Talk:Chronology of real-time tactics video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knight chess piece 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.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Strategy games To-do:
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.
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.
VG To-do:

[edit] Chronology

User Skywalker has deleted the chronology section twice saying that the RTT section of the "List of strategy games" article is sufficient. It isn't. The chronology herein contains more information than the sub-list of the above mentioned article which only alphabetically lists titles. The chronology also provides a time line for the genre, therefore helping the interested reader understand its evolution: this cannot be obtained neither through the sub-list in the "list of strategy game titles" article, nor easily through browsing the RTT category. Even more, the chronology can be furnished with titles not "purely" RTT along with a note explaining why they are important to the RTT genre. Finally, articles only consisting of one (or more) lists are apparently against some wikipolicy or another and risk being deleted, thus the list-of-strategy-games article referred to may vanish.

The RTT article has been relatively stable for a long time and many editors have contributed to the chronology, indicating that they see it as belonging. Please discuss here and await consensus before doing overly bold edits (not to mention repetitions of the same edit when reverted!). Miqademus 19:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is enough of games examples in RTT. There is no need to add chronology it only crashes browser and makes things worst only for dialup users. Iam currently make the strategy game article more interesting to read. Give me some time and you will find it useful. Also why not read the RTS article and make RTT more useful like that?. --SkyWalker 09:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Skywalker, please do not turn this into a revert war. Until there's been a discussion and consensus from other editors you're alone in wanting to remove the list. After I reverter last time there was additions by another editor to the chronology, indicating other editors' acceptance of it. Nonetheless, you still again deleted the entire section in spite of (1) lack of consensus supporting you when your edit had been reverted, and (2) other editor's contribution to the section after your deletion of it had been undone. Further, I have been a principal editor of the RTS article and I do not agree with that your edits of the article has in any way been improvements. In fact, I consider them detrimental to the worth of that article. About the chronology, if you persist I will request moderation and arbitration on the matter. Realise that your ideas on "improvement" are not necessarily shared by *other editors*! Now please be patient and await discussion. Miqademus 09:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As a reader unfamiliar with the subject, I don't see what information I could possibly hope to draw from a list of literally dozens of games. This strikes me as the very epitome of an indiscriminate list. - -Stellmach 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, following your link, the only bullet possibly related is the "Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists" (I boldfaced the last section). Well, the chronology isn't statistics per se, but disregarding that, the data is relevant and presented in a (sortable) table, which seems to conform to the guidelines of the link. What is missing might be a short introductory section explaining the table and its use. Miqademus 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Many genre articles provide chronological lists that provide less substantiative information than the table provided here (see the infobox here). Maybe the table should be moved to its own article? It does take up a lot of space. SharkD 03:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
See Lists of video games for a whole bunch of other lists. SharkD 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the chronology to a new article. Continue discussion here. SharkD 13:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current article. I still doubt about World in Conflict being a RTT. --SkyWalker 15:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article goes on at length on how it is an RTT game. Maybe you should take it up there? SharkD 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] usefulness?

i don't see how this article is useful, it just contributes to the cross indexed clutter of the great wikis. the "list of strategy games" includes almost/all these titles, so why is there this article? does it help anyone? 66.66.144.28 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)