Loyola School, Thiruvananthapuram and User talk:Thibbs: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:20, 11 October 2008

HELLO - This is the talk page for Thibbs. Please place messages to me at the bottom of my talk page and I will reply as soon as I find the free time. All comments and criticisms are welcome. Normally I will leave my reply here on this page. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Thibbs! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Finally responding after just under 2 years... Thanks for the welcome. You welcome crew do a hell of a job here at wiki. Kudos to you all. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Been Busy eh

Sorry about all the extraneous boxes! I moved a bunch of mine... -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey no problem. I finally addressed the issue of my userpage and talk. Kind of fun in its own n e r d y way. Anyway thanks for being the original inspiration. If you hadn't been WP:BOLD I'd probably still have a redlink userpage. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment tool

Dude, I think that Recruitment tool needs some cleaning out, I don't think that games that aren't put out by a group or endorsed by that group should be categorized as a recruitment tool for them. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whereizben (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I'm planning a major overhaul of the page. I definitely think that products not endorsed by the group they are recruiting for need to be cleaned out (although I think they could still be considered non-recruitment-tool advergames). I also think some of the films are not actually recruitment tools. Go ahead and make improvements as you see fit. Cheers Thibbs 12:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs)==

Regrettably, it looks like this user's already been blocked by an admin who had it in for him. I'm suggesting to them that an indef-block was way too harsh, but the admin is claiming they are "unrepentant" in the same vein of "the beatings will continue until morale improves." M1rth (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that ForeverFreeSpeech has not been very well instructed as to how to make appropriate edits and it does seem a bit harsh to block him indefinitely. I think the reason most people have taken such instant dislike to this user is that he tends to be uncivil and frequently accuses other editors of involvement or support for fascist or racist organizations. I think he is inflammatory by nature and that he should probably have been directed to the proper guidelines weeks ago. It is unfortunate because I don't think he was trying to vandalize, he just hadn't learned the neutral path which good editors are expected to follow and I think he let personal sentiment get in the way of good judgment. I agree that he should probably have only been given a temporary ban but that he should have been pointed to appropriate wikipedia guidelines to read during his time off. -Thibbs (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to weigh in on FFS's talk page. Mastcell (the admin who originally abusively blocked him for "edit warring" with a bot designed poorly enough that it edit-wars) has started attacking. :( M1rth (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Afterword: Both User:M1rth and User ForeverFreeSpeech are currently permanently banned from wikipedia for WP:NPOV (strong anti-arabism), WP:CIV, and WP:SOCK violations among others. Their chequered pasts may be reviewed here (M1rth) and here (ForeverFreeSpeech). -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thanks Thibbs for all your grammar guidance in my contributions. I really apreciate that. Sometimes my english is quite rough because I'm not an english native speaker. (don't worry, I'm not using wikipedia to learn it ^^) Probably this small sentence has a lot of mistakes too, LOL. Thanks you!! RG4ever (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Interesting articles you're creating. Glad I can help. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of best-selling video game franchises

Hi there! Don't worry, just create a new section whenever you need to chat (because old sections are usually archived). As for VGChartz, there were many discussions at the WikiProject Video Games, and consensus has historically been that it is not a reliable source. Some examples are here, here (where I bring the point that we should be able to use reliable sources even if they are using unreliable data) and here (where I made a long post with the history of VGChartz in Wikipedia which may be useful). If you want to quote VGChartz, you will have to make a new discussion at the WikiProject. My point of view is that unreliable source becomes reliable when quoted by a reliable source, although it could be abused in certain circumstances. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The verifiability policy can only be used on reliable sources (otherwise people would be able to use Geocities pages to reference information). And WP:RS basically indicates that a reliable source is such if other reliable sources in the topic consider it reliable. VGChartz, even though they have a lot of fans, are not considered reliable by most of the media. While certain articles use them (some mentions at C&VG, a New York Times and a Forbes one, the Guinness book and a press release by Codemasters, if I recall correctly), companies still use NPD as source for their information. The only time IGN mentioned VGChartz was just because Codemasters mentioned them. It is much harder to check GameSpot for mentions about it, especially since most of the hits are because mentioning that word in the comments sections.

That is basically the rationale behind not allowing VGChartz numbers here: until companies do regard it as reliable, and the media use them regularly, they are to be restricted. Magic Box? Personally I would like to replace all those references with others, even if the numbers are lower. I am basically against any site being used heavily for information (as you can see in both best-selling video game lists, we use a broad spectrum of sources, from consumer and industrial to completely foreign and mass media). My personal thought about Magic Box is found in one of the links I posted, too. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Regarding why TMB is considered reliable, I am not really sure. The first ever version of the page (a couple of months before I joined) used it. I guess since nobody ever objected TMB in the beginning, it was accepted due implicit consensus. My own opinion is that they don't make assumptions, they only transcribe data from Famitsu. Again, I am against using a single reference for many games, and would love to replace their references with others until there is no Magic Box just as there are no VGChartz or Nexgenwars or any other similar site, but it will take time.

I would love to point to a single discussion where VGChartz is accepted as an unreliable source, but there is not one. Just as TMB was thought to be reliable, VGC was thought to be unreliable since the first day. Maybe gaming forums like NeoGAF pushed their point of view about VGC to Wikipedia without us knowing the move (would be sad, but not the first time a group does that). I have tried many times to create a discussion, but most people just think "it is because it is". Personally, I use Special:Linksearch and everytime a vgchartz.com link appears, I replace it with a reliable source. Fortunately, there are not that many links nowadays, so it is an easy task.

There was a WikiProject that took care of verifiability, plus a noticeboard to discuss whether are reference is reliable or not. Maybe we could use them and bring WPVG there to discuss.

I already pointed my personal fear: if VGC is found reliable, every single reference will be eaten by vgchartz.com because it is updated weekly, just like TMB eats references for old games (not that those references are easy to find, though). Personally, I think the current best-selling articles to be in much better shape than a simple mirror of either site (even though some games have very old references). I prefer having a New York Times reference say a game sold a million copies by 2003 than a VGChartz reference saying it sold two million copies by 2008. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Replies may be found at User:ReyBrujo's talk. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mind's Eye (series)

Good job on the Mind's Eye page! You've really improved a lot there. --Eptin (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I find the videos to be fascinating time-capsules or historical snapshots of the state of the art graphic capabilities. This will only become more amazing in the future when we have vastly superior computer-generated graphics. It's like looking back at black-and-white, silent, or early animated films from today's perspective. -Thibbs (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

subcategories

That's a really good question, and I'm not really sure to be quite honest. I've only become more active with the overall WP:VG in the past couple of months, and even so I'm mostly familiar with WP:VG/GL, which deals with articles and not categories. In my experience, there are a few issues:

Categories are often misused when the name is not chosen properly. I've seen Economic Simulation Games being to include RTSs, RPGs, and Action Games that feature a sophisticated buy/sell mechanic, and so a rename made sense to make it more applicable to the Tycoon series of games that it was meant to cover. I think the big risk with the "music video games" category is that you might start to see games with a really strong musical component creep in. Even a rename to "music and rhythm games" might prevent problems. But I leave that to your judgment, since "music video games" is broader, even if it may be misleadingly broad to the uneducated reader.

There's always a lead at the top of a category. That's an opportunity to point out the main article, which is often a good guide for what goes in or out of the category.

Because people often don't read very deep into an article, it can become important to say in no uncertain terms what the category is for in the lead. You don't need to go into detail about the history. But you do want to cover the defining gameplay that distinguishes it from other games.

I say that with my gut experience in the genre categories, and not having read your guidelines. So I'm taking a look at what you have now to see if there's anything I forgot, or if there are some issues where we don't line up.

I think you're going into too much detail for the average reader. Not that what you have isn't good. But it's such a niche topic that I'm not sure you'll find enough people who care enough to turn it into an actual guideline. And it's complex enough that I think a lot of readers would just tune out.

Something to keep in mind ... the categories don't all have to be in a perfect tree. Wikipedia is often organized more as a web. If there's a category for a series, include it in the music games category. If there's a category for a particular instrument or gameplay, put it in the music games category. Some redundancy is okay. I think it's fine if people see all the guitar hero games in the main category, but some are also listed under "guitar music games", "drum music games", as well as a subcategory for the series itself.

What's tough is that if you care enough about this area of knowledge that you feel it should be maintained a certain way, then you're gonna just have to keep an eye on it. That's what I've found with the game genre articles, particularly with the various simulations.

That's me thinking off the top of my head. Not very organized, but contact me again if you have any further questions. Randomran (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'm still tinkering with it and I hope to soon produce a quick reference chart of yes/no questions which, if answered in order, will direct an editor relatively painlessly to the correct category-tagging decision (according to the tentative guidelines). I have made a few tweaks, but this yes/no quick reference chart should cure the problem you identified of editors "tuning out." As far as the monitoring of the page, I agree, of course, that the page cannot moniter itself, but I believe that if the quick reference chart is available for editors to make informed decisions then miscategorizations would be reduced and, beyond that, if the tentative guidelines were formalized then a monitoring editor could at least point to some sort of authority to back up his decision to undo/repair miscategorized articles/categories. When I get the quick reference chart finished I'll add a note at Talk:Music video game to broaden the pool of commentary. Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can turn it into a very simple checklist, it might even be a good thing to add to the lead of the category page. Randomran (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now created a checklist of sorts and am adressing the issue of simplicity. From the start I have attempted to distance myself from possible folk taxonomies and to prepare as "scientific" a taxonomy as possible by using objective characteristics. This should already simplify matters greatly. As far as the logical flow of the series of questions, I think it is actually close to as simple as it can be made and nothing more remains but to address layout and aesthetics (both critical for ease of use). I suppose it's fairly obvious that I used a dichotomous key approach to classification here. If it works for species of animals, why not for species of music video game, right? Although most dichotomous keys I've seen have taken the nested style, I think this set of questions is small enough that we can make best use of the "indented key." I would argue that linked style dichotomous, polytomous, and multi-access keys should be avoided. This brings us to where we are now.

Currently I'm experimenting with collapsing (as with the Collapsible list) and nesting. Ideally, I'd like to see some kind of nested collapsible form where instead of displaying "[show]" it displayed "[Yes]" or "[No]" to proceed. This will probably require some javascripting and some time so we'll see how far I get... If worst comes to worst, I think it might be an option to release version 1.0 as it is now. I'd then add it to Category talk:Music video games as policy and beautify it when I had more time. I like your idea of adding reference to it in the lead of the category page as well. Thanks for all the help so far. -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, as far as I know the WPVG simply follows Wiki-wide rules for categorization. If the sub-category is already in the category, then there's no need to have a single article slotted in both. It's tricky to keep up with sometimes but just watch out for any that you might come across.

As for your list, go for it. I'm too into my own projects to be a contributing member but if you have any other direct question don't hesitate to ask. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your advice. I feel like I'm making headway on the list. I've posted a localized "rfc" (not an actual RfC since, as User:Randomran pointed out, "it's such a niche topic" that I doubt I'd get much relevant feedback) at Talk:Music video game and I think it might be a good idea to do the same at Category talk:Music video games. Inasmuch as this is little more than a formalization of the current common practice I think things should proceed pretty smoothly. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, I saw you making a lot of edits with the summary "avoid redirects", and thought you should read this: WP:Redirect#NOTBROKEN. Pagrashtak 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. -Thibbs (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Law of Palestine

I will not be able to work on it immediately, but will try ASAP. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'll make sure to check every now and again. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you are welcome. The copied section on criminal law has a POV slant; can you fix that? Bearian (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly not my forte, but I'll take a look at it. At the very least, I can address the copy editing issues. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I "rv" -- removed the POV tag, not reverted -- it. Sorry for the confusion. It looks 89 % better now. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Bearian. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted part of the lede at Law_of_Palestine#Criminal_law. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I suppose my main question was whether or not you would be interested in my posting an open editing invitation to members of WP:Israel and WP:Palestine in order to allow equal POV-biasing or whether you thought that move would be counterproductive. The only reason I think POV may be an issue is due to the fact that the article is just in its earliest stages of creation and POV may be structurally/linguistically harder to remove later if it is introduced now. I'll go with whatever you think is the better move (i.e. posting a note to both wikigroups or, in the alternative, neither). Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to wait until I find more sources online and insert them. Let's give ourselves a week. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'd even be ok with >1 week. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note, I've written to 6SJ7 in an attempt at transparency. He's already made an edit at LoP so I don't feel like this is unduely stoking the flames. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found more sources, quotes, links, etc., and added them. I'm done with this one for the week. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I found some citations to back up the unsourced claim I had made and I removed the cn tag. I think I'll hold off from any meaningful editing here until I've done more research, but I'll keep an eye on things from the sidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were still working on it. I reverted the tag. I can't work long on it this week; on vacation. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted my concerns at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war.2F_POV-pushing_at_Law_of_Palestine. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't take part. I was on a week's vacation during that period. It seems like some of the problems that existed prior to my vacation have been ironed out. I saw the comments that had been left on your two accounts and I support your use of the "nuclear option" only insofar as I have had very little success in communicating with certain users either on talk or at their user page. I think the wakeup call was exactly what the doctor ordered and it seems to have really spurred some communication (albeit limited) at long last. -Thibbs (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. How about this proposal [1] to rename the article Palestinian law? I'd be open to it as a compromise. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this sounds fine to me. Care should be exercised to transfer all posts at Talk:Law of Palestine to Talk:Palestinian law, however, so that the road to consensus is properly documented. I'll weigh in on Talk:LoP. -Thibbs (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I saw your request for an article, however the Hungarian wikipedia doesn't even seem to have this article in the more than 100 000 articles it has [2] on this topic. An article could be written I think but I don't know how to get a picture for the article? Wikipedia usually only allows photos we take ourselves, but this is not a building or similar. Hobartimus (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree a picture would be nice, but there is no requirement for one. I have an old picture book that has some pictures (which could be scanned in eventually), but I have no idea if the copyrights would still apply. Who owned the copyrights to the show, and does this owner still exist? -Thibbs (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

MTV did [3] the wiki article is under Magyar Televízió, they produced it. However there are users who will delete pictures, so getting a picture is very easy, but gettig it through the 'system' here is quite hard. Hobartimus (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In my experience it is possible to get pictures uploaded through wikimedia as long as I have gained the author's permission or the permission of the copyright holder. Editors are much less likely to delete pictures uploaded at wikimedia as long as they are properly attributed. To gain the correct permission we would probably have to write to MTV. There may also be a way to properly attribute it as a free image by using a low-quality image and claiming fair use but I haven't uploaded any images in a while so I can't quite remember the requirements. I'm pretty sure there is a wealth of information on the subject available when you try to upload. -Thibbs (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sophia Jansson-Zambra

A tag has been placed on Sophia Jansson-Zambra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ~~SIS~~ 21:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Naturally I disagree, so I will weigh in on the appropriate talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sophia Jansson-Zambra

I have nominated Sophia Jansson-Zambra, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Jansson-Zambra. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ~~SIS~~ 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Naturally I disagree, so I will weigh in on the appropriate talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The new version[4] is a huge improvement compared to the one I tagged for deletion[5] four days ago. I think notability is now shown and well sourced. I suggested to close the discussion and keep the article. ~~SIS~~ 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your reconsideration and retract my suggestions that you appeared more interested in deleting the article than in determining its merits. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ribbon of Merit

Thank you very much! Bearian (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hah, no problem. You deserve it. That's a tricky area to work in on wiki and you handled yourself admirably. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD and logic

Your statement that "A game that includes 'minimal' violence would be tagged 'non-violent' if reliable sources indicate that it is. Using the 'reliable sources/verifiability' standard is quite simply how Wikipedia works" is a remarkable breath of fresh air in the CfD process. I have been involved in AfD for years and got sucked into the CfD process when a category I use was proposed for deletion not too long ago. CfD operates under the influence of an extremely small group of editors who have an approach to categories that differs from yours and mine, and from how most of the rest of Wikipedia works. As you have done in this current CfD, I have advocated in multiple CfDs that clear and objective inclusion standards be defined and adhered to, just as you have suggested. The responses are to insist that whatever standard you come up with, no matter how grounded in sources, is "arbitrary", after all there's some other standard that could have been chosen. The other response to any proposed standard, no matter how well-defined, is to identify an actual (or, just as often, hypothetical) borderline case and to insist that this shows an underlying flaw with the category that requires the deletion of the entire structure. In other situations there's the "listify", which pushes for deletion of a category because it would be a "better" list, despite WP:CLN encouraging co-existence of both lists AND categories. Another favorite approach is to insist that a category is "trivial" or "non-defining", often with an appeal to a claim of overcategorization; sources that contradict the claim are conveniently ignored. Any sane person would leave this particular asylum, where sources and logic have little sway, but any input you could offer would at least confirm that I'm not the only one who believes that "the 'reliable sources/verifiability' standard is quite simply how Wikipedia works." Thank you again for your insight. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is very frustrating to deal with editors who simply ignore my suggestions and persist in claiming that the task is impossible without addressing my proposal. One of Wikipedia's biggest problems is that enclaves develop where a distinct unwritten set of rules apply. I have also run into a similar situation with some of the WikiProjects where the members there had promulgated guidelines that conflicted with general Wikipedia guidelines. I guess one must pick one's battles, but at times it seems like I'm arguing with a brick wall. Anyway I appreciate your input. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious, if you were walking down the street, and shot to death, but you were unarmed, did violence occur? –xeno (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way: I wouldn't claim I'd lived a violent life. Can you see the subtle distinction? -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, if I were writing an article on the topic at Wikipedia then I know I'd have to use sources to back up my claim that violence had occurred if there was a valid dispute sourced with reliable sources. At the very least I'd probably have to present both sides and not filter the event through my own particular POV. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  - The simple fact is that the category is too vague - which is my main concern. The unrefined opinions of reviewers should not trump the simple fact that there is indeed violence in Portal. If I really took the time, I could find sources to prove this, ("the introduction of live fire turrets which can kill Chell" "the turrets seem inconsequential, however they are deadly and can kill Chell very quickly" "After trying to kill Chell at some point, this strange relation becomes much more threatening" ) but I shouldn't have to when it's plainly obvious. The category needs to be refined or removed from the Portal article. –xeno (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    - The fact of the matter is that there are players and reviewers who consider the game to be non-violent. That they possibly consider it non-violent only in comparison with more violent games is of no consequence to the verifiable identification of the game as non-violent. In my experience non-violent games are often identified as such due mainly to the actions on the part of the player. This explains why most puzzle games are considered non-violent despite the fact that the main character may be injured or killed (even violently so) by hazards (including sentient enemies). I understand very well that you don't think any game that contains any violence is non-violent, but your argument suffers from an obvious lack of sources as backup and an overly strict definition of violence. The fact is that reviewers, marketers, and non-violent game communities have characterized some games that do contain objective violence as non-violent. The apparently conflicted definition is only conflictory to those who are of the opinion that any violence makes a game a violent game. Since you have posed a question for me to answer allow me a follow-up question: Would you consider a game like Minesweeper be violent because mines and explosions that kill the player are involved? -Thibbs (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      - I've already provided you three sources above that indicate that Portal is indeed violent (if we agree that killing and trying to kill=violence). If you're talking about the Minesweeper that is included with most Windows installations, and you are calling the smiley-face the player, and the mines turning red is an explosion, and the smiley face frowning and his eyes turning into x's represents death, then I suppose yes, that could be considered violent. Your reply seems to support my suggestion of renaming the category to to First person shooters in which the playable character is non-violent. –xeno (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        Your suggestion that "trying to kill=violence" is synthesis. You are an admin and I don't want to take this to Arbcom, but if I have to then I will. You seem to be completely undiscomfited in your placement of wikipedia policy and guidelines by the wayside simply to support your own POV to the exclusion of other valid POVs. The issue boils down to your suggestion that you just know something is a certain way versus my suggestion that the sources I have provided demonstrated that others believe something to be a certain way. I have repeatedly requested that we stick to verifiability and in questions of conflict that we represent both sides of the issue but you have refused to compromise due to vague inclinations and suspicions corroborated only roughly through synthesis and misleading references. I am currently writing a draft version of the article I think should support this category and I will invite you to examine it when I am finished. I pray that you don't approach it with the same loose regard for wikipolicy that you have with the category. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        lol, I've done nothing adminly here. go to arbcom if you feel you must. you disagree that killing and attempting to kill someone is violence? synthesis? sheesh. i'm done here. for the record, I've attempted to compromise by suggesting a refinement of the category name. –xeno (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        To clarify, I meant that as an admin you certainly know better. -Thibbs (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on Music video game

Hi, I saw your request for feedback on Music video game. I'm a professional writer and editor, so I may have a little bit of a different "take" on the issues than general Wiki editors. I can see from the above discussion that you're striving to be constructive within the Wiki framework. But that's not at issue, here.

I've written 1,000s of articles for businesses, and also modified 1,000s for Wiki. My perception is you are at two different impasses. One, if I may, is that you've gotten into murky philosophical waters -- I find these interesting -- but I never expect to get a group concensus on these discussions. Minesweeper either is or is not a violent game?? Ouch! That's not a topic I would like to bet a term paper grade on!

Regarding the "Music video game" article itself: The game genre itself is valid, but the article does not do it credit. It's too little like an encyclopedia article, and too much like a fansite.

It's written from an enthusiast's point-of-view. Using lots of "rah-rah" terms that enthusiasts (and marketing departments) will love to hear. But to a reader less familiar with the subject, or less enthusiastic, it reads like smoke and mirrors -- it's hard to discern what of it is untrue, and what is just weak, biased writing. This sentence, starting the second paragraph is an example:

"Strong support for the convergence of live music and video games is evident with the success of the Video Games Live concert series".

What is "strong support"? How would I tell it from "mild support" or "little support". What does it mean? Basically, it means nothing at all. "...the convergence of live music and video games..." Uh...? I play live music. I have music software. I play video games. I wouldn't use the word "converging" to describe the relationship...more like "faking", "scrambling at straws", "kiddy entertainment". From my perspective as a musician, what's being accomplishe is precious little: except to sell software and hardware. Then: "...evident with the success of..." that's just marketing BS. Success in marketing often doesn't come from quality so much as a bigger advertising budget. Everyone knows that. Where are the famous musicians who learned their trade from "Video Games Live"? I might be able to make this argument: There are NO famous musicans who learned their trade from "Video Games Live", therefore the program ruins your chance to be a good musican.

That's the problem with the article: it's preaching to a choir that doesn't know how to sing. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)