Jump to content

Talk:Left 4 Dead 2/Archive 3

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Left 4 Dead 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Competitive Community inclusion discussion

AdrianGamer and Ferret, I've been attempting to include information about the competitive community and the role of the game in e-sports. My additions have been reverted despite adding more citations. As of now, I've added even more, directly from Valve's developer and l4d.com websites. Can we discuss this please? I believe this is an important facet of the game on the PC and is what keeps the game alive today. Here's what I've been trying to incorporate the below section.

ZeroShadows (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Of the 13 of references you have used, 11 are unreliable. This is because they are forums, wikis or user groups, which have no reliability. The only two that can be treated as reliable are the two primary sources from the L4D product blog. Any content from a primary source must be carefully presented to avoid any original research. The lack of any reliable secondary sources will make it difficult to include this content.
You should check WP:VG/RS for a list of vetted sources for use with video games. This could help you find reliable sources. There is a custom Google search engine linked there that searches the listed sites. -- ferret (talk)
@ferret and AdrianGamer I've updated my proposed changes below and have cited what should be acceptable references. I'm not sure what to cite for the last paragraph, as these tournaments exist but I cannot find anything except on user forums and in Steam groups. Would YouTube videos of the tournaments be acceptable? Or do I even need to cite anything as this is common knowledge among the competitive community? ZeroShadows (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding that last bit, everything must be cited. It's not common knowledge to the readership of Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@ferret My question, then again, is would you consider YouTube videos of the tournaments as acceptable citations? Also, I've moved the first paragraph into the article, as you've not objected. ZeroShadows (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Honestly? Even with primary sources to at least verify it, the lack of any secondary sources suggests this simply isn't notable as a long term inclusion in the article. Can you find ANY secondary coverage? -- ferret (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
ferret Okay, I have six sentences and 14 citations with secondary sources. Is this not sufficient now? ZeroShadows (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The only reliable secondary source you added was GameZone, in support of the sentence about Confogl and the official mutation set. However, GameZone makes no mention of competitions and only mentioned Confogl in a direct quote from the primary source, l4d blog. Have you looked at the list of reliable sources I linked earlier at all? -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Izno, Hellknowz, Prisencolin, and Dissident93: Hey, I know a lot of you have done some work on eSports lately, could you perhaps weigh in on this discussion? My primary concern is a lack of any apparent coverage by reliable secondary sources. Plenty of primary sourcing but that doesn't really show any importance. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Without looking at details, WP:V requires reliable sources and WP:BURDEN to show this is on the editor restoring content. In other words, we shouldn't add unreliable sources and it doesn't look like most are reliable from the list. This looks like a community/fan stuff and reliable gaming media has not given it attention. Unfortunately, that means, we won't be giving it much attention either. That said, we can probably mention the existence of such communities and competitive scene via primary sources, but we can't offer any commentary. Looking at the exact addition, we can keep some stuff from the first three primary-sources sentences rewording them that it is official changes and using Gamezebo GameZone source, but we can't really mention individual competitions without reliable source coverage. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'll just give up on this for now. I provided 14 citations that aren't forums, wikis, or user groups, which was the original complaint against addition, but apparently, they're still not satisfactory for whatever reason. The competitive community exists and tournaments are held just about every quarter, if not more. In that whatever Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources for coverage apparently doesn't exist, doesn't mean the tournaments and groups don't exist. Just watch Twitch.tv and you'll see the community holding tournaments right now on the weekends, in fact. These guys are keeping this 7 year old game alive. Odd that factual events can't be included in this article. ZeroShadows (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
We don't dispute the game has had updates, there are tournaments and people play them. We can even include some of it. The issue is that they are only reported by WP:PRIMARY sources. It may be important to them, but it isn't to reliable, secondary sources, which are the center of WP:V. We have to accept that not everything is covered by reliable sources and we don't decide what's important, sources do. We shouldn't decide on what content to include and then attempt to source it. We should first locate sources, then decide if and what content should be included. For example, we can take the GameZebo GameZone source and look at what content it has given attention to. Perhaps we can use a couple primary sources to state some of the facts too. Any more and we are giving the content more prominence than it has received outside Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who Gamezebo is, and I never cited them. I did cite GameZone. Regardless, the tournaments are receiving more prominence outside of Wikipedia, on Twitch and YouTube.[1] Gamers watch this stuff and the groups associated with these tournaments keep growing. Just seemed relevant to the longevity of the game. As for including some of it, I tried and it's been reverted three times now, the last attempt leaving off the last sentence. I'm not sure what you guys will accept and what you won't at this point. It's only seven sentences long and when I tried the first six, that was reverted. Anyway, I changed one of the citations to IGN, as that's listed as an acceptable secondary source. ZeroShadows (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence is almost acceptable. It presents facts directly with no commentary. But at the end it claims Confogl to be a part of "official mutation set", but none of the sources refer to it in that way.
The second sentence needs to be reworded. It is a verbatim copy of the source (At the end of the third sentence), which is a copyright violation.
The third sentence claims "better balance", but the primary source simply says that balance is tilted towards the infected. This is a minor bit of original research.
The fourth sentence does not need the reference to CEVO's site, as there is no content about Left 4 Dead at that page. Without any reliable secondary source coverage of this tournament though, versus any other tournament, this seems unimportant to include.
The fifth sentence gives details on the final match of the tournament. Again, no reliable secondary coverage, so unimportant to include. The youtube is an unofficial upload, so is not suitable as source.
The last sentence of your current draft below is a great example of original research. This is where you've taken multiple primary sources and written content to summarize them. For example, none of these sources say "There are lots of tournaments that use Promod." What the sources show is a series of individual tournaments with no real context. Additionally, the sources don't support that ProMod is a successor to Confogl.
That's my thoughts on the current draft. -- ferret (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, I can't use my own words after reading the sources, because it's original research. I can't use the words in the sources because that's copyright violation. To me, it sounds like you believe that I cannot use any words because I'm either doing original research, or I'm violating copyright. How does one add anything up to your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules, then? As far as Confogl being in the official mutation set -- just load up the game on the PC. It's there. Valve included it. How much proof of that do I have to provide? As for Pro Mod being the current defacto standard in competitive play, I listed tournaments that use the configuration, but you say that's all original research. Pretty much anything I write is, whether I summarize the content, or copy it, deemed unacceptable by you. This all seems a tad overzealous to me, but whatever. I'm just going to give up on this, I guess. Sorry if I offend you with this response. It's not my intention. I'm just frustrated. Thanks for the replies, though. ZeroShadows (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've reduced the modification to a few sentences. I trust you will find these acceptable. There's no verbatim copy of anything, and the words I'm using are based on the sources. ZeroShadows (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not my opinion, it's Wikipedia policy..... Look, I'm trying to help you get this to a place where it can be included. Everything has to be written in our own words, because copying from another site is a copyright violation. That's not opinion, that's law. In the case of primary sources, we have to (in our own words), present the facts exactly as the sources do, with no analysis or embellishment. Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. I know this can seem weird, but Wikipedia is not just an information site, but is meant to be an encyclopedia, with every fact contained "provable."
As far as the current draft goes, it is appropriately sourced and appears to avoid original research now. Facts from primary sources are clearly stated without any editorial. I still don't believe it's all that important, but maybe it can be expanded later if any reliable secondary's start paying attention to tournaments. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. ZeroShadows (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8Fn6IWwUvNTkDKglbYLFl6R1T2OMq8p2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Left 4 Dead 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Left 4 Dead 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Left_4_Dead_2/Archive_3&oldid=1214560200"