from "is a video game" to "is a series of video games", added on your Shock Wave 2 original research, and called it a day, leaving the article as an incoherent mess which couldn't even make up its mind on whether Shockwave Assault is an individual game or a series. I don't understand how you manage to say to Martin "I don't think your reversions are justified" while keeping a straight face. In your shoes, I would have been utterly embarrassed at having made such slapdash edits in the first place. NukeofEarl (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Earl, that's as toxic a response as Martin's two notes. Take a good look at this talk page and the article's history. It's just been the two of you biting every newcomer who stumbles in here, and reverting anything you don't like for nearly a decade. Heck, the merger discussion in 2014 had no responses, which is not a consensus, and then in 2016 you guys picked a fight with an admin. If I had known these things, I would have steered far away from this mess. Neither of you own this article, yet you've behaved that way and nobody else cares enough about this topic to pay it any attention.

In its current shape, this article doesn't deserve the C-class rating it currently has, but it'll never become anything more if you continue to swat every contributor away in this nonconstructive manner. There should definitely be coverage of the sequel on Wikipedia, either within this article or as a stub elsewhere. And details from the game itself are not original research. I challenge you to improve this article and/or build a new article for the additional title. You'll have to dig deep for the sources to meet notability requirements if you go with the latter approach. But that's on you. I'm not touching this again. –Mabeenot (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you accuse NukeofEarl and me of being toxic, and then proceed to go into a long stream of personal attacks loaded with blatant falsehoods, not even attempting to address any of the issues we have raised about the content of your edits. You're not winning any friends here, Mabeenot. Martin IIIa (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The way he follows the stream of malicious lies by stating that he expects us to build an article for Shock Wave 2 simply because he demands one is just hilarious. NukeofEarl (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)