Talk:Kdice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	SG Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do: edit  Create: Close Combat: The Russian Front • Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge • Close Combat: Invasion Normandy • List of units and buildings in StarCraft Expand: HeroQuest (board game) • Boku (game) • Qubic • Death Stacks • Entropy (board game) • Fitchneal • Five Field Kono Copyedit: Crossings (game) • Gonnect • Quoridor • Company of Heroes • Dark Reign • Myth (computer game) Cleanup: Abalone (board game) • Age of Mythology • Battle Realms • Outlive • Stronghold (2001 game) • Fleet Command • Combat Mission (computer game series) Cite Sources: Colonization (computer game) • MacHack (chess) Update: List of strategy video games More...

	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.	CVG Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

This article was nominated for deletion on December 7, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Non-notable game? 2 Removel of the chances table 3 Expand Strategy Section 4 Sandbox

[edit] Non-notable game?

This game has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game. This article itself provides proof via in-line citations.

It was a sentence and a picture when I flagged it. lemme look at the articles a sec. Cantras 19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. one of your links doesn't work, and the game was only created 2 months ago. I'm leaving the flag up, and we'll see when someone gets to it.Cantras 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

edit- the date created has been changed to december first. could someone find/verify that?Cantras 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of those are blogs, not reliable sources. See verifiability, where blogs are also not allowed. ColourBurst 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Kotaku is written by a well-known professional journalist, his work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. I've also added a review from Channel 4's website.--OriginalJunglist 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and Kotaku itself is under the Gawker banner, but one of the reasons that people object to blogs period is because they have no editorial supervision. See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#at_what_point_reliability.3F. ColourBurst 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removel of the chances table

Why did I remove it? Factually and helpfulness is not a criterium of encylcopedic content. Its game cruft, in the sense as somebody not playing this game is not interested in it. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, giving good and compact information to "outsiders". Not a general purpose webhost. Dont get me wrong, I like playing kdice, but I like wikipedia also, and got at least some feeling in the years which content is unaproperiate and I tell you the chances table is. --Jestix 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned the page up further, altough I know, by the kdice lovers unpopular. But remember, the wikipage should be a page that just describes compact to someguy, who asks himself "what the heck is kdice". It is

• not a place to do "advertismental" text
• not a place to give playing hints
• not a place to give the latest news about kdice.

--Jestix 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we haven't reached agreement on this, I am putting the information back for now. We can discuss it, of course:

You're being extremely dogmatic about what constitutes encyclopedic. People who look up kdice are interested in information about it. That includes a lot of the stuff that you've removed. The role of an encyclopedia is to give information to those who are interested in finding it. I don't know where "outsiders" came from, but the people who are interested in kdice are interested in the information about probabilities, etc. It's not like the article is so long that we need to look for ways to cut it down.24.199.119.162 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)(JudahH 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Well reverting without reaching an end of discussion is definitely not a nice move. First of all I would point you do Wikipedia:Fancruft to read about the judgement of deletion of the table --Jestix 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's extremely disingenous, Jestix. It was you who began to delete things before starting a discussion. My reversion merely restores the status quo. Further, several people disagree with you on the subject so far (the original writer, the first person to revert it, and myself, not to mention the other editors who implicitly endorsed it by retaining it), and only you think it should be deleted. Further, all you gain by deleting it, is adhering to your questionable ideal of what an encyclopedia should be, whereas by retaining it, it provides useful information to people in the meanwhile.JudahH 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I began to remove selected stuff, while you simple reverted. I see a huge difference in that. --Jestix 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To the topic, the chances table is game cruft. Im quite a while now on wikipedia, how long are you now here to rely on your judgment? Take for example the weapons list of counterstrike, that also keeps reappearing by some cs-extremists. But there is a good consensus that this weaponslist is game cruft and no good content for an encylcopedia, since no non-gamer could ever be interested in it. A good point of judgement is if the content is interesting to a majority of people or only a small number of it, and the chances table is only interesting to players of kdice. I don't know how to solve this, maybe you should start reading Meta-Wikipedia articles, start for example here: Wikipedia:Your_first_article. I don't see how we else could agree on this. Maybe if you keep reverting, we can make a deletion request of the whole article with the chances table for the article to be game cruft and therefore to be deleted? However I don't think you would like this. So what would you suggest? --Jestix 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There has already been an AfD nomination, for your information. I looked at the Your first article link, and didn't see what you referred to. Maybe you could quote the lines in question. In the meantime, my argument is based on logic. The people who look a subject up are the people who are interested in it. You have admitted that you yourself are one of these people. The people who aren't interested in a subject don't look it up. The probabilities are useful related information. As a compromise, would putting the dice probabilities article on a separate page, and linking to it work for you?JudahH 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Compromise sounds very good to me, I think maybe about creating a kdice wiki at [1] there we can cruft out every detail on kdice we want. Not to worry about violating wikipedias guidelines whats encyclopedic aproperiate or not. --17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, it sounds like a separate page would work for all of us. I don't have time to create it now, but you can do that if you want, or I'll create it when I get a chance.JudahH 17:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Im working at it right now [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jestix (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Really what I had in mind was a page on Wikipedia, but as long as the information is accessible from the kdice entry, I don't suppose it matters much where it is hosted.JudahH 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can theortetically move things like this to wikipedia userspace, however its generally at least much frowned upon to link wikipedia userspace from normal wikipedia space. I think this solution is very optimal, since this way, kdice information on wikispaces can go in much, much, MUCH more detail, then whatever would be acceptable for an encylcopedic entry. --Jestix 20:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expand Strategy Section

In addition to luck and psychology, territory control based on map layout can important to some players.

I don't know "independent sources" for this, but it seems like this might make a good addition. I know I build my strategies around map layout and territory (which may be why I'm not so good at the game :-). --Seth Munter Sethsbiz@Earthlink.net 67.101.212.246 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem, that there cannot be "independent sources" for strategy, and it is always to some degree POV. At least until several people write books about kdice like they did for chess :-). This is one reason the (external) kdice wiki [3] exists, it does not have to apply to encyclopedic criterias! You'll find a strategy write up here: [4], you are also invited to add things that match there. --Jestix 08:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

The kdice sandbox(es) is an very internal thing into kdice that is certantly not mentionworthy on wikipedia.