Talk:Deus Ex mods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Advertisement

The bottom half of this article seems to be advertisement for various Deus Ex mods, with no notability asserted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The mod list was assembled from the most frequented mod pages (for in-progress mods) and most downloaded mods from various sources, (Fileplanet is a good example of just such a site) as well as frequently mentioned mods on a number of modding community sites. -- Y|yukichigai 23:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There really needs to be more said about each mod, because, right now, one or two sentences and a link is indistinguishable from advertisement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If anything I would think that more than a few sentances would sound like an advertisement. Then again, no harm in trying it out to see what it looks like. -- Y|yukichigai 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current split/merge war

As the person who originally split this (although this was initially reverted, so I'm not in the edit history) I'd like to voice my concerns about keeping it split. The reason it was originally split was to allow it to develop as an article, which means adding solid references and making it worth keeping. As such this hasn't happened. If it's to remain a seperate article then it must attempt to provide encyclopedic, well-researched content with appropriate references. Otherwise it's just another Geocities resource site. Chris Cunningham 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You may want to comment at Talk:Deus Ex#Merging of Mods article, as I arrived at essentially the same conclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You arrived at it without any prior discussion, and you don't appear to have made any effort to chase the issue up before resorting to reverts. Please allow for discussion to take place before doing much more heavy lifting, I don't like hitting Reload and ending up on an entirely different page. Chris Cunningham 23:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I did mention, several months ago, that this looked like advertising. I went to clean out the unsourced and unsourcable claims and the linkspam, and discovered that I ended up with a short stub that fit into Deus Ex nicely. I'm not sure what notice people need before removing long-standing unsourced and apparently unsourcable content, but that kind of unencyclopedic material has been here more than long enough. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You raised one objection that in no way hinted that you planned on deleting most of the article, said nothing about it for months, then with no notice decided to take drastic and (based on the discussion) unwanted action. Perhaps if you had expressed your objections, well, at all something could have been done about them. -- Y|yukichigai 00:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, did I do to harm this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're somewhat notorious on articles related to this topic for bold and unilateral moves to delete content. As an act of good faith it'd be nice to stop doing so for a while and have a current discussion on the issue. I agree with you broadly on the principle behind splitting or killing this information and I obviously wish this article had improved somewhat more in the last six weeks than it has, but suddenly tearing it down without reasonably current warning does not foster a constructive environment for future work. Chris Cunningham 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea the article was not up to "spec", whatever it may be. As far as I knew the article was acceptable, and I treated it as such. Had concerns been raised I would have made significant effort to address them. -- Y|yukichigai 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there some part of this article that is absolutely vital to keep even if uncited and which cannot fit into Deus Ex neatly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"Absolutely vital" is not a requirement of Wikipedia. "Interesting" and "useful" is. This article qualifies under both of those, and works sufficiently well as a separate article. The more appropriate question is, "is there any reason which makes it absolutely vital to merge this article?" -- Y|yukichigai 00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, verifiable is a requirement, and interesting and useful are long rejected. Sources please? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Verifiable is being addressed. Cease sidestepping the issue. If you would like to discuss sources, make another section on the discussion page. This discussion is about why you feel the article should be merged without any discussion on the matter. -- Y|yukichigai 01:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Sources are the issue. There are no sources. Unsourced content on Wikipedia is of no more value than graffiti scribbled on a bathroom door. Doubly so when that graffiti is advertising. Where are your sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced claims and advertising links aren't content, and nothing was deleted. Anything anyone can source is two clicks away in page history. This infamy seems to exist in people's imagination, as the entirety of what I've removed is the unsourced content from this article, the infobox from VersaLife, and listing an article for AFD.
Again. What, exactly, did I do to harm this article? Personal issues seem to be a red herring, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've got nothing invested in this article; I started editing it when I hit it randomly. I consider myself pretty neutral here, and I reckon you're being disingenuous in your arguments for your edits. You may or may not be harming the article itself, given the somewhat questionable value of the information being juggled, but you certainly don't seem to be acting in the best interests of the editing community when making broad edits to it. I simply ask that you address this one point at a time through active discussion this time as the article has a history of no-compromise revert wars. The other party seems to have been more keen to go to talk in the past.
Your edit immediately above this comment is a good start. Chris Cunningham 00:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of links and mouseover template

I'm curious as to the detailed reasoning behind the removal of all links in this article, as well as the removal of the mouseover template. The former, well, I'm sure we'll spend hours debating that, but the latter truly confuses me. What is wrong with mouseover information? -- Y|yukichigai 03:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mouseover links are non-standard and look like those annoying advertising links. That said, there's no real reason the standard is in place that I can see, and the appearance is strictly an aesthetic call. I have no strong feelings either way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Wikipedia is not a link farm. Linking lists of "most popular" anything is not the purpose of this project. Please don't recreate this until you can source any claim made here, not merely establish that such-and-such link is one of an arbitrary selection of popular links in an extremely narrow class. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no "link farm". There's article content, followed by a number of links relevant to the article's topic. What's more, the notability of the links are asserted by the included sources. I fail to see how any of this fails to meet Wikipedia policy, both in letter and in spirit. -- Y|yukichigai 08:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Notability is established by non-trivial coverage in sources independent of the subject, not by reaching the top of an automatically-generated list. Also, none of these sources actually support any of the article content. The first half of the article fails WP:V, the second half WP:NOT a soapbox or venue for advertising. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the number of mod downloads is not an indicator of the notability of a mod. Additionally, the scope of notability you are using is unusually broad; since when does notability have to be asserted in sources that are in no way related to the subject?
As for the first part of the article, a citation request has been posted. I am curious as to why you don't feel this is sufficient, as you yourself felt a simple citation request was sufficient to keep the information in the main Deus Ex article. This dichotomy of opinion would seem to indicate that you are not evaluating the content of the article but rather where and how it is presented. -- Y|yukichigai 09:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Since ever. We don't take people's word that their own pet projects are important.
As for content, you restored a bunch of unsourced, dubious claims that would be fine if they were sourced, then a bunch of promotional links that aren't fine period. We need sources for the former (and we can do that in Deus Ex), and you've offered no pressing reason to allow these mods to advertise on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a case of "people's word that their own pet projects are important," these are verified, concrete statistics from two major websites: ModDB and Fileplanet. There is no bias; this is raw fact. -- Y|yukichigai 09:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There's selection bias. What metrics are being used? What are the conditions for selection? Are these the most popular mods, the most popular Deus Ex mods, the most popular Deus Ex mods on those sites? Are these fan ratings (trivially easily manipulated and indicative of nothing), listing page hits (likewise), downloads (which simply favors mods hosted only on those sites), or something else? How are we going to use these raw, meaningless numbers to write article content? (We can't.)

The seleciton conditions were simple: the 5 most popular Deus Ex related mods on ModDB, plus all of the mods which showed up in Fileplanet's most popular mod downloads list. I'd call that fairly unbiased. -- Y|yukichigai 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
So you're just duplicating someone else's directory? Wikipedia is still not a link directory. Why does a link to ModDB not suffice? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All this fuss about notability isn't just some hedge against things that aren't important. It's to make sure we're not half-assing around with subjects for which we can't write verifiable articles. There isn't one word you can write about these mods without taking the words of the creators or looking at the mod itself, and relating personal observation or parroting those with a personal interest in promoting their own projects just isn't the work of an encyclopedia.

There is no prohibition on using the mod itself as a source. So long as it is verifiable, neutral, and notable information, there is no problem. You are applying policies that don't exist. -- Y|yukichigai 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a prohibition on using nothing but the mod as a source. See both WP:V and WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Now this one is excessively ironic. First off, there's the fact that WP:RS is a disputed guideline, which in itself indicates there's something wrong with it. Now even if we discard it completely we can still assume that because you're citing it you think it's okay, which brings up something interesting; why, if you find this guideline acceptable, are you wholeheartedly ignoring the following section: "Instead of removing [unsourced] material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the {{fact}} template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}} at the top of the page." -- Y|yukichigai 20:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to try and see what you can write without ever opening the mod itself or reading anything written or posted by the mod's creators. If you can't write anything, then the subject doesn't belong in this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're applying a policy that doesn't exist. If one were to apply the same critera to, say, television shows or computer games then around 80% of the exitant TV and computer game articles -- notably including some you champion as "proper" articles -- would have to be removed because much of the information is sourced from the article's subject. It is a source. It is verifiable. It is neutral. There is no bias, just fact. -- Y|yukichigai 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:EL does exist, as does WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB and above all WP:V. This is an advertisement, pure and simple. Come up with some commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's go over these one by one, shall we:
  • WP:EL - The links do not fall into any of the categories put forth under "links normally to be avoided". The only thing you could possibly argue is the "should be used sparingly" line, which is excessively vague and open to interpretation.
  • WP:SOFTWARE - Ignoring the fact that this document is concerning actual software products, rather than modifications of software products, it isn't even a policy or guideline yet. It is proposed, still debated, not accepted by consensus, and even if it were it is highly questionable that it applies, particularly because it mostly concerning software having its own article, not being linked to.
  • WP:WEB - Applies to web-specific content having its own article, which is the wrong scope and the wrong type of content.
  • WP:V - Verifiability, which has been met. Repeatedly.
Your arguments fail on every level. Next excuse, please. -- Y|yukichigai 19:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
AMIB, everything appears to be in order here. What is the issue? Trying to pigeon-hole certain subject matter into these guidelines which prohibit usage of certain information or references doesn't seem very helpful in regards to informing Wikipedia users. If something does not directly fall under the EXACT criterion of these specific guidelines, why attempt to force it? It serves no purpose, other than to tie our hands for future edits on similar topics. Gamer Junkie 04:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind WP:EL. It's in the middle of being rewritten and doesn't look anything like what I last saw.

The point is, the only reason any of these links exist is to advertise their existence, because nobody else has seen fit to comment on them in reliable sources. A half-dozen of them aren't even released. There's nothing verifiable you can say about them; you can only parrot what the developers have said or write your own observations, neither of which meet WP:V. And WP:NOT still prohibits advertising and soapboxing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look at the new, updated list, you'd note that only two (2) of the links posted are not released, and had you followed the source links I provided you would also note that the reason those two mods are linked is because of the statistics. The rest are released.
WP:V does not exclude information from developers so long as that information is neutral. While you can't use information like "this is the most awesome mod ever" or "it will revolutionize gameplay" it is perfectly reasonable to use basic information like setting and content. After all, by your logic any other sources you could use themselves would either be parroting the developers or citing personal experience. -- Y|yukichigai 07:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't reasonable to allow them (and you, for that amtter) to advertise, which is the only purpose this list of links serves. As for the rest of the article, it's already in Deus Ex. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, you're ignoring the sources I provided. This is information which is pertinent to the article content, and the sources assert notability.
Additionally, on the topic of verifiability with regards to information on these mods, I found something interesting that you should read: "In the absence of a secondary source, we use a primary source for uncontroversial claims about the subject. Such primary sources can't establish importance, but they can be used for simple, uncontroversial claims in the absence of any alternative secondary source." -- Y|yukichigai 08:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The last I'd heard, parroting what a developer has said was considered as citing one's references. There are numerous articles across the board, upcoming movies and novels included, which have passed the necessary requirements in the exact same manner. Regardless of how suspicious these sources may seem to yourself, I do believe they are technically deemed acceptable. As far as not being a repository of links, images and media files goes, we might as well write off half of Wikipedia as we know it. Good luck finding an article without at least one of these three items featured within. It simply proves just how irrational and contradictory many of these guidelines actually are. Gamer Junkie 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
They aren't. They flunk WP:RS hard, since they're all written by the creators who have a vested interest in promoting their games. Sometimes you have to take the creators' word on uncontroversial points, but that doesn't extend to allowing people to advertise on Wikipedia, sorry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You're stretching, bigtime, AMIB. You're not leaving a whole lot of breathing space in regards to making information official, although I get the impression that's exactly what you're playing at considering your position on this article. You're personal impression is hardly universal, and I'm sure you'll realise that before this situation is resolved. Ryulong, enlarging your font? Genius. Argue constructively or get lost, you muppet. Gamer Junkie 06:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. This is a repository of links. That's called out in WP:NOT. Coming up with some rankings to back up your choice of links doesn't make it appropriate for Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What's ridiculous is attempting to come to an agreement with you in the interests of constructing a decent and informative article. You can stick with your policies and information creep all you like, it's just stonewalling our efforts when every available piece of information is deemed as unusable because of this endless tsunami of red tape. Gamer Junkie 06:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you really feel the need to personalize this, I'm sorry, but in the meantime I'd appreciate it if you could work on sourcing Deus Ex instead of fighting to include repositories of links. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making this personal. The problem is, you're the only person blocking construction. It seems that every time we attempt to create an article or make things right, you're the one and only person standing there scanning every inch of every paragraph for a reason to stonewall progress. Gamer Junkie 07:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggested above how to make this article right. (Find commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject.) It's good advice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Advertisements are posted by the owners. This is simply provision of links for convenience of the readers. Most of these sites aren't even commercial, and all they do is hosting specified mods. I don't see how they violate WP:EL, given that these links fall under inclusion criteria 3 as direct links to the subject media (as of pre-war version of October 20, 2006). CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Then it's a link directory. These links are to mods that don't get any more content than a sentence or two. (And, indeed, nothing can be written without parroting the primary source, which isn't the business of an encyclopedia.) It would be one thing to link to a prominent DX modding site or two, but linking individual mods is far too much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not if the information provided already caters to what the user requires. It not advice, its red tape. Anyway, enough of this, we've already established our differences regarding bureaucracy in articles. This is going to go nowhere. Gamer Junkie 07:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough of this

Hm. Reviewing all of this, I've pretty much been a jerk. The only immediate problem was the link directory, and WP:NOT is pretty clear on that. How about we leave the rest for a bit to be properly sourced, then come back and revisit merging or not merging this to Deus Ex based on the progress made? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that seems mostly reasonable. To the issue of links, you had a point way the f%$# up there about "why wouldn't a link to modDB be appropriate?" In the midst of all the other points and counterpoints I was juggling I kind of forgot it, but your suggestion is reasonable. However, in addition to a general mod link I think there should be links to one or two specific ones. Before you ask, no, mine wouldn't be one of those; Zodiac, TNM, Reborn and HDTP are the candidates I had in mind. -- Y|yukichigai 08:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What mods and why? (I was out of line accusing you of advertising, really; I don't think you were pushing for this just to include your link, but instead included out of the sort of benign readers'-guide intent.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Lesse, I was thinking:
  • Zodiac - One of the first (acutally, I think THE first) expansion mod completed for Deus Ex. Large-scale, and while this info isn't verifiable it seems to be the common denominator when anybody is asked "what Deus Ex mods do you like?"
  • The Nameless Mod - Currently unreleased, so at the moment not a good candidate. However, it is the most watched, most frequented Deus Ex mod on ModDB. Worth keeping in mind for the future.
  • HDTP - The high-def texture pack. Released a beta, and the second most watched, second most frequented Deus Ex mod on ModDB.
  • Reborn - The Deus Ex -> UT2k4 conversion. Released two alphas thus far. Even ignoring its watched/frequented stats its worth mentioning as an example of the more exotic modding efforts. -- Y|yukichigai 09:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what mods have had (hate to sound like a broken record, but it is important) coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? Ideally, we'd use these as examples in the body of the article instead of having an (inevitably expanded) list of external links, and to do that we need sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Zodiac and TNM were covered by PlanetDeusEx before they stopped updating, if memory serves. HDTP may have been as well. I think the most likely bet is Zodiac though, since it was out first. When it came out it was a pretty big deal in the DX community, so just about every DX community site around at the time would have covered it. -- Y|yukichigai 09:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Is Planet DX still up? We can use it even if we have to use an archive or something, but it seems like the first good start on sourcing this.
I think we may be going about this the wrong way. I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to mention any specific mods, but it may be a good idea to first assemble the sources and then write the article based on them, rather than the other way around, to avoid including details that feel right but are fundamentally unverifiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't want to get ahead of myself. I was just going off of what I could remember, because it was late and I was about to crash. I do know for a fact that the 2027 mod was covered extensively, but that's no good because the mod hasn't had any activity or updates for about 10 months.
Anyway, Planet DX is still up; even though it isn't being updated it's still one of the main "hubs" for the DX community. All the old news will be in there. I'll take a look today and see what I can dig up. -- Y|yukichigai 18:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I used to have some CGWs laying around. We really need more than just one source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, good news then. Not only did Planet Deus Ex post numerous news items about Zodiac, DeusEx-Machina.com even did a full on interview with Steve Tack (the creator) about the mod. I'm still looking just in case I dig up a better source, but this is good all the same. -- Y|yukichigai 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, so as not to keep revert warring

What, exactly, does this mouseover thing do that it needs to be there? What purpose does it serve? I've never seen it used on any other article, and I don't see why it needs to be on this one. All it does is hide information that's supposedly supposed to be part of the article, which, notably, wouldn't show up in printed form. So, can someone explain why it shouldn't be edited out, or at least rewritten so that the content is actually visible? Errick 01:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The content is visible, at least if someone cares to view it. The mouseover template allows for relevant though somewhat minor information to be retained in an article without detracting from the overall flow of the article. It doesn't *need* to be used, but Wikipedia doesn't *need* to exist either. Just leave it alone; it's serving its purpose adequately and effectively. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 11:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. If the information is important enough to be included in the article, it should be in the main article text where it is visible to everyone. By putting it in a mouseover, particularly in a manner as such that I've never seen used on any other article, some people will never see it. Also, it won't show up in print form, which is one of the stated goals of Wikipedia, so even though you technically can do it, that doesn't mean you should. In a similar vein, I rather suspect most screen-readers won't read the mouseover, though I can't say 100% about that since I've never used one myself. I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is, if it sohuld be in the article, it should be in the body of the article and not hidden. And if it's not important enough to be readily visible, then it really shouldn't be there at all. Errick 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/u/Talk%7EDeus_Ex_mods_c462.html"