Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-17 Spore (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article:	Spore (video game)
State:	Closed
Requested By:	Nanobri (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Other Parties:	JAF1970, Skele, Nanobri, Dansiman
Mediated By:	Steve Crossin
Comments:	Only disputant to outcome was indef blocked [1], no reason for case to continue.

[edit] Request details

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

JAF1970, and Skele are the major parties. Nanobri and Dansiman have contributed as well.

[edit] What's going on?

What the genre of the game should be labeled as is in question. JAF1970 thinks it should be "god game" as it is now, Skele has made suggestions including "life simulation" and "simulation". The debate has gotten VERY lengthy. Neither party seems to be making constructive attempts to reach agreement. Debate has gotten uncivil at several points.

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

I would like the merits of points to be discussed with some objectivity and openness. I would like the parties involved to work toward an actual agreement as opposed to saying the same stuff over and over.

[edit] Happening now

Unclear. No one saying much. See most recent posts.

I recently made a change [2] to the Spore article (one which has received some support already on the article's talk page), and JAF1970 reverted it (his 1st revert)[3], claiming the fact that the issue is being mediated as his justification. Since (I'm pretty sure) this is not true, I reverted it back (my 1st revert)[4], stating in my edit summary "Just because the article is under moderation doesn't mean it can't be improved, see talk," and commented on the talk page about it. Then JAF1970 reverted it again (his 2nd)[5], with his edit summary "Actually, it is. Warning: You're close to 3R" with no corresponding talk page comment.

I feel as if JAF1970 is not interested in collaborating with the rest of us. He appears, to me, to think he has veto power over any edit to the article. Particularly discouraging is the fact that he is the one who had been asking many of us to pursue DR for weeks. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I actually came into the article with the intuition that this was a God game, and not a Life simulation game. But the research shows that it is called both. I think the only fair thing to do is to call it both. One editor insists on disregarding several statements in several reliable sources. I suspect that would be original research, and would subject the article to endless revert wars.
There was one alternative that I raised... that God games are actually a form of Life simulation game. There is a book by Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams called "Fundamentals of Game Design" from 2006. I have their older book, from 2003. But I think the new edition says that "God games are a form of Life simulation game". If God games are a subgenre of Life simulation game, then putting both would be redundant. It would be like having a "Real Time Strategy Strategy Game" or "First Person Shooter Action Game". But I do not have the book, so I cannot confirm. Also, no one has shown any interest in doing the research. So, the compromise of putting both makes the most sense. Randomran (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, no god game has ever been called a simulation. Black & White, Populous, etc. all have been called strategy games. When magazines award "Best Simulation" awards, it's for games like Falcon 4.0. Spore is NOT a simulation in terms of game genre. JAF1970 (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my point, actually. The resource I'm referring to might actually say that God games are a type of Life simulation. It helps that the resource is extremely authoritative, in terms of game scholarship. But that doesn't help us if no one knows where to obtain it, since we'd need to verify that the book actually says that. Randomran (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator notes

I thought I'd just throw the idea out there, but would all of you agree to a compromise? Such as classifying the game's genre as both a "god game" and ~~"simulation"~~ "life simulation"? What are your thoughts? Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I originally meant "life simulation". Amended my comment. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, to prevent edit warring, the article has been fully proteced for one week. I ask all editors to have a discussion here, as to your proposed changes/version of the article. I also ask again, would all parties accept the inclusion of both genres? Steve Crossin (talk to me) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would accept the inclusion of both genres. But I am also open to other alternatives. Randomran (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept the inclusion of both genres or the "see below" inclusion. Skele (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with the inclusion of both genres in the infobox, but would prefer the "see below" option. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that "god game" is a major genre, so I think that should be included. I think "life simulation" might be a major genre too and if so should be included as well. I think the "see below" thing might be a good idea but I am concerned that it might clutter the article. One of the comments after the good article review was that there were short sections. That aside, if we do keep the "see below" thing, I think that something like "God game/Life simulation and others (see below)" might be best. I think "simulation" is too broad of a term so I don't like the idea of having the genre listed as "god game/simulation". Nanobri (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Just to clarify, I would be against God game / simulation. But I would accept God game / life simulation. Calling it a "simulation" is about as effective as calling it a "game". Randomran (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would call it a god game because it's not a simluation by any magazine definition. For example, Simulation of the Year winners include Falcon 4.0, Jane's F-15, etc. Calling Spore a sim is like calling Wii Sports a sim, which BAFTA did. It is also not a life simulation. Spore Creatures is a life simulation. God games always fall into the strategy category, anyway. 2 phases of Spore can remotely be called a life simulation - the other 3 are strategy games. Publications puit Spore into the strategy genre. Furthermore, when Spore is nominated for awards by PC Gamer, Gamespot, IGN, etc - they are not going to nominate it for "Best Simulation". They're going to put it in the Strategy Genre. (The Sims won CGW's Best Strategy Game, for instance.) It's less sim and more strategy, and those are just elements to the game. As a published magazine journalist, in my expert opinion, there's more strategy game than life sim in the game. If you put God game / life simulation, you must put "god game / life simulation / real-time strategy" or "god game / life simulation / strategy". You see the problem? JAF1970 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And I did compromise. I put the relevent notation under the Gameplay section that Life simulation and strategy genre elements were in the game. JAF1970 (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relying on a few badly chosen awards isn't good research. What is good research, however, are the articles that call it a life simulation game. (Besides, I could easily find awards that have been properly assigned.) It's not up to us to interpret whether the sources are accurate when they call it a "life simulation game". But if we did, it looks like Spore would match up with all the (properly sourced) statements that make up the life simulation game article.
And I wouldn't call it a compromise when you unilaterally decide what's fair, and ignore everyone else's input. A real compromise would involve some kind of meeting of minds. Randomran (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see at the moment is that it will be difficult to achieve a compromise here if all parties cannot agree. As I see it at the moment, the probable best course of action would be to list both genres. Mediation cannot work effectively if parties are unwilling to compromise. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 04:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Both? Don't you mean all three? Or are you going to state that Spore doesn't fall under the Strategy genre even more than Sim? JAF1970 (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask that you keep your comments civil. I'm addressing the issue that was brought to the case. Whether the genre should be god game or life simulation. Strategy was never mentioned (unless I am mistaken). And, regarding your comment, I have no personal opinion on this article. I am neutral. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 04:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Strategy was brought up in the talk page many times. A part of my argument is that websites list Spore as a strategy game, and the last three phases reflect strategy genres. JAF1970 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the (see below) resolution is the best compromise at this point. It satisfies all the issues with the infobox. JAF1970 (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We should also consider listing the three genres (Strategy, God game, Life simulation game), if reliable research points to all three. Three is isn't ideal, but it's not unacceptable either. Randomran (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just go with "see below". So that everyone would be happy. But then we need a good writer that can write the "genre" sub-article in a way that everyone agrees. Skele (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we're all starting to finally look at how to work together (at least on this issue). Maybe we can all write the "genre" section together? IIRC, someone posted links to a few sources that use the term "life sim," and I know JAF1970 has got several good sources for "god game." If we decide to go with the "see below" option, I don't see any reason we then couldn't all cowrite the genre section (perhaps using a sandbox until we finish it). Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 08:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be against "see below" by itself. The point of an infobox is to summarize. Even a triple-genre would be better than nothing. "God Game / Life Simulation" or "God Game / Life Simulation / Strategy" are both long, but not terrible. Randomran (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A few for "life sim" http://www.neoseeker.com/Games/Products/PC/spore/ http://www.mahalo.com/Spore_GDC_2008 http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/GameReview/article/310169 http://www.tuaw.com/2008/02/12/spore-is-coming-to-the-mac-on-september-7th/ . Well that should be enough for now. If someone wants more I'll get more. Skele (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox on the new page isn't that long. So I believe it will work with the 3 genres and the "see below" in the infobox. Skele (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think I'd like having all three listed, but I guess it works. I agree with Skele that the infobox isn't too long. Are we all now in agreement on the infobox issue? If so, let's get this firmed up and we can move future discussion about the (see below) thing to either the sandbox or the spore talk page. Nanobri (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need to change much. Just post (see below) and leave it that way. The Gameplay section states everything necessary. JAF1970 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think see below would be only slightly better than leaving it blank. It's no information at all. Of course the article states stuff. But the infobox is meant to provide a quick summary. I care more about having a summary at all, and less about what that summary actually says. I'm willing to be flexible here, and hope we can find a compromise. Randomran (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We could do it only with the "see below" in the infobox, then again fast surfers might have a hard time realizing the genre. The Gameplay section actually has all the requirements we need. Two way thing. I support both suggestions because the 3 genre and "see below" might give a clearer view, but the ""see below" only" also sounds good. Skele (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Line break

It looks like we're close to a consensus. We're going to display multiple genres. And we're going to link people to a section below. There are a few lingering issues though:

(1) Will we say "strategy" or "real-time strategy"?
(2) Will we keep the genre information in the gameplay section, or is it possible to pull it out?
(3) Is "see below" the most clear, or would "see 'gameplay'" or "see 'genre'" be more helpful?

Check in with your thoughts. And feel free to knock us back a few steps if you think I'm wrong about our consensus so far. Randomran (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion:

(1) We should do whatever the references say. If even a few focus on real time strategy, we should use the specific subgenre rather than the larger genre. (PS: Soren Johnson was hired to work on the AI, not the game design. Not that we should be violating WP:SYN by drawing strange inferences about the programmers hired for the project.)
(2) I'd like to pull it out if possible, but I'm not sure that it is. The gameplay IS about genre comparisons. The Pac-Man reference, the comparison to Civ and Master of Orion... it's not easy to pull apart, IMO. And I wouldn't be disappointed if we couldn't.
(3) Okay, I admit, this is my issue. I think something more specific than "see below" would be more helpful.

Just my 2 cents. Randomran (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Strategy - for one, SimCity is not considered an RTS. Neither is Civilization. RTS indicates a specific type of strategy game, and it's not an RTS in the grand tactical strategy mode (the Master of Orion Space mode). It's best just to call it a Strategy game, as GameSpot and other games put it in that genre. JAF1970 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion and your opinion don't matter. What matters is sources. Right now, there's several articles that call it a real-time strategy game. Which isn't surprising, since it's certainly not turn-based.

Rather than dissecting every last resource. Can you come up with resources that say it's a strategy game OTHER than real-time strategy? And, if so, can you offer a reason why that source is better than the 10 sources I quickly dug up? I sincerely don't care either way, whether it's "strategy" or "real time strategy". But if we're gonna say it's one or the other, let's have some research to back it up. Randomran (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1)I would say RTS, because the only difference between Strategy and RTS is that RTS specifies that the game is real-time not turn-based. 2)No comment 3)I think we can't just keep "see below". First thing that might come to a wikipedia users mind is "see what below". We need more on it. Skele (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about (see "genre"), with genre wikilinked to the genre section, and the word "see" in normal text? Randomran (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if my comments here are welcome or helpful, as I'm just a random schmo who's edited the article before, but a major problem with classifying Spore is that, by design, it's meant to be a multi-genre game. The developers have marked each "stage" of the game as being most like other games, from Tetris to Pac-Man to Master of Orion. (See [[16]] for a list.) As such, it's technically a member of these genres, as far as I can tell: Action, Strategy, Life Simulation, God Game, City Building Game. Randomran's idea of having a "genre" link and section may be best, as it may be difficult to summarize Spore's genre in one small line of text. KiTA (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

I'm so happy to see everyone working together. I created a sandbox page for work on the article to be done, you can find it here. I'll keep watching the discussion, I'm happy with what I see :) Steve Crossin (talk to me) 08:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I played around with it here. I think the picture and table adds a bit to it, but obviously that data is out of date and will need updating. Would anyone like to take a look? KiTA (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a look, and I've commented out the image, so it still is there, just invisible. Non-free fair use images are not allowed outside articles. Its clause 9 in our non-free content policy. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 19:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to chuckle, cry, or merely shake my head after coming back to that version of the Talk-Sandbox to find that JAF1970... completely deleted it. Heh. I have reverted it, if only to grab the text off it to put in the other sandbox. KiTA (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've moved it [here.]

[edit] Discussion

Okay, so I guess there's some disagreement over whether to have a Genre section, or simply point to the existing Gameplay section. While the Gameplay section as it is now does describe the genre issues, it also describes other things about the gameplay too. So someone clicking the "see below" link might be a little confused when it points to "Gameplay."

I think what we should do is to take the genre-related statements out of the Gameplay section and move/copy them to the Genre section. Some of them might be things that shouldn't be removed from Gameplay, though; in those cases we can either duplicate them (which can be okay when it's in separate subheadings and visitors might navigate directly to one, skipping the other), or rewrite them in one of the two sections — have basically the same information, but presented more in terms of gameplay in that section, and more in terms of genre in the other section.

JAF1970, could you copy the statements currently in the Gameplay section that relate to genre, and copy them into the sandbox page? I think most of them were your contributions, so I figure they'd stand out to you more. Then we can see if that's enough for the Genre section or if we maybe do need to add some more. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want us to end up mangling the Gameplay section and end up with a weak new Genre section in the name of compromise. Let's make sure we're careful about how we do this. Nanobri (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are we almost there? (check-in!)

Looking at the sandbox work-in-progress, it looks like we're almost there. It seems like the last thing to do is properly cite the genres. The references have been collected.

Done: Several establish that it is a God game. They have been properly referenced.
Not done: Several establish that it is a Life simulation game. They have not been incorporated into the article at all.
Disputed: Several articles establish that it is a real-time strategy game. But this is disputed.

The dispute, to me, is minor. The only references that suggest that it is a generic strategy game is a user-configurable gamespot field, and a broken link to a D.I.C.E. Summit in 2007. These references are unreliable. And even if they were reliable, I don't think it would indicate that spore isn't a real-time strategy game. It's the same way that calling Doom an action game doesn't mean it's not a first-person shooter. What do other people think? Randomran (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Randomran. Skele (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Genre part in GameSpot IS NOT USER-CONFIGURABLE. Only the meta-tags are. Oh, and I'm getting official Maxis developer stuff for an article which is being published, so I'll have DEFINITIVE answers. JAF1970 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Try to get a straight answer. Something that can invalidate the numerous articles that call it RTS. "It's strategy" wouldn't be enough. What would be helpful is a statement like "it's not so much an RTS as it is a combination of all kinds of strategy games", or "even though it has many genre elements, Spore is a ___ at its core" or "there's a misconception that spore is an RTS". Something that would directly address the 7 or 8 references we have now and push them aside. Basically, this new research would have to justify removing the existing research. It takes a lot to justify the removal of reliable research on wikipedia (just go to any disputed article on politics or religion). Randomran (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're afraid of using "spinoff" for a more generic "version", but you don't want strategy game, which is a valid description for a strategy game like The Sims (which won Best Strategy Game from a lot of pubs) that doesn't fit any solid subgenre? I have an idea - call it Spore genre. In a genre of its own. (Just kidding :p )JAF1970 (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Well really... I'm okay with almost everything so long as it's referenced. The problem is when references conflict. Then you either have to include both, or look at the references in more detail to see if one explains the other away.

Me personally, I don't think it's a strategy game at all. I think it's a God game, period... which is a subgenre of Life simulation. But that's just from my limited experience, and I have no references to back that up, so what can I do but go with the references I do find? And so far, we've found a lot of references that call it a life simulation, a god simulation, and an RTS. Anyway, I'm all for you finding references that can clear this mess up. But the references need to clear the mess up themselves, not because of your interpretation of the references. Randomran (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a strategy game, but it has many strategy genre elements. That's why it's "god game" in the infobox and all the other strategy elements are listed in the Gameplay section. God game is not a subgenre of life simulation, tho. It's a subgenre of strategy gaming. (See Populous, Black & White, SimCity, etc.) Life simulations tend to either be RPG, action, or some combination. JAF1970 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reason it's a God game in the infobox is because we haven't resolved this mediation and you keep deleting referenced research. Like I said, this isn't about my opinion. But I'm trying to show you that this isn't about your opinion either. Neither of us think it's a strategy game, but that doesn't really matter if research says otherwise. ... either way, I hope you can find references that will be to your liking. Otherwise, we should go with what our current references say and wrap this mediation up. Randomran (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not everything is an "opinion". As a gaming journalist, game genres are very specific. This is why I converse with devs all the time - and am publishing an article just to settle this issue by contacting Maxis. JAF1970 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of wikipedia, though... there are editor opinions, and there's reliable research. We avoid edit conflicts by relying on research, period. If a new piece of research can clear this up, then great. I'm willing to turn a blind eye to WP:SPS assuming your article appears at least somewhat neutral. I only speak for myself though. Randomran (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm... one of my computers has linux in it. And I have also downloaded many programmes that specifically simulate life and those programs aren't even near to RPG or action. And journalists sometimes tend to spread their own opinions through the articles that they write. And I'd say that god game is a combination of strategy and simulation. Skele (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. But stop confusing games like SimLife with, say, Evo. One of the most irritating things you do is say "WILL WRIGHT IS WRONG! I AM RIGHT!!!!" Hint: They know more than you do about Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me a single reference of me saying "Will Wright is wrong, I'm right". You still don't seem to understand that Spore is not only a god game, it's a multi-genre game as we all have agreed to and as Will Wright has said. But I can almost guarantee that if atleast over a thousand references say that Spore is a life sim, then it is a life sim. Skele (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, this is beside the point. The standard for inclusion in wikipedia isn't truth. It's verifiability. If you can't verify it, it doesn't matter that it's true. If you can verify it from a reliable source, it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. Take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:V. Randomran (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, but all the links I gave were major publications. Ah well. I hope to get that interview soon to settle this once and for all. JAF1970 (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. And so were all the links you kept deleting. That's what's an issue here. It takes a lot to find a source that will justify deleting a whole bunch of other reliable sources. But good luck with that. Randomran (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the interview part. We haven't gotten anywhere in a while. Skele (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Any word on the interview? Skele (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark hasn't gotten back to me just yet. However, I'm going to post an interview I did with Sid Meier in a few days. heh JAF1970 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More thoughts from Mediator

The dispute does seem to be minor at the moment. I think the best thing to do is to get all parties to quickly comment here (in a subsection) to comment on whether they are in agreeance with the changes that have been proposed on the sandbox/here/article talk, and to draft some sort of informal agreement, then get the parties to comment on that. If we're all in agreeance, we may be able to close the case. Add new comments below this one in a new section, with 5 equals signs, I'll do an example. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 15:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Example

Lorem ipsum delor (my latin is awful) Steve Crossin (talk to me) 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

It seems that all the subjects have been dealt with. I say we should make conclusions now or we will never get over this. So here's a few(or maybe all) of the debateables.

1.RTS or Strategy
2.version or spin-off or will we leave it like it is(licensing).
3.The other parts of genre

1.I say RTS for the only difference between RTS and strategy is that RTS defines that the game real-time. 2.I would leave it as it is and make minor adjustments when needed. 3.The sandbox page is starting to look good(except the strategy part) so I'd say we grab the stuff from there and put them in the article.Skele (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dansiman

Personally, I lean toward RTS when describing the Civ phase, no real preference on other phases or the game as a whole, but ultimately I think it comes down to what we have sources for.
I say leave the licensing section as it is now, as JAF1970 and I were the most vocally opposed on the matter, and we appear to both agree on it as it is now.
I prefer the genre section with table format, though I think we should add back in the editor as in this version. Though with that the "Phase" heading might need to be changed to a different word in order to incorporate the editor row.

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randomran

I went with what the references overwhelmingly said, which is RTS. If you want to override that decision, you're gonna have to find references strong enough to indicate otherwise.
whatever you guys decide is alright with me.
the only thing I have against the table section is that it's totally unreferenced and unverified and risks being original research. I think the text section is safer.

That's my two (three) cents. Randomran (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JAF1970

It is NOT, repeat, NOT a real-time strategy game - only one phase resembles an RTS. Mark Buechner has yet to get back to me (understandably, he's a little busy), but calling it an RTS would be not only wrong, but embarrassingly wrong. JAF1970 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything other than your own opinion to back that up? If so, then please post a reference. Preferably in the form of a proposal that the rest of us can see and evaluate. If not, we should rely on the existing research that says it's an RTS. If it's embarrassingly wrong, then that embarrassment will be shared by seven reliable resources. Wikipedia includes all kinds of embarrassing information so long as it is verified by reliable research. Randomran (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What "existing research"?! The only "existing research" talks about the RTS elements of the Tribal phase. Just spoke to Mark a few seconds ago in email. JAF1970 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Post a proposal that reflects what you think the research says. I'm willing to compromise, but it's hard to do that if you don't provide a referenced proposal to evaluate on its merits. Randomran (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And put a few citations about your proposal. Because if there aren't any reliable citations then we can't name it. Skele (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting references

Deleting references verges on vandalism. What's the basis for this? I reverted the sandbox to the referenced version, until further discussion has explained why we would remove reliable sources. Randomran (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 1

See proposals at: User:Steve Crossin/Spore Proposals

I've posted a proposal I think we can all accept. It might not be our own personal views, and certainly does not reflect mine. But it is the product of thorough research on the limited resources on the game thus far. It complies with all wikipedia policies. If anyone objects, please post your alternative proposal and what it is about your proposal that you prefer. I am willing to form a synthesis with other proposals in order to settle this issue. Randomran (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Proposal 1. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's good, it has citations and it mentions that Spore is multi-genre. Skele (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Except it's a strategy game, NOT a real-time strategy. RTS's have a very specific format, and only ONE phase, repeat ONE phase mimicks that (Tribal). I'm finishing up an interview with Sid Meier, and am about to chat with Buechner. If you change it now - you're going to have to change it again. Stop basing it on your own ideas of what the game is when you've never even touched it. JAF1970 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable citations then it is good and yes there are reliable citations. Skele (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, there isn't a single original idea in the proposal. It's all backed by reliable research. If you have a problem with it, post a proposal and let us evaluate it on its own merits. If you don't have your own proposal, then please let us end this mediation process based on the proposal the rest of us agree upon. Randomran (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a single whit of sense. Once again:

THEY

ARE

REFERRING

ONE

PHASE.

Furthermore, CNN called Deus Ex a "murder simulator". They're an "original source". Shall we put that in the infobox for it? Wrong is wrong. JAF1970 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The standard for wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (Furthermore, we only use WP:NPOV sources, so op-eds that slam video game violence wouldn't be used to assert a game's genre.) Do you even have your own proposal? Randomran (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this proposed section is really short and redundant with respect to the information present at the beginning of the Spore (video game)#Gameplay section which gives a more informative discussion. Nanobri (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I envision that this would be the lead-in or a subsection in addition to the current gameplay section in the spore article. I wouldn't want to delete huge chunks of information in the current article now. Let me try to give this section some context. Randomran (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updated proposal

See proposals at: User:Steve Crossin/Spore Proposals

I've updated the proposal based on Nanobri's comment. Mostly, I've added context so we can see how this would sit in the existing article. The "..." just indicates that the main article already has a good section for this, and we should just try to insert this proposal around it.

Again, please offer an alternative proposal if you feel strongly enough about the inaccuracy of the current proposal. Feel free to make any comments since I am willing to make adaptations as necessary.

Sorry to make everyone check in again, but this will help us establish a consensus. Randomran (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to check it out, but overriding Spore news overrides this for now. Am scrambling to do updates. (New video, new screenshots, etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Got an official statement from Patrick

I'll be writing the article - up to you on how to interpret it. ;) (Why do I keep calling Patrick "Mark". sheesh) JAF1970 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you add the section to the proposal page instead please? Then all the parties can discuss it. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, it's a god game and strategy simulation (a sim in the way SimCity is a strategy sim, tho not a city-building sim per se). So, from what I gather, it's a god game/strategy simulation.

But then, he goes on to say that the minor elements include action arcade, avatar based gaming (er, I'd interpret that as life simulation), real-time strategy, and basically, he stresses the whole shebang is a massively single player game.

So, the infobox should say god game/strategy simulation. Are you all okay with that? JAF1970 (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but here's the rub: God game is a subset of Construction and management simulation according to Wikipedia, so only God game should be in the infobox, since you can't list both. (Akin to calling something a real-time strategy/strategy game.) So technically, only god game should be in the infobox. JAF1970 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I said right from the beginning, but you were too pompous to accept any interpretation but your own, even when it led to the same conclusion. I've been alright calling it just a god game from the start... but now with the caveat that it must reflect the research out there. e.g.: only if the reference explicitly comments on the other "misconceptions" floating around out there in the other references that call it other genres. Randomran (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. But this needed to be hashed out. I think I made a great article here. Will post in a few. JAF1970 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just my thoughts here, as this is a disputed topic, as to what the genre, you will need to source it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I need to write the article first. I didn't ask Patrick just to settle this, you know. THis is a job. JAF1970 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, very well, just make sure that the statement you got from him is added as a reference. Feel free to leave a note about it here, or on my talk page. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Posted the article. However, I'll give the URL later. It's accurate, but I want to make sure Patrick takes a look at it himself. JAF1970 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask who is this Patrick? I think I'm missing something here. If god game is a subset for CMS then where does it say it shouldn't be named "god game/strategy" or just "CMS", because CMS includes evolution games also and god game does not fill the evolution part which spore has? Skele (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait to see the article before incorporating it. It really depends on how it's written. Randomran (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, but when JAF writes it I ain't sure anymore. But I guess I'll have to trust JAF, for now. Skele (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Buechner is Maxis VP - everyone who follows Spore knows that. He is Wright's mouthpiece, essentially. He's the one who does the work at stuff like E3. He's the one who makes official statements on Maxis - ie. release date, features, etc. Skele once again is stating "Maxis knows nothing." But, Skele is always right, everyone else - even people involved in the project - is wrong. How much more proof do you need, Skele? Here's the Buechner part of the article:

“

Buechner prefaced his response, “It’s difficult to classify Spore into any one traditional game category.” (No kidding, guy!) He went on to say that it is a god game with basic strategy sim elements, and that “each of the evolutionary levels has a different control dynamic.” Patrick restated some of what has already been discussed, that each phase “runs the gamut from arcade action at Cell, avatar controls at Creature, The Sims-like controls at Tribe, RTS at Civilization and back to avatar at Space”, and that ”Will sums up the whole content exchange and discovery experience as Massively Single Player.”

”

That's the final word, Skele. JAF1970 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. That doesn't help us at all. It's just a repeat of other mouthpiece articles from the spore team. It doesn't contradict or explain away the other reputable journalists who call this a life simulation game, let alone a real time strategy game (which I disagree with, but alas, there it is). We don't elevate primary sources above independent third party sources here. We don't confine articles about communism to what Stalin said about it, we don't confine reports on the white house to official press releases, and we don't confine game articles to what the game developer or publisher themselves state. This quote has not helped us one bit. ... All that aside, please post a proposal so that we can see how far apart we are. In practice I think we're much closer than all these pedantic arguments might indicate. We can't find a compromise if you won't post a proposal. Randomran (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WHAT?!?!?! This is DIRECT from Maxis itself on the exact subject. This is what is known as a DEBATE SETTLER. What do you need? Will Wright and me to FLY to your houses, bring a Powerpoint presentation and give you free beta copies of Spore?! Patrick SPOKE TO WILL about this specially for my article. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED? I need to hear this. JAF1970 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't debate club. It's wikipedia. We quote all reliable research here. Will Wright himself might say "this is the greatest game ver", but if 3 reputable critics say it's crap, we quote them too. No one source gets a monopoly on how a game is described. If there's a contradiction, you usually post the contradiction: so and so said this, but someone else disagreed and said that. On rare, rare, rare occasion, one source is so authoritative that it can override another source -- but that authoritative source would have to say in no uncertain terms that the other sources are wrong or tie those different theories together into one meta theory. Your last option is to post a proposal and then compromise. Randomran (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarize:

Skele: WP:IDON'TLIKEIT

Randorman: WP:THISISWHATWASSAIDBEFOREWEHAVETOCHANGEIT

(SIGH) JAF1970 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And JAF1970: WP:CIVIL. Notified of civility issue here Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me who Patrick is. But I am not saying "I am right, everyone's wrong". I agree with the majority of articles which have some sense in them. And the words “It’s difficult to classify Spore into any one traditional game category.” specify that (again) Spore is not only a god game, but something more. JAF, You keep changing everyone's words ,even Maxis's, to suite your own POV. Skele (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested JAF write up a proposal on the proposals page. That's the only way I see this is going to work effectively. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I will when I get a chance to. Am doing a Q&A with Sid Meier. JAF1970 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to take very long. Let me help you out. You seemed quite fond of this edit. Copy and paste it, make some tweaks, and we'll work from there. Otherwise, this mediation will go on forever. It's already been an unreasonable amount of time, in my opinion. Randomran (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm more fond of just leaving it god game in the infobox, and using [blacklisted link] as the sole basis, since it's the ONLY article published which directly addresses the genre and gets an official answer from Maxis on it. Really, it would be god game / strat sim, but that would be like saying RTS / Strategy so it would just be god game. The other elements, as Patrick stated, are just that: phase-specific subgenres that the game just touches on. I'd rather put in the infobox "SimMirror", but I don't think that'll fly :p JAF1970 (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you are saying that Spore is only a god game while Patrick said it's difficult to classify Spore into one traditional game category. In the article you forgot that there is a genre called evolution game, which would fill up your wikipedia citation in the article and many other things. Secondly, you said you are god in Spore while other sources say that in Spore you are a "no specific character with divine/supernatural powers." Skele (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not saying it. I and Will Wright and Patrick Buechner are all saying it. I'm sorry they dismissed what you're trying to campaign for, but that's life. JAF1970 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm checking the source out now. The reliability of it under policy is highly questionable, however. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your approach is that it doesn't reflect how wikipedia policy works. You elevate first party sources to an elite status, and make third party publications irrelevant. As you know, it's actually the other way around: third party sources are more authoritative than the official party line from the subject itself. And if we look at the third party sources, life simulation and RTS are both supported by reliable research, in addition to God game. Are you unwilling to accept reliable research if you simply disagree with it and think it's false? Is that pretty much the end of the discussion? Because if it is, then you don't understand wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So, are you stating that you, who have never even touched Spore, have a better grasp of the game than the people making it? Or even me, who has actually toyed with the game (albeit in its beta form). Are you saying that ignorance is a better source of information than factual proof? JAF1970 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Randomran. Where you talking to me or JAF. Sounds like you are talking to JAF.Skele (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My judgment here leads me to believe he was referring to JAF, and not you. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just try to mention the persons name that you are talking to unless he's right before you.Skele (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what? You said before, Randomran. Where you talking to me or JAF. Sounds like you are talking to JAF.. I was just pointing out I think he was referring to JAF, not you. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok this is becoming confusing. The mentioning a persons name was actually stated to everyone. But enough of that let's stay in the subject and wait for JAF's answer on Randomran's and my questions. Skele (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I was talking to JAF. Randomran (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what is being said here. Are you actually stating that baseless, subjective conjecture is better than actual, factual reporting? This is 100% the opposite of scientific method. You don't fit the facts to fit your theory. You just got the information directly from Will Wright (since Patrick Buechner is Wright's spokesperson, and consulted with Will before sending me the data) and you're telling me that Wright has less information on Spore than you do? JAF1970 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me, JAF, how [blacklisted link], the one that you wrote, is reliable. It falls under 2 policies, WP:SPS and WP:COS. We should never also cite Wikipedia, as was done in the publication. You need to convince everyone else that the source you provided outweighs all others, and that it warrants their nullification. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refocus

Ok, Ok. This has gone far enough. Seems some people here just won't budge. I want each of you, below, to state exactly what you want to happen from here in regards to the genre, and your reasoning and diffs. JAF, you have failed to write a proposal at all, simply asserting you are correct. As I said on your talk page, the other parties disagree with you, so you must convince them otherwise. Write a proposal up, then we can discuss it. That's the only way it seems this will get anywhere. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have budged, on many counts (ie. changing parts of the Gameplay section to accomodate Skele and others.) But I've gone way out of my way to get definitive answers. I'll post my proposal in a sec. It's very very simple. JAF1970 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2 No muss, no fuss. PS. That article is now been referred to by a ton of other sites. JAF1970 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Randomran's proposal. On my opinion using only god game in the infobox isn't enough to fill everything that Spore is. Skele (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why the changes were made in Gameplay, explanation of each phases is there. Spore is a lot of things, but at its base core, when you strip everything away, it's a god game - otherwise, you'll end up with god game / strategy sim / life sim / economic sim / action / arcade / roleplaying game / real-time strategy / grand strategy game, and that just doesn't look good. JAF1970 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. no you don't. You'll end up with god game/RTS/life sim. Skele (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read what the article says again, because other elements are even more of it than that. Like I said, those elements are already mentioned in the article under "Gameplay". JAF1970 (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, what's your justification for ignoring the research that says it's (1) a life simulation game and (2) a real-time strategy game? Without a rationale grounded in wikipedia policy, your proposal is untenable. Randomran (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My rationalition is 1) based on a decade and a half of computer game journalism experience, and 2) based on what Maxis confirmed for me, which is what a reporter does - get confirmation. I went straight to the horse's mouth. JAF1970 (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the talk JAF1970 had with the VP kind of supports what everyone else has been saying. The game is genre busting. I don't think it means we're going to go crazy and list 127 genres in the info box... just the few we think are most relevant. Also, I think the VP's comment about the different genres at each phase was good and should be incorporated into the genre discussion on the wiki page. As a comment to everyone else, not that I've read a ton, but I do kind of think that other sources about this game are probably not all that reliable. I mean, the games not been released yet so how can they make claims about the genre it fills? Once the game is released if reputable game reviewers and whatnot give it a genre label different than what Will Wright or EA have been wanting it called then that's a different story. The game maker doesn't decide how the game players view and categorize the game. Well, that's all I've got for now. Back to not procrastinating with my real work :-) Nanobri (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As a comment to everyone else, not that I've read a ton, but I do kind of think that other sources about this game are probably not all that reliable. Ah, but they're played the game. And Wright is well-versed in genres himself. Unless you want to say Will Wright doesn't know what computer genres are... JAF1970 (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On wikipedia, the experience of the editors doesn't matter. (For what it's worth, I've been a game journalist for two decades. It doesn't matter.) What matters is pointing to reliable research. And you can't just put all your stock into the source itself, since game journalists and reviewers have just as much say in describing what a game is like. (In fact, they're more authoritative. That's why we use third party resources: because they're neutral.) Even by more stringent standards, people who have played the game (as in, played hands-on previews) have called the game a life simulation. You can't ignore reliable research like that. Randomran (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm thinking, we have made very little progress so far. Perhaps a Request for Comment would assist here? It would aid to get outside opinion. JAF, write your proposal. Constantly saying "I'm right, I'm right", then everyone else saying "No you're not", that happening 20 times, is not getting us anywhere. So please, write your version on the proposals page. And also, I think an RFC would be helpful here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I did write the proposal. It's #2. JAF1970 (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it - what's a Request for Comment? JAF1970 (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

From the RFC page

“

Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

”

Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the Wikietiquite thread. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was brought in because of a request for comment. Is this really productive? Randomran (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you link me to the RFC that happened before this case? Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. The request I found was much more informal than the process you're suggesting. I'm all for getting more opinions. How should we go about doing an official RFC? Randomran (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I can set it up. Whether here or on the article talk page. Article talk page is probably best. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

2 is the one I suggest because it's clean, quick, and doesn't add a lot of unnecessary stuff, especially since the article basically states the official genre of the game. JAF1970 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your reference to the reliable sources noticeboard. As you wrote it yourself, you will need to ask at them if it's reliable or not. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Closed

Per this, where JAF1970 was blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment of other users: ; disruptive editing; edit warring; breaches of copyright policy and per [17]" by Nick, I see no reason for this mediation to continue. If disputes happen again, I'll consider re-opening the case. Personally, I'm disappointed this case couldn't be resolved in a different way, but if that's how it has to be, then that's how it has to be. Forward all messages to my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You can open it again if you like. I'm here. JAF1970 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, completely unnecessary. Issue has been resolved, either way, the section under dispute is referenced well. I will be watching the article very closely. I see no need to reopen this case and have it drag on for another month when the issue is resolved. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia Medcab closed cases