Jump to content

Talk:Real-time tactics/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

"Borrowed" text

I borrowed some of the text from this article to fill the ressurected turn-based tactics page. I hope you don't mind. SharkD 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Category renaming

I'm putting the category Category:Real-time tactical computer games up for renaming to Category:Real-time tactics video games. Check out the category and vote on it. SharkD 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Moby Games

There's no love for the tactics genre at Moby Games. SharkD 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

Discussion on this topic has been moved here. SharkD 13:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article

Here is an interesting article that tries to define Company of Heroes as an RTT game. SharkD 16:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interview with a Supreme Commander developer who discusses the genre. SharkD 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Screenshots

Are all the screenshots really necessary? If so, we really need a new Myth II shot. It's being used as an example of a fantasy-based game, but the shot seems to show a Civil War mod. Ace of Sevens 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the page, now there is only one representative example image per section, and an additional gallery section at the end of the article. Looks sleeker and better to me. Mikademus 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a civil war mod. Go to www.getmyth.com - I know hosts personally and those pics are fine for you to use

(The Elfoid 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Someone keeps adding these back and it's turned into a bit of an edit war. I don't see how a bunch of screenshots enhance a reader's understanding of the genre, which is the topic of the article. Ace of Sevens 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, one revert is not an edit war. I'm loath to quote wikipolicies since I'm against wikilawyering, but this article is nowhere near edit war territory. Anyway, the gallery doesn't detract from the article body, and is handy for the readers who do like illustrations. It also has descriptive value in itself since info about the RTT game style can be cleaned from them. Since removing them is a bold edit it'd be better if you discussed it on the talk page before, or took it to here in a less confrontational way after. Mikademus 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I did discuss it above. How is this fair use, though? Ace of Sevens 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above you refer to was about a previous situation where many screenshots were sprinkled through each section and led to a rehaul of the article, i.e. it applied to a different, earlier layout and situation. Further, this article has been a source of discussion at several fora I frequent and the present form is generally appreciated. Mikademus 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Under WP:FUC, it's not enough that the images not detract from the article. They must contribute significantly. Here, they certainly don't. They also don't fall under the clause that says to use as few copyrighted images as possible. Ace of Sevens 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the gallery should be removed. It violates Fair use. CG 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are too many images

I suggest we include one example of every major type of game, and one example for each major generation of technology. The number of images in this article at the moment is absolutely ridiculous and completely unjustifiable. --Tom Edwards 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

--I agree, except I think we should probably add a good shot from World In Conflict, since this game shows "next-gen" pc stuff. --Garion333 2:30, 26 September 2007 (MST)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mark of Chaos - Defending city.jpg

Image:Mark of Chaos - Defending city.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Medieval Total War - poised for battle.jpg

Image:Medieval Total War - poised for battle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

Please note that simply "mentioning the game in the text" is not sufficient rationale for using a non-free image in the article. The important point here is WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if ... its omission would be detrimental to (the reader's) understanding". For each image you need to ask - "if I removed this image, would the reader of the article suddenly struggle to understand something"? and if so, the next question needs to be (WP:NFCC#1) "could that image be adequately replaced with text"? As I said in the edit summary, there is unlikely to be a Wikipedia article that needs 15 non-free images. Black Kite 08:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many pics? Doubtful.

I question the rush to judgment about the use of copyrighted images. Wikipedia is definitely in a reactive mode right now thanks to the scandals of its leadership and the probelmatic living person's issue. No need to overreact: imagery that well illustrates the breadth of the subject matter, as these images do, is well suited to the subject matter. That said, perhaps there should be an organized effort to secure the blessings of the individual copyright holders. (too often we leave this to individuals, when it should in fact be a group effort). Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Centurion-Defender of Rome.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding illustrations

The article previously had a set of images aptly and visually illustrating the evolution of the genre. Some editors considered it good and some considered them too many. WP has gone through a period of over-reactiveness and have deleted many illustrations from a great number of articels by questioning their fair use. In this case it has left the article worse off. I suggest we add some images relevant for the artcle and pertinant to the section, say perhaps an image per major section. I've moved the main image (the Mediaval II: Total War) to the "characteristics" section, and re-added an image from Centurion: Defender of Rome to the early ancestry section. They both have a note connecting them to the section, a line, and the name of the game. I would like the opinions of other editors on this and the layout. (I also structured the talk page a bit by moving all image-related threads to their own header.) Miqademus (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current number of images (I just added one, BTW) is sufficient. However, I think the first two are too similar. Maybe we should pick one that shows something different, instead. SharkD (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cites

The cites for the intro and first section were severly lacking, and referred only to strategy games with tactical elements, not a whole new genre. Alastairward (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what you think is not being said in the articles. Care to elaborate? SharkD (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If it helps, here are a couple of more sources that refer to this as a new genre (subgenre, really). See here and here. Randomran (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
SharkD, put simply, "Real Time Strategy Tactics" is not mentioned in the references I removed. There seems to be some synthesis or original research at work here. You can't just make up an argument and then stretch a cite to fit. Make the article fit the cites, not vice-versa.
In addition, the burden of proof is on the editor adding material, not the person who challenges it. If you think the cites are useful, then you are the one who should say what they do say that's of use to the article.Alastairward (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you meant "Real Time Tactics" when you said that above. The first reference cites the fact that the abbreviation "RTT" is in use. The article used to cite this does in fact use the term "RTT". The second article specifically calls real-time tactics games a "sub-genre" that Bungie and Microsoft helped "spawn". The third article is used to support a tangent regarding risk/reward cycles, and doesn't really have much to do with real-time tactics at all. I see no evidence to support the substantially vague claims you made; sufficient "burdon of proof" was supplied when the original citations were made. SharkD (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Shark, let's go through this one cite at a time;

None of these help with any assertion that this is a new or existing subgenre what-so-ever. Simply reverting my edits without reason and without an edit summary is certainly not polite either at the very least. Alastairward (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of these genre articles aren't very well-referenced. But the issue is settled if you look at this one, which refers to the "real-time tactical game" as a "subgenre", and abbreviates it as "RTT". I know WP:V encourages us to remove unreferenced statements, but a genre definitely exists here. So we should try to rephrase for accuracy, rather than totally tearing this article apart. Randomran (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You're focusing on lapses in terminology instead of the substance of the articles. In the first article, what else could they possibly mean? There's no other three letter acronym it could stand for. The subject of the article also falls in line with what is put forth in this topic. As for the second article, it says, "It was during this time that Bungie and Microsoft helped spawn the fixed-unit real-time sub-genre. Bullfrog's Myth: The Fallen Lords and Microsoft's Close Combat not only started their own franchises, but proved that real-time strategy could have more than strategy; it could have tactics too." It's silly to argue what is meant here. Again, the substance of the quoted passage falls in line with the topic of the article. SharkD (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
So according to Shark, we're focussing on "lapses in terminology instead of the substance of the articles"? That just sounds like you're covering your tracks. Our cites should be (and there's no way you can demand otherwise) explicit. They should not be open to interpretation. If they are, then you're going to have to commit either synthesis or original research to include them in the article and base your case on it. Alastairward (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hooray, here come the bureaucrats! --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that if there is more than one interpretation, we should err on the side of caution and rephrase. But what other logical interpretation is there? How do you read that source? Randomran (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how any other interpretation is possible. For instance, in Opticks Isaac Newton refers to the diffraction of light as "inflexion", and later in Method of Fluxions differential calculus as "fluxions", yet they are commonly understood to be the same thing. If you find any evidence to suggest otherwise, please supply it as per WP:BURDEN. SharkD (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
SharkD, sorry, that is most certainly not the way it works. The person adding the source has the burden of proof. Here's an idea, actually read what the policy states; "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That's you, ok?
Tom Edwards, is that it? No more contribution to make than a quick post and run? Alastairward (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I "ran away"? A little presumptuous, don't you think? --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes Tom, that certainly adds a lot more to the discussion, thank you.
I removed the cite based on a blog, self published material is not suitable for use as a cite. Perhaps the editor who restored it might remember that you can watch pages on wikipedia before sneaking it back in again... Alastairward (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A site's status as "blog" has no bearing on its being reliable. The site has been previously disucssed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Please take the issue up there. SharkD (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I will not take the issue up there, as it is already part of wikipedia's guidelines, see here. A blog can be used to in reference to itself, nothing more. Alastairward (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Then you might be missing the part that says "For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." For example, Brian Crecente, Luke Smith, Clive Thompson, et al meet SPS and thus anything written by them anywhere can meet the criteria, whether it be on Joystiq, Kotaku, or random blog #27. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
David Fuchs is right. That said, it might help to know who this guy is and what makes him an expert, and thus why he is reliable in this narrow situation. Randomran (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
He is discussed here. SharkD (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm satisfied under the circumstances. That said, maybe the information could be written into a shorter/tighter summary. And, if possible, referenced to another source. Randomran (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
To David Fuchs, if the point had been made in the first part (and some sort of cite given for that) perhaps. There is a notice board for such discussion too. Alastairward (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was responding a request for a third opinion, but it looks like everything is settled here. Is that correct? AlekseyFy (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No idea why it went to 3O. Kind of removes the point of the reliable sources notice board... In any case, there was a simply short circuiting of the usual approach to looking at reliable sources. I'll assume good faith, but it did feel like someone felt that this was their article for a while. Alastairward (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dawn of War II

One to watch, it seems. Company of Heroes was definitely leaning towards RTT and it seems that Relic are now making a further leap. Nobody mentions an absence of resource gathering unfortunately, and singleplayer is still up in the air. --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaboom! Jonny Ebbert, lead designer at Relic Entertainment:

We had a big argument. Some people have been saying, "This isn't an RTS, this is an RTT, a real-time tactical game." And then Clint Tasker, one of our QA testers, we were kind of debating, "What is the difference between tactics and strategy?"

And he's like, "Well... tactics is just a manipulation of units, and strategy is this grand army." But then he started kind of breaking down the definitions, "One is like a smaller scale of the other, but it's all relative. There is strategy within tactics, and there is tactics within that strategy."

--Tom Edwards (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've heard the same things said regarding Relic's recent games. I haven't played any of them personally, though. SharkD (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

List of games

Ok;

  • First of all, as examples of the genre/sub-genre, there should be cites demonstrating that they have been labelled as such. Editors suggesting that a company has mislabelled their game without a cite are going against WP:SYNTH.
  • Secondly, what do we gain from the inclusion of this list, if a fuller list is replicated elsewhere?
  • Thirdly, what is the rationale for subdividing the games like so? What do we (the readers) get from seeing them split up like this? Alastairward (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
So that readers don't have to trudge through a gigantic list to find the titles they're looking for. SharkD (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That does not address what I've asked above. Alastairward (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Point - CounterPoint: Resource Collection vs. Fixed Units

The article above found here is used in the intro paragraph, as part of a definition of the genre. Yet, it only seems address issues within real time strategy games and is not defining (or specifying for that matter) a whole new genre.

I can think of one game series, Command & Conquer, that uses such missions for a large part of each game. Does that mean the series must now be reclassified? Alastairward (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RTT is called a sub-genre of Real-time strategy by many reviews, so I don't think it's that hard to imagine them being discussed in the same article. As for C&C, if all levels within the game were like this then I would consider reclassifying it. SharkD (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
SharkD is right that overall, there are reliable sources who talk about RTT as a subgenre. As for how individual games are classified, if there's a dispute we should stick with what reliable sources say. I don't think anyone really argues that C&C isn't an RTS, though. Randomran (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That's the thing though, if it's something that discusses a mechanism common to both RTS and "RTT", why is it being used to define one over the other? Alastairward (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Er, because it's a sub-genre? Saying that a first-person perspective is part of the definition of FPS doesn't mean that shooters can't have a first-person perspective. Also, the article doesn't say anywhere that it is about RTS games. The topic of the article is "Fixed unit vs resource collection" in strategy games, and cites RTSs as an example of the latter and RTTs as an example of the former. I don't see how you can't see how the authors are making the distinction. SharkD (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any distinction being made using the logic above. Strategy games are strategy games and "RTT"s... aren't. Isn't that the point of this article? If it doesn't help differentiate between the two, why include it? Alastairward (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
A subgenre is something that shares some features of the broader genre, but is distinct in some way. RTTs are still strategy games in the broadest sense, but they're a type of strategy game that only focus on tactics. The reliable sources talk about the subgenre as existing where there is no emphasis on economics, and/or players are dealing with a fixed set of units. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that, but what I'm trying to point out is that the intro paragraph should really make an effort to point out that distinction (and perhaps agree if it's a genre or subgenre, last time I checked it was a genre.) As it is, all we know is that it's a sort of strategy game, which it really isn't. Alastairward (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The article needs improvement. But it's clearly a subgenre.[1] There's no doubt about that. Randomran (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Both navboxes in the article, {{VG Strategy}} and {{VideoGameGenre}}, clearly refer to it as a sub-genre, as does Strategy video game. I don't see where the confusion arises from. SharkD (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
SharkD, I always assume good faith but you make it so difficult. The intro paragraph, first line on the article reads "Real-time tactics (RTT) is a video game genre of tactical wargames". You've put a lot of effort into maintaining the status quo in this article, refusing to allow any improvement, perhaps you might put that energy into helping to tidy it. Alastairward (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, SharkD hasn't resisted improvement. You just haven't offered anything except the outright removal of certain statements and sources. That's why, further upthread, I tried to ask you how you read certain sources? Surely we can come up with a "safer" interpretation of certain sources that still helps flesh out this topic, without breaking WP:OR and WP:NPOV. But to get there, you have to explain how you think those sources should be interpreted. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So... improvement can never mean the removal of unsuitable sources? There's also another section above on cites. And I don't ever "interpret" cites, I simply use them when they support what is said plainly and clearly. Is there really no article that says what an "RTT" is? No way to differentiate it from an RTS? Alastairward (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt that you believed in good faith that the sources were bad. But we've resolved that issue. The source is reliable. Randomran (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RTT officially adopted on GameTrailers.com

In the Empire: Total War video review gametrailers explicitly describes the game as divided into a turn-based strategy and a real-time tactical mode. Miqademus (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The complete edition of World in Conflict is denominated RTT several times in a review at IGN. Miqademus (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor point: description of Centurion is slightly incorrect

The article as it now exists describes Centurion: Defender of Rome in this way:

However, though the battles were in real-time they were of small scope and player interaction was limited to deciding the initial troop disposition.

I played this game extensively, and while it was at least 15 years ago, I'm quite certain that you were able to pause battles and direct units to move in different directions (if necessary, I can find an old version of the game and play it to be absolutely certain). This would make it quite similar to the Total War games, albeit much simpler (no terrain effects, movement in only 4 directions, no missile troops).

I've never done any Wikipedia editing, so apologies if this post is incorrect and I'm not sure the proper way of going around fixing the article's text. Any guidance would be appreciated. WikiBCman (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you can, please verify that, since that is very relevant information. Then either add what you want said here and let some other editor merge it into the article, or simply go ahead and do so yourself by editing the relevant section, and if it needs to be cleaned up other editors will do that too. But as said, if you really don't feel confident with editing the article proper, then just post in the discussion here. Miqademus (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I just played the game again, and I was correct. You can pause the battle and send troops in one of four directions. It's very simple, but it's pretty much the same kind of game mechanic as Total War. For further confirmation, you can see this gameplay video (battle around 1:30).
My proposed edit would be to change:
"Another predecessor was Bits of Magic's Centurion: Defender of Rome (published for the PC by Electronic Arts in 1990), in which, similar to the recent Rome: Total War game, the game took place on a strategic map interspersed by battle sequences. However, though the battles were in real-time they were of small scope and player interaction was limited to deciding the initial troop disposition."
to:
"Another predecessor was Bits of Magic's Centurion: Defender of Rome (published for the PC by Electronic Arts in 1990), which, in its use of a strategic map interspersed by battle sequences, was similar to the recent Rome: Total War game, but had a much simpler combat system."
Does this sound reasonable? Also, I just remembered today that Sid Meier's Pirates! also had a real-time battle sequence. At least, I'm pretty sure it did (the most recent version changed to turn-based combat, but that's a new development, if I remember correctly). The problem is that I can't get DOSbox to play it properly right now. This would be important, because this game was already up and running (and relatively popular) in 1987. Thoughts? WikiBCman (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not just find a cite for the above? Alastairward (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the long delay in response. I've been working on other projects. I came across this article, however, that describes the gameplay in Pirates! as "a real-time wargame - several years before these surged in popularity - as you maneuver your scurvy dogs over grassland, hills, and even swamps to approach walled towns, fighting everyone from townspeople armed with farm implements to elite Spanish pikemen and cavalry." Here's the complete article. It sounds to me like Pirates! qualifies as a real-time tactical war-game, and it was released in 1987. My question is: does this count as a legitimate citation? If it does, I will re-write the history section of this article based on this information and ask for feedback as to whether I did it correctly. But I'd like confirmation from a regular wikipedia contributor that this is the kind of citation that the wikipedia community approves.WikiBCman (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think your proposed edit to the Centurion section is about right. Perhaps replace the description to something like "but of a small scope and using a very simplistic control system". About references supporting your edit, you only need to substantiate claims that might be taken as opinions or contentious facts, however a concrete element of game input is a point of indisputable material fact and does not need to be substantiated if undeniably, obviously true. I also think you're for the same reason well in the right to discuss Pirates!, but you shouldn't call it an RTT game, but rather as something along the lines of "featuring land battles distinctly of a real-time tactical nature as part of its game play long before the genre became established in its own right". With a link to an article or a video even hard-core deletionists can't complain. Miqademus (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
If the cite says "real time wargame", it could qualify as RTT or RTS. If an editor declares it to be an RTT, simply based on their own interpretation of the review and game mechanics, then that represents original research. Alastairward (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


I disagree on Shogun description because of Fields of Glory.

In 2000, Creative Assembly created Shogun: Total War taking map sizes even further as well as introducing historical and tactical realism on levels until then unheard of in real-time computer games.

This game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_Glory had a good library, high degree of historical info and reaslism - in 1993! It was ahead by many years and a real time (pausable) tactical battle simulation. This game is also entirely missing in the whole article - but it was ground-breaking. Lastdingo (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

For some reason Fields of Glory had been deleted from the article. I have added it again - it is an important title! Perhaps you can improve it with your better knowledge of the title? Miqademus (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I may very well have removed it before, but I removed it again, as there was no reliable third party source that I could find to support its inclusion. I would add that the section it was removed from has been tagged since August 09 as containing possible original research. Alastairward (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The game is significant and removing it in its entirety from the article detracts from it. If you find the passage problematic, then update it rather than just delete it. Even better, discuss it first. I'll take a wager at what you find contentious and restore it slightly rephrased.Miqademus (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
If it is significant, then we really do need a cite to support its inclusion. Deletion of the material is necessary in that case, as it upsets the balance of the whole article if the information is false. Merely changing the paragraph to say that something can be "recognised" as RTT does not help. It remains problematic because no cite exists to support it, that is the problem. (WP:V as always). Alastairward (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Trying to retain a calm detached voice, and likely failing, you seem to be the metaphorical wall that makes peoples' foreheads bloody. Have you ever even tried copy editing instead of going trigger happy on your deletionist guns? Big words, the world is in danger etc. Filibustering and scaremongering, and you're making the article a worse place. The game is relevant. It is notable. And being an quite early exemplar you will not find quotes saying the exact sentence you're apparently desiring to meet your personal standards of acceptance. I can't help the feeling that you're making a personal stand for some obscure reason. I'll make the assumption that you're actually acting in good but misguided faith and make another attempt. What if you'd do the same rather than edit warring, as you are apparently doing? Miqademus (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Miqademus, please stop for a second. The wording of the paragraph isn't the problem at all. It's simply the fact that it is completely uncited. You say that it is notable, or recognised as being part of the RTT genre. Shouldn't there be a cite out there to support this? Why should this material be added again to the article without a cite? The burden is on you as the editor adding it? Don't you see how frustrating it is for me? That entry is making a bold claim, without anything to back it up? Alastairward (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

To stop this, as it appears that the Miqademus just won't stop adding this material, I request a third opinion.

My own point of view is this. If the material is important, if its notable to build a picture of the subject material, it should definitely be cited. A citation tag is insufficient in this case, the material should be removed pending cites. Alastairward (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Why is a citation tag insufficient? Although wikipedia requires a source I will have to say leave it for now. I will add the citation tag, if the user wanting to keep it does not add hs source in 1 week, Alastairward you may remove it with no problem. And like you said Alastairward, if the material is important he will find a source. Hope this helps and this settles this. Any questions ask you are mor than welcomed me. House1090 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I had considered it insufficient in this case, as the material added was used to make a significant claim regarding the background to this article subject. As such, I thought that there should be a higher standard applied to it. But I take your advice on board and will return in a week. It should be noted that a lot of the rest of the section is similarly without cites. Alastairward (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Paraphrase: "To stop this, as it appears that the Alastairward just won't stop deleting this material", this is the apparently contentious section:

Fields of Glory was released in 1993 by MicroProse. The game attempted to realistically recreate several of the major battles of Napoleon Bonaparte's Waterloo campaign. Notable not only for its early date, it was a meticulous and ambitious game that focused on large-scale battle flow rather than low-level battlefield tactics, perhaps because of graphical and resource limitations of the day.

Every sentence is a statement of undeniable fact, except for the secondary clause of the last one, which is speculative. For some reason, the above section is problematic while the following one, a few lines down in the article, isn't:

In 1997 Firaxis Games' released Sid Meier's Gettysburg!, a detailed and faithful recreation of some of the most significant battles of the American Civil War that introduced large scale tactical battlefield command using 3D.

I can only guess Alastairward reacts to the words "notable" or "perhaps", in which case a more suitable edit would be to rephrase the section or simply removing the offending words rather than deleting the entire section and thus hide the entity that it treats. Miqademus (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Miqademus, two things to note. First, I've tagged this article time and again and noted whole sections relying on Original Research, and I've said above, that a lot of the rest of the section is OR too. A lot of this can be scrubbed, but I tagged instead of deleting. Not that its done any good either, the uncited material remains in place.
Secondly, the phrasing is utterly irrelevant. I haven't mentioned anything the phrasing, so stop bringing that up. Its all to do with verfiying the material at hand. Wikipedia doesn't deal in facts, it deals in verifiability. Nothing was produced to say that what you'd entered could be verified. Assuming good faith does not extend to allowing original research to be entered.
Read what I've said above, it's all there. Alastairward (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This is such an old debate: deletionists vs inclusionists. The purpose of WP is not ultimately to provide an eugenically set of statements each of which has been tagged/cleansed by a "verifiable"/"reputable"/whathaveyou source--a project even analytical philosophy has given up on--but to provide good, accurate and relevant information on treated topics. The WP rules and principles are there as an attempt to guarantee a quality floor and prevent tendentious editing, and as a support especially for novice editors. The problem of balancing formal requirements of quality against not alienating skilled or expert editors, or editors that simply have the innate capacity to provide relevant information and create a valuable and good article, have been known and been part of WP almost since its conception. That is the reason for principles such as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and WP:BURO (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy), the last which f.i. state "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them". What you are doing is in fact obeying the letter rather than the spirit of the law, while you actually think you're contributing to or improving the article. An enormous amount of information on WP are about topics that are incredibly difficult to source, yet are accurate, acceptable and relevant, so applying the myopic OR perspective will in fact reject a majority of WP's articles about which there isn't a since long established corpus of literature, which would obviously be utterly absurd. This is such a situation where the topic is clear but the literature is void. To claim that we can't document such a topic is just as patently absurd as to advocate voiding most of WP's contents. Miqademus (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The basis of Wikipedia is that material is verified, always. That trumps everything.
You yourself said, "The purpose of WP is not ultimately to provide an eugenically set of statements each of which has been tagged/cleansed by a "verifiable"/"reputable"/whathaveyou source--a project even analytical philosophy has given up on--but to provide good, accurate and relevant information on treated topics."
You can't have accurate information if it's not verified, that's the whole point. Alastairward (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "can't" as it's too strong a word. Nevertheless, from the point of view of Wikipedia there's no difference, as it's a Wikipedia requirement.
Anyway, I think there's enough sourced material in the article now that removing the unsourced material wouldn't hurt the article too much. That said, I could just opt toward leaving it too and not feel harmed. SharkD  Talk  02:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Going from "The purpose of WP is not ultimately to provide an eugenically set of statements each of which has been tagged/cleansed by a source but to provide good, accurate and relevant information on treated topics" to "You can't have accurate information if it's not verified" is not the whole point, it is simple sophistry basically ignoring what you're responding to (that "verification" is not confined to only "printed reputable source") to repeat yourself (a traditional rhetorical technique is to mask mere repetition as arguments in response) and again going by the letter rather then the intent. F.i. you're (a) ignoring that some topics have no corpus, and they are still a subject for WP articles, and (b) implicitly defining the word "verified" as "found in a printed source (preferably one I like and thus authorise as reputable)". About OR, if some category ℛ consists of α, β and γ, and something R possesses α, β and γ, it is not OR by WP standards to speak of R as of ℛ. Or more formally, (Α ≝ Β) ≠ OR. Miqademus (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Wonderfully verbose, and absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand. Wikipedia thrives on cited information, nothing else. Alastairward (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Video Games Portal's Assessment Classification

The "C" class (for Video Games Articles, NOT Strategy Games Articles) was set at a time when the article was less edited and less sourced, quite a long time ago, 2 years or something. As per the portals' assessment scale, the article should be reclassified as "B". Opinions? Miqademus (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article fails on the first B-class criteria: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged." To a lesser extent it also fails the fourth criteria: "The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously."
The entire "Brief history and background" section is unsourced bar the very last part about Russian development, cited to the interview. Another source is used for the first paragraph of the "Establishing the genre: the late-nineties rise in popularity" subsection, but this attributes statements to the actual Fields of Glory game, which does not cover what's being asserted. There's weasel words present, laundry lists of games which lack citations instead of flowing prose which has been cited, ref #21 is a statement rather than a source. Although not major there are some instances of non-neutral wording such as "Ground Control's (2000) setting allowed innovative use of air units.", "The very influential video game Myth: The Fallen Lords (1997)" and "gaining much attention for its luscious visuals". Unqualified statements such as those drag the article down. There's a lot of work to be done here before it reaches B class, with sourcing being the main obstacle. Someoneanother 02:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and re-rated it C-class for the Strategy Game Project. At one time there was a problem due to the massive gap between Start and B, but that was remedied with the arrival of C-class. The sourcing issue along with original research means the article is does not pass all the B-class criteria. Someoneanother 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to prune away the old article tags

Since the article is generally sources, and there are section-tags placed in the article, the article-wide source tag at the top should be removed. I also think the "personal essay" tag has served its function. Miqademus (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be prudent to address the tags rather than dismiss them. Alastairward (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to stop performing controversial edits and purges without prior discussion

Alastairward, I kindly ask you to stop purging material without prior discussion. The more central the material, the more important it is to discuss beforehand and establish consensus. You have many times removed material without any discussion or consideration of other editors at all. You recently purged the "Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat" game, claiming it is a "strategy" game. (1) This particular game is one of the central titles of the genre, and recognised as such. (2) "Strategy" is a supergenre of which RTS, RTT, TBT, TBS and other genres are subtypes. To reiterate, please ask for opinions before doing drastic and controversial edits. Thank you. Miqademus (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed and tagged this article before and given what I feel are good reasons to remove the material. If you feel I am breaching wikiquette, please feel free to report me for it.
You might do well to provide cites to counter the removal of material, instead of providing OR by way of reply.
Without any real basis for doing the contrary, I see no reason why I shouldn't edit as I see fit. Calling for a topic wide ban for me is a little unfriendly. Alastairward (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)draconian
The "I see no reason why I shouldn't edit as I see fit" is probably the root cause of the problem here; a problem which, along with much of the aggravation you seem to be raising from other editors, could probably be resolved or at least mitigated if you took to discussing what you see as problematic and seeking consensus before taking action, instead of being autocratic and in such draconian ways and extents. Miqademus (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit: the wikiquette referred to above, can be read at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Alastairward. Editors are invited to discuss or comment. Miqademus (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikiquette alert regarding me concerned another article. In the end it was moved to the original research notice board here. Another user disagreed with my removal of uncited material, and in the end the discussion moved in favour of my sentiments. You might want to read that one Miqademus.
And yes, editors are free to edit as they see fit, the whole point of Wikipedia. Trying to stop me from editing this article at all might be seen as ownership. Alastairward (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Alastairward, this is not about ownership, this is about your extreme tendency to (1) unilateral actions, (2) ignoring other editors, and (3) espousing what seem like an almost militant disinterest in establishing or working toward a consensus. Miqademus (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You say that tongue in cheek of course.
(1) Unilateral actions? So, I have to ask before I'm allowed to edit, but you can revert at will?
(2) Ignoring other editors? (diff third opinion offered and promptly ignored)
(3) Espousing an almost militant disinterest in working towards consensus? (diff reverted, requested to go to talk, but nothing appeared on the talk page)
Alastairward (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I indented your post for you to keep the conversation track going, as per normal WP discussion style.
(1) Yes, I have reverted some of your unilateral and excessive edits. You need to realise there is a distinction between your draconian edits and my restoration and requests for discussion and consensus. (2) You have an established tendency to ignore or autocratically overrule other editors, and you use the "third opinion" option as a weapon, seemingly without understanding its intention. (3) "Request to go to talk" can also mean an invitation for the reader to initiate a discussion. Miqademus (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncited material within this article

In relation to the sections above, these are three bits of information that were lacking cites since Aug 2009. Is there any reason they can stay? Was anything done to address the tags?

  • Conveys the general idea without mentioning Real-time tactics: "Skirmish wargaming is nothing new. In fact, one might reasonably hold that miniatures wargaming began as a skirmish wargame with H.G.Wells' penchant for tin soldiery on the living room rug. Skirmish wargames are tactical games; the figures are a 1:1 representation of their real-world counterparts. The entire premise is to represent battles at their most intimate, individual level. The scale has a definite attraction as the rules bring home the immediacy of combat, usually resulting in a tactical wargame more heart-pounding than cerebral."[2] SharkD  Talk  17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Though popular as table-top games, tactical wargames were relatively late in coming to computers, largely due to game mechanics calling for large numbers of units and individual soldiers, as well as advanced rules that would have required hardware capacities and interface designs beyond the capabilities of older hardware and software. Since most established rule sets were for turn-based table-top games, the conceptual leap to translate these categories to real-time was also a problem that required time to overcome."
  • Closely related: "Your processor has to work hard to run a real-time game. The screen needs constant refreshing, sounds must be processed, and decisions on unit placement, movement, and construction must be made on the fly. There is no pause while the processor takes its turn in real-time strategy. That takes a lot of processor power. On the other hand, turn-based games are significantly easier for the computer to manage. If for no other reason than the computer can order its actions, place them in a liner queue so to speak."[3] SharkD  Talk  18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The Full Spectrum Warrior series (2004–) (by Pandemic Studios) is set in a fictional country for all practical purposes identical to Iraq. The games revolve around a maximum of two fireteams of four soldiers each and offers engagements at a far more intimate level than the Total War series, and indeed the genre at large, and also emphasise story more than most real-time tactics titles. Despite a visual appearance similar to first person shooters the player does not directly control any character, instead only issuing orders to his troops and as such qualifies as a real-time tactical game"
  • We can cite the game if you wish. The passage above is a decription of the game. Also, given the definition of RTT the FSW is a game of the kind. I think this was discussed in depth above. Nonetheless, it is easy to see how what appears to be a first-person shooter isn't a tactical wargame, so I can understand that you would want to ask about this title. That is in fact part of why that game is notable, since it breaks the normal god camera perspective. Miqademus (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Mentions the shooter/RTT confusion: "Probably the most least accessible of the group is Full Spectrum Warrior. This oddball mix of squad-based strategy and shooter is actually classified as a real-time tactics action/war game. It wasn’t that it turned out poorly; it’s just that it brought a lot of innovative features to the table, and up until that point they hadn’t been done before in other shooters. ... Players now have more precise control over their squad-mates and can now split the unit into two different teams for an even more detailed plan of attack."[4] SharkD  Talk  18:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Alastairward (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up a discussion in the talk page. Regards, Miqademus (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
See, that's why the essay tag was put in place. What's being taken from the cites doesn't come straight from them, its all a little bit of a stretch. Perhaps logical, but a stretch still. Alastairward (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One-man crusade against RTT

User Alastaiward seems to be on a one-man crusade hell-bent on disassembling the RTT genre by himself, or at least its presence here in Wikipedia. Apparently, he is going through all RTT articles he can, looking at a review or two, and if the review or whatever doesn't explicitly say "rtt", or if it says "rts", then he reclassifies articles and games, or adding {{fact}} tags after every mention of "rtt" in preparation for "justifiably" remove or change the classification later. There has been tendentious editing before, where f.i. he has changed [[real-time tactics]] to [[real-time]] [[real-time strategy|tactics]] (or if it was [[real-time strategy|real-time tactics]], I can't bother searching for it) now), selectively fact-marked RTT while leaving other denominations unquestioned (in the given example not questioning the "third-person shooter" classification), which combined with his previous refutation of RTT as a genre seems to indicate a personal agenda against the genre, bizarre as such may seem. He seems incapable of understanding the genre classification debate with all the confusion of "RTS" and "RTT" that principally happened between circa 2004 and 2008, and that RTT is since years now a stable and recognised genre, but literature or sources from earlier times will of course not reflect future (our present) situation (time machines didn't exist then and if they did certainly weren't used to resolve future computer game genre classifications).

What is the proper procedure to handle an editor like this--an editor without any common sense or capacity to reason beyond details, but with inexhaustible amounts of time, boneheaded determination and myopia, that will wage war of attrition and wikilawyering to push his agenda, and apparently punishing editors that stand up to him? Miqademus (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said to you (and other editors) before, create a wikiquette alert for a start. Although it would be much more productive if you cited the material that has been tagged. Alastairward (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you see no problem with that so many editors are upset with you? Can you in no way see that it might indicate a fundamental problem with your editing? And do you not see that most users prefer not to go through the rigmarole of starting WP processes against other users, something which in no way vindicates your position? I don't think the attitude "If you don't like what I'm doing, sue me and let the law decide" is a productive approach, and it is certainly not the way Wikipedia functions or thrives. Miqademus (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Real Time Tactics is a subgenre of (Real Time) Strategy. So if a game is described as strategic it can still be a (Real Time) Tactic game. As said by Miqademus the RTT genre-type was introduced quite late so the old reviews just clarify everything as Strategy (and strategy doesn't exclude RTT because it's a specialism of RTS).
RTT games are games where you only have some predefined resources and no huge base building. The tactic is important and not that you have 100 tanks more and can rush the enemy base (like in most RTS') ;) --217.234.189.115 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Miqademus, the only person who seems to be upset is you. That you balk when you ask how to report me and I tell you how, suggests that you don't really think there is anything wrong other than that I don't edit as you please.
Wikipedia thrives on many things, including the dispute resolution process, that you have already shown distain for (see Fields of Glory. If I have done the myriad terrible things that you say, surely it should be easy to report me and have me banned from editing (as you suggested should be done). Alastairward (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you for real? Do you actually believe what you write? And can you seriously not see how many are upset with you? And further, I can't see how you think anyone or anything would benefit from your litigious and "make my day" attitude. Miqademus (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I repeat, are you for real? How is it possible that you can in any way perceive my replies as "backing down from everything I've said"?
Well, since you asked for suggestions, I will in good fate provide some constructive suggestions to try to make something good from this Kafkaesque situation: (1) Read the common sense article a few times. Then sleep on it for one night. Read it again. (2) Mediate on what constitutes evident and/or contentious information: this will make you a better editor, which should be one of the goals of all wikipedians. (3) Realise that Wikipedia is for people with a wide interest in their topics, not pedantic robots, and what seems like irrelevant information for you might still be worthwhile or even central to other readers. (4) If you find things in articles YOU disapprove of, voice your concerns in the discussion page and see if others agree with you, or more importantly, how they disagree with you. Assume there might be as much relevance in their position as there is in yours. This way you will be able to create a discussion that might lead to mutual understanding, consensus and actual improvements of the topic at hand. (5) Finally, and this is just as important in real life as in wikipedia: if people react negatively or become angry, do not immediately assume the fault is with them, or only with them. Reflect on your own behaviour and if you could have contributed to a negative situation yourself. Unlike you, in many of your replies, I am not being condescending here, I genuinely believe this techniques can help you! Miqademus (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Small rephrase of my old previous discussion text to make it more clear: Real Time Tactics is like Real Time Strategy a subgenre of Strategy. So if a game is described as strategic it can still be a (Real Time) Tactic game. As said by Miqademus the RTT genre-type was introduced quite late so the old reviews just clarify everything as Strategy (and strategy doesn't exclude RTT, RTTs can also be described as strategic).
RTT games are games where you only have some predefined resources and no huge base building. The tactic is important and not that you have 100 tanks more and can rush the enemy base (like in most RTS') Wink --217.234.189.115 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Miqademus, please outline what you beleive should not be done out of my edit history, explain why the edits were wrong and give me a solution. All I can see is that you're now backing down from everything you said before.
To the anonymous editor, please don't merge other user's comments with your own on a talk page. Alastairward (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
And now I have to tell you Miqademus to stop messing with my talk page comments, thanks.
I placed the comments next to that which they were in response to. As it is now, a reader must read everything in its entirety, all the way to the bottom, then puzzle together the order and chronology of the comments, resolving both conflicting chronology, indentation and order of posts. Hardly helpful. Remember, this ISN'T just a discussion between you and me - it is as much for the benefit of other readers, and shuffling around the replies and wrecking the flow and proximal relation of comments and replies is extraordinarily unhelpful. Miqademus (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have edited where I feel it was a) necessary and b) helpful. A fact tag is a very simple thing to address, you verify the material that is there.
Demanding on one talk page that I should be banned from editing any article, then suggesting you're trying to help is a bit counterintuitive. Alastairward (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
After having tried to discuss and reason with you for quite some time by now, I have very little doubt and am not surprised in the least that you find it counter-intuitive. Sigh. Would you agree with that the suggestions I provided above would make for a better editing environment for all of us? Miqademus (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Miqademus. This is beginning to seem like one man's personal crusade. SharkD  Talk 
Oh dear, so it all becomes quite personal now. I have simply pointed out that unverified material can be challeneged and removed, that is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. Shouldn't you be fetching cites rather than trying to bluff me? Alastairward (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, "personal", that's an interesting way for you to put it: others are bluffing you; others should be fetching for you. Oh dear indeed. Do you remember one of the hints I gave above for successful interpersonal communication? To try to see that there are other people than you; that the world doesn't hinge on you; that you're not the one that's automatically in the right; that you are not special and the centre of creation; and most importantly: you do not own wikipedia--that is, you can't do whatever you want without a consensus, especially when contested. Miqademus (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but nobody asked you to fetch them for me, cites are for the articles, that's why we edit Wikipedia. So you refuse to cite the materials because I suggested it?
Miqademus, you equally do not own articles and your demand that your OR stay in place simply does not need to be heeded. Alastairward (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if RTT is a subgenre of RTS, there is still enough info here to split it into its own article. It also seems well cited enough to hold its own, though the references need those "this clearly proves it's an RTT game!" notes removed. Also, the laundry lists of games should be cut, they don't belong in an article, but rather a list.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Zxcvbnm, that's the problem. Miqademus is being terribly unhelpful and characterising my edits (as they say above) as an attempt to trash the whole idea of RTT as a topic on Wikipedia. That is utter rubbish and not reflected in any edit I have made.
All I've done is edit some other articles that may not be related to RTT, to ask that their link to this topic be verified. Miqademus finds this troubling and has met every request for verification with adamant calls for me to desist and has asked for me to be banned from editing Wikipedia at all. Alastairward (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(I indented the above reply as per regular WP conversation style) User Alastairward, that is tendentious if not intentional untruth. Your edits have been excessive and controversial. You have ignored other editors, failed to seek consensus, and taken invitations to discussion and compromise as an avenue for starting and escalating conflict. Your purges for lacking cites tend to be of uncontroversial and evident facts of the kind that generally need not be cited, that is, uncontroversial and from primary sources self-evident data of summary type that contains no opinions, no analytic or synthetic conclusions, no statistics and no references to research. Your edits and treatment of other editors constantly push your interpretation of guidelines regardless of the opinions of other editors or consensus. Regards, Miqademus (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(In reply to the "my OR doesn't not need to be heeded" I missed, above) Alastairward, the first strawman: it is only you that define the implied information as OR. The second one: it is not my information, it the information of many editors of this page. You are putting yourself above collected collaboration and consensus. Miqademus (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Miqademus, your verbose reply does nothing to address the issue. The lack of cites isn't a strawman, the problem is the same as it has always been. Find cites, or the articles will need to be edited or remain tagged. Alastairward (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You're disputing the fact that games are classified as real-time tactics, due to the tenuous definition of what is or isn't a real time tactics game. I think what needs to be done here is establish, separately from the article, a set of ground rules for classifying a game as real-time tactics rather than simply real-time strategy. If that can be agreed on by both parties, there won't be a need for edit warring.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that sums up the tone of the discussions on this Talk page before Alastairward's appearance. SharkD  Talk  05:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The ground rules are pretty simple WP:V. That's it. If there's a cite, use it, if not fact tag it or remove it. The videogames project is no more or less exempt from the rules about verifiability. Alastairward (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
(Indented above reply as per normal WP conversation style)
Zxcvbnm, yep, as SharkD said, that's basically the state of the article before Alastairward. Reflecting the surrounding world's (gamers and press) increasing usage of the genre denomination, it had been steadily improving with relevant information, good coverage and more (and better) references. The RTT genre, its hallmarks, and criteria for recognising games of the kind are widely recognised and used in the industry, which is established and substantiated by sources in the article. The article has been recognised and is considered of high importance in the strategy and video game portals. Basically, this entire debacle has been unnecessary since the article was already in a relatively good state, improving on its own, and the information the conflict has been centred around are non-controversial, non-syntetic, non-analytic, and immediately evident from primary sources for any lay reader; basically information of the kind like "Star Wars IV is a science-fiction film by George Lucas". Miqademus (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
(Undenting my replies, since they are mine). It seems we're done here then. All we can do now is look at each article one by one, cite and tag where necessary. Miqademus et al have dug themselves into a hole and there just doesn't seem to be any way change that.
The article mentioned little to nothing about the citations before, I asked for related articles to be treated as any other article and received some very unhelpful replied.
I've outlined my stance, given options for moving forward, each one has been rejected. Alastairward (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, reset the indentation to your heart's desire and make it more difficult for any reader to follow the conversation. Well, indentation would only help other editors, so it is totally unimportant anyway...
So basically you're saying that you've listened and learned nothing from the discussion here, persist that all other editors are wrong, disagree with the comments given by the admin, and will not cooperate in the slightest. That's just super.
There is no hole being dug. I will repeat what was said above for your benefit: The information you tagged should not be, because they do not fall under WP:V; they have all been non-controversial, non-synthetic, non-analytic, and immediately evident from primary sources for any lay reader; basically information of the kind like "Star Wars IV is a science-fiction film by George Lucas". As Zxcvbnm said, if there are clear demarcations for RTT versus RTS games, which the article establish, the categorisation of exemplars is trivial and uncontroversial. Miqademus (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Very basic rebuttal, if it goes against WP:V, it doesn't matter how trivial or uncontroverial you think the matter is, it will be overruled. Alastairward (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well then, let's argue this Alastairward style: Very naïve reply. It doesn't go against WP:V. Miqademus (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, the term 'RTT' is being applied to games which were released before the genre was recognized and became part of the gaming press' vocabulary, yes? If that's the case then they certainly should be sourced IMO, otherwise we're stating that something is XYZ because it is, which is surely original research. If it truly is an early part of the genre then at some point modern sources are going to identify it as such, until then if sources say it's RTS then that's what the article should say. Someoneanother 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Someoneanother, thanks for dropping by. Yes, that's pretty much the jist of my argument. The counter arguments have been seemingly based on opinion only. That a game seems to be of the RTT genre, so its article is edited accordingly. Alastairward (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to collapse the entire page's indentations? It's just something else to be argued about. Someoneanother 10:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think its meant to be a jibe at my expense, by the same people who would accuse me of incivility. Alastairward (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, people, I think the point has been made, now it is impossible to understand the flow on conversation at all in the entire talk page. *grumble* So please editors, use indentations as it was intended and to help readers follow the flow, not to emphasise your own replies. Alistairward, take your personal opinions and feelings from the article talk page, please. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to automatically undo the de-indentation. Miqademus (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted this formatting change (diff), as the comments above indicate this is not a productive or welcome change. As a courtesy to others, please consider proposing the change on the talk page before overhauling an entire talk page to a non-standard format. --Muchness (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Miqademus, it was not me who took away the indentations. Check the edit history of the page before making baseless personal accusations. Alastairward (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Alastairward, I know it wasn't you and I never said it was you. All "baseless personal accusations" were of your own makings/projection, and you in fact just made one against me. Please do not escalate this non-issue, or take it to user talk pages. Miqademus (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
What were you warning me about then? The "non-issue" of indentations was escalated by SharkD, who amended everyone's contributions, please check the diff. Alastairward (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Real-time_tactics/Archive_2&oldid=1074051291"