Talk:Pinball Construction Set
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pinball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pinball and Pinball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] External links for PCS
This comment was left on my talk page. I wanted to discuss this issue here, since it pertains to this article:
- Hi Frecklefoot -- I wanted to let you know my thinking about removing external links from PCS. I believe that these links are essentually linkspam, adding little or no useful information, and serving what is essentially an advertising purpose for the two sites listed. What's the point in providing links to entries with a database like these? I have removed them again, although provided we continue a decent discussion on it, I'll not do so again until this is resolved. --Improv 13:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This issue has come up several times relating to several video game articles. The relevancy of the MobyGames link has been discussed several times by the Computer and video games Wikiproject, and the conclusion is always the same: it should be included. MobyGames is not a commercial site and contains a great deal of data that we don't always include in our articles. Some of the most valuable content is screenshots, which we often don't have in our articles. And when we do, we don't have nearly as many as they do. Other information they have that we don't always include platforms, release dates, etc. In fact, the MobyGames articles on games are often used as a starting point for Wikipedia articles on video games. Also, the MobyGames database is continually updated (as is Wikipedia), so when they might not have much information on a game when it is initially linked to, it most probably will in the future.
Arguments against include:
- It is commercial because it includes banner ads. Yes, it does have banner ads, but these are not nearly as bad as the dreaded pop-up ads that many obnxious sites feature. And the monetary gain from the ads most likely pays for the server space and little else.
- It contains reviews, and we don't link to reviews. Yes, sometimes the games have reviews, but they are incidental. Sometimes users post reviews for the game in mention, sometimes not. Keeping reviews for the games is not MobyGames primary purpose. Visitors don't have to visit any of the reviews to use the other features of the site.
Now as for The Underdogs site, it has never been discussed by the project AFAIR. However, the information it includes supplements what MobyGames has (MobyGames has information they don't, and vice versa). For example, often they have the complete game manuals for out-of-print games and other information. I see this as a great boon to anyone interested in the game.
For now, I've reverted the removal. If you disagree now, please discuss here before re-removing the links. Thanks! — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Would you be up for calling for broader discussion of this (linked from the Village Pump as opposed to just the project page)? I am concerned about the acceptability of this kind of link, but it's not super clear-cut in my eyes. --Improv 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just bringing it up on the project would be best, I think. Most members have already been through the whole discussion of why we use MobyGames links. I'd hate to have to go through the whole thing again with the entire community.
FYI, we've been using MobyGames links for years now, so I don't think anyone's going to suddenly declare that we shouldn't use them. But the Underdogs link might be more questionable. But, in my mind, it is a very worthwhile link.
So, yeah, go ahead and bring it up on the project and link to it from here, so any stragglers can wander over there to see what's being said. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I want to bring it up before the entire community, because I think that its judgement is likely to be different than just the project, particularly on care for policy versus specific content interest. --Improv 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, go ahead. Just link to the conversation from here. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
