Talk:Development of Fez

Why was this split?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: closed; no consensus (non-admin closure). 23W 07:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

---

I am unclear on why this development information has been split from the main Fez article. Fez is currently at 22kb readable prose size, while this article is at 13kb RPS- if they were combined, the very most they'd be at (actually a lot less, as there is crossover) would be 35kb RPS. WP:SIZERULE stipulates that for anything below 40kb RPS, "[l]ength alone does not justify division". This feels like an unwarranted split, to me. J Milburn (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree the split makes no sense. Yes, it will be close to 50kb of prose after trimming out duplication, but that's not a large article per SIZE and it is much better to keep this all together. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As that's two of us who are not seeing this, I have gone ahead and proposed a merge. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The split was suggested in Talk:Fez (video game)/GA1 (@PresN). I had similar considerations myself, as the development far outweighed the other sections. czar ♔ 21:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I stand by that- the Fez article is/was not long enough that it necessitates a split, but the development section was long enough to be its own good size article, and was overwhelming the rest of the text. I won't cry any tears if it gets merged back in, but I think it should stay split- Fez was well known even before Indie Game: The Movie for having a long, drawn-out development, especially after winning an award at the IGF awards and then not getting released for another 4 years. I'm going to ask WT:VG for more viewpoints. --PresN 22:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely, if it was known for having a long, drawn-out development section, that justifies a long development section in the article? A split into "Fez" and "Development of Fez" feels artificial, especially when the articles together aren't going to be that long- certainly shorter than some of our video game FAs (Final Fantasy VI, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, etc), which are, themselves, shorter than other FAs. J Milburn (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What I guess I'm balking at is that the current Development section in the Fez article proper is still large, given that all three parts of that (overall dev timeline, design, and promotion) are expanded by at most 100% in this Development article. It feels overly duplicated on this page. Mind you, I don't see a huge problem with large dev sections, eg Limbo. This is good information and should be the focus since this is where we get away from primary sources. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The idea is that someone who wants the extra detail can have it this way while still having a short, readable article. Personally, I prefer to have the option when reading articles. It takes some serious interest to sit down and leisurely read 30kB of prose with more granular detail than necessary. I'm open to suggestions on how to further trim what remains in the main Fez article czar ♔ 23:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Czar: You're welcome to believe that, but that's not what the guidelines say. The guidelines are quite clear that anything below 40kb readable prose size is not so long that a split is necessary. J Milburn (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"welcome to believe that" is needlessly condescending. And it's not even like I'm the only one that thought the section was out of balance. Furthermore, that read of SPLIT/SIZE is draconian—it does not mean or imply in any way that splits only happen when parent articles are over a magical 40kB threshold, and you know that isn't the case in practice either. czar ♔ 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to be condescending, but my point is that, even if you believe otherwise, our guidelines suggest quite strongly that "30kB of prose" is not unduly long, which is what you seemed to be suggesting when you said it "takes some serious interest to sit down and leisurely read" them. I certainly accept that articles shorter than 40kb should sometimes be split (and I've never said otherwise, so I reject your claim that I'm offering a "draconian reading" of the guideline), but any such split would necessarily be for reasons other than length. I'm not clear what is being used to justify this split if it isn't length. That's the issue, here. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The release section of the main Fez article is probably reasonable since the release aspects of the game should be with that. It's the lead Dev and the Design section that seem awfully detailed given we have this. Those two sections should summarize - one paragraph each - what is in this article. You don't have to write to the references (that is, how you have isolated facts as best as possibly organized but one fact per sentence so you can source each) but instead write in broad terms, enough to understand, in the development cycle aspects, that this was a protracted dev cycle, much of Phil's own money towards the process, but one that garnered a lot of attention including being the central story of Indie Game the Movie. (There might be more but you get the idea). Same on the design. If both of those sections were down to a para, I would be okay with the split to a degree, particularly as that also sorta ties to Indie Game the Movie as well. (As an example, consider how BioShock Infinite#Development's 5 paragraphs give enough juicy details to make you want to read into the development and marketing more as outlined at Development of BioShock Infinite, while your present aspects at Fez make me ask "what else is there to know?")) --MASEM (t) 02:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually support article spinoffs like this, but with 40k bytes of well written info from 50+ sources, it seems like, if these sorts of articles are acceptable in theory, then this would be a premiere example. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that this isn't actually that long. Sure, it's longer than most video game articles, but would the whole thing together be too long for an article? No, certainly not, as it would still fall under the "no need to merge" length, as I explained in my original comment. Would a both-together article contain too much trivial detail? That's an editorial decision, and not one that is solved by splitting. If there's too much trivia, remove the trivia. J Milburn (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The dev article is at 40k, and the parent article is over 70k. Not sure what your personal standards are for "not that long" but it's deemed big enough for splitting per standards like WP:SIZERULE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The parent is 70 kB of wikitext, but (after further trimming) 19 kB of readable prose size. It was around 26 kB pre-split, if anyone was making the argument on size alone czar ♔ 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

We go by readable prose size (eg dropping captions, references, internal wiki markup, etc.), which as pointed out is 22 and 13 kB , at least back at the start of this discussion. It was at a point that the split per SIZE could have been done but was also not required to be done either. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Serge, as above, the article was significantly below the size which would suggest that a split should even be considered. I am not applying any "personal standards"- I'm applying only those from the guideline. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. I apologize, I didn't realize we didn't count wiki-markup, and that's the only number that is easily available. As I was saying, I personally don't usually split off articles like this. Hieever, I still feel that, regardless of size,it seems like, if these sorts of articles are acceptable in any scenario, it seems like it would be here, where it is well written, well sourced, and plenty if content. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr pda/prosesize.js is a very useful tool for determining various size-related info. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Serge: I disagree that "if these sorts of articles are acceptable in any scenario, it seems like it would be here". While I accept that articles like this are OK in principle, splitting "Fez (video game)" and "Development of Fez" is somewhat artificial- they do not easily split into two separate topics. As such, I feel that a split would be necessary only if "Fez (video game)" would be too long without the split, which, as I have explained, it would not be. If it's not length justifying the split, I'm not clear what it is. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You've already made your feelings clear on this point. The justification for the split was never article length—it was weight in the article. It was a 13 kB section (with opportunities for expansion and excluding the music section) against 12.5 kB of everything else. Yeah, there's no guideline for that, at least right now. And if it's necessary to go even further, I'd argue that the Development of Fez is an independently notable topic with its own sigcov in multiple RS. czar ♔ 13:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If the development has independent significance (and if PresN is correct that "Fez was well known even before Indie Game: The Movie for having a long, drawn-out development, especially after winning an award at the IGF awards and then not getting released for another 4 years") then that pretty clearly justifies giving the development a lot of weight in the article, and so calls into question the necessity for a split based on weight. (And just because something is notable, doesn't mean it needs its own article- if it fits naturally within a broader article, better to leave it there.) J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It still has significant weight in the article—the question is how much. I don't agree with sliding all the way down that slippery slope, and from this conversation, I am not alone in that. The article is unwieldy with the section not split and has the sources to stand on its own, so my vote is for readability over formality. I have nothing left to add on this topic without repeating myself. czar ♔ 16:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have requested that this discussion be closed- hopefully we can reach a conclusion rather than just letting the issue disappear. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Advertising

this article is Indie Game: The Movie ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.92.43.215 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Development of Fez/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Should have this one to you by tomorrow morning... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for coming to this late. Unexpected parties... doing the review now... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Merger proposal

Has a consensus been achieved on the merger yet? I'm afraid the article can't pass if it is at direct risk of being merged, however since it is not, we'll rule this out this for now. Just asking if it had been solved as the template is still in the article!

Lead

• The lead is a little on the short side as per most Good Articles and the GA criteria. Nothing too major, a small expansion on the history and design (as this is comprehensive in the article) would help a lot!

History

• "Development continued with a more experimental ethos until the company began to run out of capital" - capital what? Investments? Income or their general financial strength?
• "Polytron drew ire for the decision" - how about something like anger or frustration?

References

• There are no dead links are the references meet the GA criteria.
• All the citations are in their correct places, meeting the criteria too

On hold

Again this is a well written article and I found little prose problems with it, but on the other side of things there are only a couple of issues that stands in the way of it becoming GA. The short lead is one (the article itself is extensive so the lead could be expanded a little) and the merger proposal is the other. If all of those issues can be addressed to then this article should pass the GAN. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: don't know if you have seen this but I also left a message on your talk page. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, thanks for the review and ping! I expanded the lede. "Capital" generally refers to money or similar assets. (It's a little more descriptive than just saying they ran out of money.) Let me know what you prefer. And "ire" should be fine, no? The merge discussion went stale a month ago, so we're just waiting for someone to remove the tags czar ♔ 21:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing them and expanding the lead.! I think you're right about those points, but anyhow this article meets the GA criteria. Since there is no risk of the article being merged it doesn't really matter. Anyway well done on another GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 10:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)