gwx on www.wikipedia.org

[Morts]

i was just searching on www.wikipedia.org when i saw it said Gwx in the result page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwx

sorry if this has already been noticed
i just thought i would tell you guys about it

[STEED]

[Letum]

Hmm, the article does not fit in with Wiki's rules. I expect it will be removed before long.

I love GWX, but wiki is not the place for this kind of article.

[_Seth_]

Hmmm...Dont see how this should break the wiki rules...
Just look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...otal_War_games

[Letum]

It fails the Notability Creteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

Ive put a proposed deletion on it.
Don't get me wrong, I love GWx, but wiki just isn't the place for such a non-notable topic.

There are insufficient published works including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. about GWx

The Total war games have plenty of exposure in published works altho wiki's article on them lacks cultural and other refrances.

[_Seth_]

Edited (And notable)
BTW: try searching for Silent Hunter 3 on wikipeida. The GWX addon is notable, since it shows the future of game modifications; those made by the community and not the company itself.

[CCIP]

I think GWX needs a Wiki article, but a more accurate one. This is not what an encyclopedia entry looks like :hmm:

[Letum]

Originally Posted by _Seth_

Edited (And notable)
BTW: try searching for Silent Hunter 3 on wikipeida. The GWX addon is notable, since it shows the future of game modifications; those made by the community and not the company itself.

I sudgest you read and understand the notability criteria more carefuly.

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia.

One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

• What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.The
• "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias.2
• "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.3
• The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, but several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles is a multiplicity of works.

One rationale for this criterion is that the fact that people independent of a subject have noted that subject in depth (by creating multiple non-trivial published works about it) demonstrates that it is notable.

There is no way GWx fits with the criteria.
What ever GWx shows, it does not have any "non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself"

Looking at the topics editing history I notice you have removed the delete proposal. This is also against wiki rules.


I'm not going to do anything more because I don't want to cause a argument, but I suggest you revise your decision to post the article.


*edit* The first paragraph now also breaks the wiki rules on posting Original research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ginal_research

[Ducimus]

I wonder who put it up on wiki to begin with. I think thats taking fanboism or egocentricity (whichever the case may be) a bit too far.

[mookiemookie]

The Grey Wolves mod has been acknowleged in PC Gamer. Was it the subject of the article? No. The "unmentionable expansion" was, but GW was noted as a worthy alternative to it.

That has to count for something. But I'm not getting into a wikipedia edit war here, so that's all I have to say on this subject.

[_Seth_]

Originally Posted by Letum

I sudgest you read and understand the notability criteria more carefuly.

There is no way GWx fits with the criteria.
What ever GWx shows, it does not have any "non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself"

Looking at the topics editing history I notice you have removed the delete proposal. This is also against wiki rules.


I'm not going to do anything more because I don't want to cause a argument, but I suggest you revise your decision to post the article.

Hey, lets not argue, mate. There is enogh war on our planet as it is..
Its allowed to remove the delete proposal, if you correct those things stated as reason for the delete proposal. I have done that. The wiki admins are aware of this, and will take action if this is against the rules. The article now deals with the topic of "General modification of games, done by non-profit organizations", and uses the GWX mod as an example. This is not "bending the rules", and anyone is allowed to modify this if they want.

Edit: Mookiemookie: Its has been in the press.

@ Ducimus: I put it up there in the first place.
I dont think im egocentric (according to my psychology books..) and i have nothing to do with the GW dev team, im just a viewer of general events, who like to share it with the community.:rotfl:

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I wonder who put it up on wiki to begin with. I think thats taking fanboism or egocentricity (whichever the case may be) a bit too far.

There are 3 people who have edited the topic.
The creator was "Danstein" who, judgeing by the timeing of the edits is "Seth"
I was one of the editors when I put the deletion proposal.
I don't know the other editor (IP: 68.174.7.86)

*edit* Seth: see my edit in the last post

[Ducimus]

meh, i wasn't intending to be insulting. Its just theres a time and place for things. Wiki in my mind is where your supposed to find historical or factual information - its a reference source. That said, i don't really consider it authoritive either.

[_Seth_]

Originally Posted by Letum

There are 3 people who have edited the topic.
The creator was "Danstein" who, judgeing by the timeing of the edits is "Seth"
I was one of the editors when I put the deletion proposal.
I don't know the other editor (IP: 68.174.7.86)

*edit* Seth: see my edit in the last post

From Wiki:

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editors' consensus.

I consider www.subsim.com as a reliable source. What in the article isnt a well known fact? That the computer game companies are trying to make better games than the rest of the companies? And arent the playes who modify these games dedicated? If you read the article carefully, you will see that there are not one of the sentences, nor even the letters or paragraphs, who is stating that this is my personal point of view. And im neutral as a swedish merchant in 1941..If you want, i can fill the article up with references and link to reliable sources, but i believe my subsim & gw team links are enough (for now..)
@ducimus: No hard (or hurt..) feelings, mate!

BTW: Its good to have a discussion without name-calling and such bad things!

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

meh, i wasn't intending to be insulting. Its just theres a time and place for things. Wiki in my mind is where your supposed to find historical or factual information - its a reference source. That said, i don't really consider it authoritive either.

:rotfl:Are we thinking of the same Wikipedia? The one where hordes of internet beardos have posted such wonders as in-depth analyses of every Simpsons episode ever?