Talk:Command: Modern Air Naval Operations

moving thr page - title change

how can I move the page to Command:Modern Air Naval Operations? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot the title was wrong, I'll move it now. For future reference it's Move in the drop down menu in the top right next to View History :) Samwalton9 (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow I didn't even remove your username. Sorry I really mustn't have been paying attention! Samwalton9 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

haha no worries, looks like its all fixed now! thanks again for your help! PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

also, I was wondering if you had any suggestions for how I can bump that C rating up to a B? I understand its far from a finished article, and I intend to flesh it out some more from here, but I guess I am overlooking somewhat... PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the Grading scheme! Apart from GA/FA the grading scheme is a little arbitrary and kind of up to the judgement of whoever classes it so don't take my grading it as a C as a definitive thing, it's just the grade I thought it fit in to. For me the the main areas to improve to reach B class are the following:

• Wording the Gameplay section more carefully. Though as a gamer I understand the first few sentences, it might not be that accessible for a non-gamer audience. Terms like "operational control over their units" could do with explaining better. It should also be somewhat broader in the explanation of how the game is played. Don't worry as much about references as the gameplay and plot sections of articles are often hard to source.
• The lead section should be "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" so try to summarise each section in a sentence or two there.
• A gameplay image would be good to include.
• The reception section could be expanded on. You've said the game was received positively but not said why - explain what reviewers said about it!

Those are the main things I think :) Samwalton9 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Tookatee, could you explain concisely why you moved this article? Im seeing a pattern here which isnt terribly helpful for wikipedia - contentious edits, edit warring and immediately casting stones at anyone who disagrees with your position. For pretty much any other edit, Id be prepared to revert a lot of your edits straight away, but given that moving a page has significant impact to its history, this isnt something that should be done carelessly and at least in my opinion, without building a consensus first. Im prepared to discuss this in good faith, perhaps we can work together to improve this article? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The original article that was exclusively on CMANO was moved due to the release of CMO and the inability for CMO to meet the notability guideline for Wikipedia (and therefore have its own article.) So, in addition to updating the information on CMANO to reflect its current status I also converted the page to its current form so that the encyclopedic knowledge regarding CMO could be present on Wikipedia (while also fitting the topic of this page), the process of which also did not remove any of the previous information on the page regarding CMANO, only building upon it (something anyone is free to see and examine in the edit history.) Additionally, your claims about my actions are lacking an immense amount of context, as a simple examination of my responses here and on the linked discussions elsewhere on the topic show that they're not just unsolicited and/or "careless" edits. And to be frank, it appears as if you're casting the stones in this case as you've started off this discussion with a hostile accusation (I have no qualms with you and have only added encyclopedic content to the page yet you've taken offense to it?) As I'd imagine anyone on Wikipedia would feel, if you have something beneficial to add a the page then you're of course completely free to do so as a Wikipedia user so it would be great if you could continue to work towards improving this article where need be.Tookatee (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

PrimalBlueWolf I made a few minor changes can you check and see if it’s ok like that?Germerican220 (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

orphaned article?

• Harpoon (series) ‎ (links)
• Matrix Games ‎ (links)
• Command ‎ (links)
  • User:PrimalBlueWolf/Command: Modern Air Naval Warfare (redirect page) ‎ (links)
    • Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions ‎ (links)
    • Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent/1 ‎ (links)
    • User:PrimalBlueWolf ‎ (links)
    • User talk:PrimalBlueWolf ‎ (links)
  • Talk:Command: Modern Air Naval Operations ‎ (links)
  • Command: Modern Air Naval Warfare (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • File:Command, Modern Air Naval Operations cover.jpg ‎ (links)

seems like there is a few links already, how many should it really have? if we leave the banner up, is it more likely to have someone add more links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimalBlueWolf (talk • contribs) 05:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any links are enough to remove the orphan tag, but more is obviously better! Wouldn't worry about the tag, you can remove it. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Released updates section

This is not the matrixgames forums, and detailing the exact reasons for each patch is not within the scope of wikipedia. Given that the updates are not noteworthy, I am removing this section of the article. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Mention of community mod

@PrimalBlueWolf: In relation to this edit, this content is not appropriate per WP:V in that the source being used is simply a link to a fan site hosting it. What is needed for mod projects like this to be mentioned is reliable, third-party sources, there's none of that here. Eik Corell (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move

@Tookatee: Do you know whether there are plans to release any additional games for this series? If there are, then moving this page might not have been necessary and a separate article about the series could've possibly been created instead. Individual articles about each game could be created (if the games themselves are considered Wikipedia notable in their own right) and then general information about the games could then be added to subsections of the series article.

If there are no additional games scheduled to be released or that's uncertain (there was a six year gap between the release of the first two games), then a page move still might not been advisable since the content about "Command: Modern Operations" could've just been incorporatated into this article as a separate subsection. If there are no plans for any further games to be released, then it still doesn't seem like a good idea to move the page from being one titled about a notable game to one being titled about a notable game and a non-notable game/possibly notable game (i.e. an article about a "series").

The draft you submitted to AfC was was only declined, not rejected outright, which means that the AfC reviewer might feel that there may be some protential for the draft to someday become an article and it's not likely something that's going to end up being deleted asap if added to the mainspace in its current state. If that draft had been approved then there would've been no need to move this article to its current title. So, if this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON and an article about CMO does someday end up getting created, then once again a new article about the series could be created and general content about each game added to that article, with the corresponding individiual articles about each game containing more detailed information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This topic has already been discussed with you, why are you so insistent on continuing the conversation despite it having already come to a close? CMO was deemed to not be notable enough for Wikipedia to exist as its own article, and considering the fact that the game is (in most senses) a UI and quality of life update onto CMANO (in addition to the pure encyclopedic value of the information pertaining to CMO) I felt that it made the most sense for both to exist on one page. If you feel that's not the case, then more power to you, but your opinion on this topic has little to no sway on the course of events and there is no reason to waste more time discussing it when it's already been discussed extensively. Tookatee (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not related to the use of any non-free files. It has to do strictly with your bold page move here which is a separate issue which as far as I can determine hasn't been discussed anywhere else. If there was some prior discussion specifically about this page move, the please provide a link to it for reference. The move does seem to be the result of a draft you were working on about a new game called "Command: Modern Operations", not being approved at AfC, and that's the only real connection between this discussion and the one about the non-free file.

While it's OK to be bold and move a page, I'm suggesting that it might be better to discuss this and possibly get feedback from others per WP:RM#CM to see if the page should've been moved. Any bold edit that is made can be WP:REVERTed (which I decided not to do here) and a contentious page move can be further discussed at WP:RM if needed; however, starting a discussion about it here first seems better. Finally, discussions aren't closed because you unilaterally decide they are. The issues related to that file's non-free image use are not clearly resolved just because you say so. Similarly, with this page move, if any editor feels it was unnecessary, then the move is contentious and disagreements over it are supposed to be resolved through discussion. If the consensus established is that the move was fine, then the move will stand; one person doesn't, however, make a consensus and if the consensus is that the page shouldn't have been moved, the move will be undone. Anyway, my orignal question was whether you know of any plans by Matrix Games to release anymore games in this "series". If you're not sure, then perhaps someone else can clarify whether this is the case which is why I posted a {{Please see}} at WT:WPVG. Changing the article's title from "Command: Modern Air Naval Operations" to "Command (series)" might not have needed to be done in order to incorporate content about "Command: Modern Operations" into this article; for example, Age of Empires (video game) wasn't moved to Age of Empires: Definitive Edition or Age of Empires to incorporate information about other related games into it and this seems to be the case for many video games that ultimately start out as a single game and then become a series. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

As a tool that's updated nearly weekly and while being used for defense analytics, training, and has a general popularity among it's niche gaming audience I can't imagine any reason why this series wouldn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future (although considering the recent release of CMO I would not expect a new entry in the series for at least a few years.) As for you taking issue on the transformation of the page to its current state and the resolution of the other discussion, that is purely your opinion and until an administrator says it to be otherwise (something I'm still waiting on) there is no problem with the page the way it is. The content about CMO adds encyclopedic value that would otherwise be lost if it was not present on the page, furthermore, to be blunt, it would probably be a better use of all of our time if you left the responsibility of managing the actual administration of articles to the administrators, whose responsibility is to be properly versed in said guidelines and enforce them accordingly. All you're doing is serving as a vessel for misinformation in addition to threatening to enact widespread changes to articles based on your opinion, without any authority, and without any credence to what one might have to say to you. Finally, your reasoning for disagreeing is just restating what was already argued and countered in [conversation], one where I already mentioned to you that if you're not going to specify what you don't understand (so I can clarify) and just continue to recycle the same reasoning despite what's explained to you that I will not continue to engage in conversation with you (ignoring the fact that any conversation from you on this topic is superfluous to begin with.) Tookatee (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that content about CMO cannot be added to this article, and as I stated above this discussion has nothing to do with non-free content use or the discussion taking place on Explicit's user talk page. These are two separate issues in which the outcome of either doesn't affect the other. I am only questioning why it was necessary to move/rename an existing article about a single game into an article about series when it appears that the only reason you did so was because the draft you were working about CMO was declined at AfC. Why couldn't section about CMO simply be added to this article under its original title?. Would you still have made the same page move if the CMO draft had been approved as its own article instead? The answer to those questions will help clarify things.

Just for reference, an administrator is not necessarily required to discuss whether a page move is appropriate; such a thing can be resolved through article talk page discussion. If you feel a more formal discussion about this is a good idea, then there's always WP:RM.WP:RM discussions (like any WP:XFD discussion like AfDs), however, don't need to be closed by an administrator; pretty much any Wikiepdia discussion can be closed by a non-administrator per WP:NAC as long as they are experienced to do so, uninvolved and in good-standing as an editor; administrators tend to close XFD discussions because they usually are the only ones who have the tools to immediately implement whatever consensus is established (e.g. delete and article or file), but any univolved editor who's in good standing can WP:CLOSE close the actual discussion and the consensus reached can then be implemented after the fact by an administrator. Would you prefer this discussion be moved to WP:RM? FWIW, even if the page is moved back to its original title, either by someone undoing your bold move or through a consensus obtained through discussion, I'm not saying that the text content about CMO also needs to be or should be removed as well; that's a different discussion altogether. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly I note that as there is now discussion and consensus building going on, being bold is not really the name of the game. While I think the page should be re-moved back to its previous title, I suggest we would be better served hashing that out rather than being bold and starting edit warring again. Ive requested a summary of arguments for the page move in the first section of the page - the original page move discussion, as I hadnt at the time seen this discussion down here regarding moving the page. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussing this is fine and whatever consensus is reached is fine as well. One technical issue, however, is that a redirect page titled Command: Modern Air Naval Operations was created after the page move. That probably means that this page cannot be moved back to it's former name (if that's the consensus) until after the redirect page has been deleted. A WP:HISTMERGE and overwriting the redirect page might also be possible, but that seems more complicated and much more work to achieve essentially the same result. Anyway, an administrator most likely will need to delete the redirect page, but that can probably be taken care of via WP:RMT if necessary after a consensus has been establshed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Renaming the page back to Command: Modern Air Naval Operations serves no encyclopedic purpose and would falsely represent the content present in this article. Unless the intention is to remove all references to CMO on this page (something of dubious encyclopedic value to say the least) then I see no reason as to why such a change should occur. Additionally Marchjuly, I've been exceptionally patient with you yet you seem to not be getting the message. This topic has been discussed with you, and as the only dissenting voice you could not state any specifics to back up your point. All you've done since my initial refutation of your questioning is post irrelevant citations to guidelines and help articles that server no purpose in this topic or have simply recycled content you espoused earlier in the conversation (a conversational circle), you've quite literally wasted your own time and have buried the actual topical conversation under your fluff, hindering the ability for others to gain the proper context themselves. So, if you do truthfully intend to actually contribute to the conversation on this topic then please post your specific issue (if there even really was any to begin with) so that it may be discussed and explained otherwise I recommend you continue about your day elsewhere.Tookatee (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The core problem is that C:MANO barely passes notability (per WP:GNG) as a single game on its own, there is nothing that shows the sequel notable nor the series. (That's conflated with the primary source issue below). Given that you can have an article on C:MANO, the right naming approach is to have C:MANO, and then have a section on its sequel, redirecting a link from "Command: Modern Operations" to that. Calling two games a series is rather poor form, given there's no indication there will be more games, and the lack of general notability here. --Masem (t) 14:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there something that tells you there won't be more games, since like I explained before Warfare Sims is still actively developing CMO (in fact they've even teased some sort of heavy focus into World War Two, something which has yet to be revealed as a separate game in the Command series or a DLC of some kind.) Therefore it seems like your line of reasoning seems to be entirely based on a personal opinion towards the notability of this series rather than some sort of substantiated fact (and there is no Wikipedia guideline/policy that substantiates your opinion.) And even if there were to be no more games, as far as I'm aware, the definition of a "series" is "a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another" (Oxford Dictionary) and that's exactly what's happened when Matrix Games decided to release CMO. They created a series out of what once was a singular game, what seems to be going on from your end is an assumption that, because of a general lack of widespread notability, this niche software somehow automatically doesn't fit under the definition of a series despite the two qualities not being related in the slightest.Tookatee (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Masem entirely. It doesn't matter if the series is on-going or not. It only has two entries now, one of which is NOT independently notable. There's no deadline and anything can change in the future if and when a third entry appears. The topic of a "Command series" is not discussed by reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Page move revert

Since there is an extensive discussion on this, I won't boldly do this, but this article should be moved back to it's original name and restored to the primary topic of C:MANO. That doesn't mean it cannot have a section about CMO (which CMO can redirect to), but the original topic is what may be notable. We're not allowed to combine non-notable topics to create a "notable" topic, and that appears to have been what was the motivation here, per the comment here by Tookatee. The "Command (series)" as a topic is non-notable, with no sources discussing such a series. Articles for series rarely exist before 3+ entries, and need sources that discuss the series specifically, not just individual games independently of each other. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Reverting the page move. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per ferret and the other comments questioning the page move made above in #Page move. Although this was a BOLD move made in good faith, it was undiscussed which makes it eligible to be undone via WP:RMT per WP:RMUM; now that it’s being discussed, however, it’s better to see whether there’s a consensus to do so. If the series is Wikipedia notable in its own right, then there seems nothing wrong with creating a separate article for it and then adding some content about the games to it. If the series is WP:TOOSOON at the moment or there are not enough titles have yet been released to support such an article, then one could be created if such things change. There’s also not anything wrong with having Command: Modern Operations redirect to a subsection of an article about Command: Modern Air Naval Operations in my opinion. The “CMO” content can always be WP:SPLIT if the game someday starts receiving the WP:SIGCOV to support a stand-alone article about it. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support It really doesn't make sense to have a series article for a "series" with just two entries. Even with three or four entries, it usually makes more sense to just have articles on the individual entries which pass notability requirements, since significant coverage tends to focus on the individual entries rather than the series as a whole.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support without secondary sources discussing the series, it's not notable as an article about the series. Agree that a section on CMO could be beneficial if appropriate sources are used. The article at this point in time is best as a CMANO article. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Nay ferret, Martin, and Primalwolf your lack of context on the topic is understandable, however Marchjuly knows better and is simply taking advantage of the general ignorance of the larger conversation on this to further enforce his personal belief (of which is not substantiated by past historical precedence and/or current policies/guidelines.) And so I will make it generally clear here, the topic of this article is not critical commentary on the Command SERIES , it is critical commentary on the two distinct pieces of software described within it. The reason it was renamed to Command (series) was ONLY to accurately portray that fact and NOT to shift the article's topic to critical commentary on the series as a whole (as before it held the title of the first game in the series, CMANO of which would not be reflective of the content currently on the page.) As I stated earlier on this talk page, reverting the name back to its prior title serves no encyclopedic value and instead serves to misinform those who read the article title (believing that there will only be information pertaining to the first entry in the series, rather than proper encyclopedic content pertaining to both pieces of software.) Additionally ferret I'd be curious to see the specific guideline/policy regarding that fact about article combination you mentioned.Tookatee (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding Marchjuly knows better and is simply taking advantage of the general ignorance of the larger conversation on this to further enforce his personal belief (of which is not substantiated by past historical precedence and/or current policies/guidelines.), please be careful in discussing what you think the motives or personal beliefs of editors who disagree with you are or other posting anything implying WP:NOTHERE unless you are willing to substantiate such statements with WP:DIFFs at one WP:ANI or one of the other administrators' noticeboards. That is something, btw, that is truly long-standing policy and clearly historical precedent. You did something similar on your user talk regarding ther disagreement you had with Soetermans over sources, and were advised to avoid such things. Turning discussions into WP:BATTLEGROUNDs or WP:USTHEM type of things is not going help things be resolved in a civil manner, and isn't going to strengthen your position in favor of not moving the page back.
    This outcome of this discussion will be decided through a consensus (another historical precedence, btw) established here on this talk page, and that consensus doesn't need to be unamimous or catered to any one particular editor. If you're able to convince others of the merits of your position, the consensus will likely be in favor of keeping the page move as is; if not, then the page will be moved back to its original title or perhaps even to another title. Multiple editors have commented so far as "supporting" a revert of the page move; so, it's not like I'm the only person questioning it. If you want to consider my WP:!VOTE to be an outlier that should be ignored, then just ignore it and place your faith in the others participating in this discussion.
    You moved the page without any prior discussion which is fine until someone disagrees; an undiscussed page move can be reverted by per WP:RM/T and WP:STATUSQUO (yet another current policy/guideline and historicial precedence) so that it can be discussed; ferrret (he's an administrator by the way) elected, however, not to do so and started this discussion to try and clarify a consensus instead. Masem, another admininstrator, also elected not to do so so that discussion could proceed. If you feel they everyone whose participated in the discussion so far is completely missing the point and want to try a seek opinions from others, then feel free to do so as long as you avoid WP:CANVASS. If you feel that a more formal discussion about this is necessary, then perhaps the others involved so far will consider converting this discussion to a WP:RFC. I'm not opposed to that, but cannot speak for them. Regardless of the consensus achieved here, it's likely not going to please everyone involved, but that's OK because it doesn't have to. Anyone who disagrees with the consensus can either seek out further discussion or perhaps even a review, or simply just move on to other things, they can't, however, ignore ot stonewall it.-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There are no other articles in this "series". Nothing that can't be explained in a sequel section. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • How would that benefit the reader more so than the way the page is formatted now? Do you believe that the an article title not indicative of the content within the page is more suitable for an article title? If so I'd love to hear why.Tookatee (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• I have moved this page back to the original title and restored the content from 2 February. Please feel free to continue discussion about the page topic and title, or start the requested move process. --Izno (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Izno may I ask why this was done without the conclusion of this discussion in relation to said title? What was your ultimate reasoning for the title revert despite the content present on the page?Tookatee (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    • He's given you the reason both in his move edit note and the message he left on your talk page. When a bold page move like this is contested, it gets moved back, and it's clearly contested with an obvious consensus to return to the original title. Multiple editors have attempted to explain to you why it was the wrong move, it' time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- ferret (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
      • He messaged me to respond to him with additional questions on this talk page if I had anything more specific to ask. Hence those questions, of which I'd love to hear the answers too. Izno Tookatee (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Feel free to ping me to this [your] talk page if you have questions specific to these actions. (brackets original) was in relation to your talk page, in case that was not obvious. I will be along shortly. --Izno (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Notice to editors - discussion is starting to run on and get quite confusing. Im splitting this section off into its own section to hopefully reduce confusion over the article discussion (currently spanning pretty much the entire article due to some recent edits and reverts). PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tookatee, the article is not in okay shape. I've removed most WP:PRIMARY sources. That it exists is no reason just to make the article from a single game into a series. A short and sweet sequel section would've been just as helpful. There's very little to go on. You need to come up with significant coverage by reliable and independent sources. Wargamer might be a WP:VG/RS, there are very little other RS'es here. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your most recent edit because all you did was delete large chunks of the text that gave factual, properly cited, details to certain aspects of each game, none of which could be considered WP:PRIMARY sources for that pure fact that: all of that information is a factual description of the game's features and/or citations from marketing material or developer statements on the products that do not require any specialized skills or context (other than the ability to read.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookatee (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No actually, I didn't remove any substantial information, I tagged it with {{cn}}, because we can't just use tons of WP:PRIMARY sources. Of course they are PRIMARY sources, since they're from the developer. If you want to describe the game features, use sources independent of the developer. We can't assume they are factual, because they're not independent. That's how Wikipedia works, that's how this article will have to be written. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That response in it of itself just exposes a massive flaw in your reasoning that I'm not even going to attempt to address (the most glaring of which is your assumption that all the information you deleted is purely personal recollection on my part), these are basic statements of fact about how these video games operate. These are not "interpretations" they are specific and correct statements of fact that can be (and are) backed up by simple examination of the game itself (of which has been done and can be seen through the cited references.) As I stated in my edit blurb, if you continue to go through this daisy chain process of continuously undoing the edits then I will report your account for article vandalism.Tookatee (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

....what? I am assuming that the information is a "purely personal recollection" on your part? Are you the developer? Do you work at Warfare Sims and/or Matrix Games or something? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No... I don't know how you could connect that assumption of yours with that statement of mine, but maybe that just proves my point about your basic assumption (which seems to be that you think that I'm somehow employed at Matrix Games in any capacity) in addition to what looks to be selective attention/interpretation to my own words in an attempt to twist them to fit your own narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookatee (talk • contribs) 09:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I quote, bold my emphasis:

That response in it of itself just exposes a massive flaw in your reasoning that I'm not even going to attempt to address (the most glaring of which is your assumption that all the information you deleted is purely personal recollection on my part)

I said WP:PRIMARY sources, like the ones by developer Warfare Sims or publisher Matrix games can't be used. You say I am assuming that the stuff I took out was "purely personal recollection" on your part, which I haven't said. If the PRIMARY sources would somehow be your "purely personal recollection", that sounds like you are part of the developer or publisher. But hey, I'm just trying to twist your words to fit my own narrative. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

One: that's not what that page indicates in the slightest (it merely identifies what qualifies under primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and to avoid original research in articles; something that has zero applicability here as the information describes basic, easily verifiable facts about the game mechanics and structure), and two: the information WAS supported by other credible sources (and your fixation of the invalidity of game developers and/or publishers as sources is rooted in a flawed logic that I will, once again, not even attempt to rectify on your end.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookatee (talk • contribs) 11:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you try to rectify my misunderstanding of Wikipedia's guidelines? I'd be interested to see how my logic is flawed in this matter and change it accordingly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Taking it back to basics, the vast majority of sources are from the developer, this remains the main problem and makes improving the article difficult. What I mean is that a lot the details are very obscure and don't really mean anything to the average reader. For example, in the "CMO" part, the text talks about how the integration of "Tacview" is a feature that differentiates it from its predecessor. I have no idea what a tacview is, and the source, which is a "features" tab on the developer website, simply states "Support for real-time Tacview 3D view (NOTE: separate purchase of Tacview Advanced edition required)", so I'm no closer to understanding how or why this is notable. It seems like we're simply adding detailed information indiscriminately, when brief summaries would be much more appropriate, i.e instead of listing every expansion pack, simply state that new scenario packs are available. Articles aren't supposed to parrot primary source like this, especially for confusing or obscure information like what I mentioned. Eik Corell (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think it might be best to keep the discussion about the page move and the discussion about primary sources separate from one another since they are about different things. —- Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly Ive separated the discussion into two sections. Im hoping we can focus more on the ideas and less on the disagreement - ideally letting us reach consensus faster. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Eik, Tacview is a separate piece of software that records a 3D visualization of game scenarios (most notably for games like Digital Combat Simulator.) Currently a Wikipedia page is missing for Tacview, so if you feel like you can get enough notable sources to create an article that passes the notability guidelines on it then that would be great (as it could then be directly linked to to inform those ignorant on the topic like yourself.) Otherwise, as is the case in most scientific and/or articles on a niche topic one cannot always go into explicit detail defining something that isn't mentioned on the article as it can detract from the main topic of said article (For example, an article on geology not explicitly defining what the Earth or a rock is. In this case however I was able to find an additional source that would help to inform people as to what Tacview is in relation to CMO and have added it accordingly (it has to be their Steam page as, oddly enough, on their official website they have not updated their documentation to reflect the fact that they're compatible with CMO, possibly because of the inability to use the software to its fullest capabilities in conjunction with CMO at the moment.) Furthermore, you've been removing sources without replacing them with any superior ones therein by leaving the information un-referenced and of less encyclopedic value than it was before. If you don't have a suitable replacement then readding those citations would be very helpful as it's better to have something rather than nothing.Tookatee (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Conversely, if what we have is poorly sourced, sometimes its better to start over. Whether thats the case here or not I dont currently have a strong opinion on, but if removing sourced leaves unsourced claims, it might be better to remove the claims at the same time. Generally speaking. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Eik Corell That specific example, the discrete listing of products for sale, immediately made me think this was due to someone advertising for warfaresims. Your suggestion regards summary is an excellent one, I think. In the case of CMANO, I dont think each individual DLC is notable. Im tempted to BBold and change that. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how stating the literal differences between the two detailed items on the article is somehow automatically assumed to be a form of advertisement, under that strict logic literally any and all current video game articles listing DLC or ingame purchases could be considered to be "a form of advertising by listing related products for sale" a clearly ridiculous premise to begin with (especially when no actual commentary on said product(s) is included). As for the DLC, only a basic summary of their scenarios is included (with once again no critical commentary on their content), and I see no addition to the encyclopedic value of the page by modifying them in the way I think you're suggesting.Tookatee (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

When third-party, independent sources like IGN or GameSpot or Polygon talk about a game's DLC and its features, its doing it as a form of critical commentary from their stance as a journalism site; their goal is not to drive sales for the game but to inform the consumer about it. On the other hand, taking the information game developers give, while it may be trying to help give consumers the information it needs, always carries the implicit weight that they are trying to make a sale, so we consider excessive use of primary sources improper. --Masem (t) 14:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sequel Section - advertising concerns

Im pretty sure this section could stand editing for encyclopedic tone. As it stands it does read like an advert for the game rather than encyclopedia content. Ive only seen it advertised on Steam, havent actually seen much if any coverage about it online. Seems theres the publishers website and one review as sources. Without any opinions to the contrary, I intend to trim this down a bit and hopefully avoid needing an advertising template. Still, as long as there are eyes on hand, does anyone have strong views on this? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

None, I just quickly cleaned it up after the page title was fixed. Feel free to edit it as needed. -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)