Talk:Art game/Archives/1

• There is a large list of art games presented here. I'm fairly certain RSes could be found from the art world to cover most of these. -Thibbs (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Here's another long list of potential candidates for the list. -Thibbs (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• In 2007, indiegames.com (an RS) cofounder Tim W. published this article which links to his personal website where he lists his personal 27 top art games (here at mentisworks.org). He also links to Kristine Ploug's 16-member list from 2005 at Artificial.dk (here). I think a fair argument could be made that the mentisworks link is an RS since the author is significant. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Since there is the argument that an art game is defined by artistic intent, the authors of these games might play an important part in determining if they are "art games" or not. So this is Jason Nelson's Gamasutra Blog where he describes several of his games that are not currently on the list as "art games". Not sure if this works as an
  WP:SPS on the topic of itself of not. -Thibbs (talk
  ) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• games from Kenta Cho and Oohara Yuuma (these games are really good, and very closely related to the art game definition) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.84.58 (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In looking for a formal definition of the "art game" I found myself scraping for sources within the gaming community. There is interest in the term, and a lot of debate about whether it's a useful term or whether games can even be art in the first place, but there is very little in the way of a definition. Turning to sources from the art community I was much more successful. There are several formal definitions of the term coming from apparently well-respected fore-runners of the genre. I've tried to introduce the more important definitions to this WP article now, but the definitions introduce problems for the scope of this article.

Essentially what I find is that whereas the gaming community is apt to blur the lines between

I think it's important that we should have some sort of basic consensus on this. Are there any opinions? -Thibbs (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is really only an issue for the list since the prose part of the article can (and I think does) discuss all notable perspectives on this issue. For now maybe sticking with the basic "if the RS says it's an art game then it's an art game" rule will work as the inclusion criterion for the list, but this issue may have to be resolved down the road if the list gets too long. Or we could just split it. Whatever works. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How is Super Columbine Massacre RPG an art game? It seems more fitting to call it an Exploitation Game or a Troll Game.

At Wikipedia we use reliable sources to support claims made in articles. If you look at the entry for "Super Columbine Massacre RPG" you can see two little numbers listed as superscripts (currently they are labeled as "[41]" and "[42]"). These numbers represent sources that are linked below. So if you click on the number it will bring you down to the sources where the corresponding source should be linked. In this case we have two sources. By reading the first source, we can see that indie game developer, Jason Rohrer, thinks that "the bottom line for SCMRPG is that it saddens us, disturbs us, puzzles us, and makes us think. It's a nice example of an art game and a perfect example of why we need independent games (because no publisher would ever fund something like this)." And then if we look at the second source we see that indie developer and Slamdance 2007 judge, Joe Bourrie "fully support the juries decision to add this Art Game [Super Columbine Massacre RPG] to the [Slamdance] roster. It breaks ground that no other game has touched, and just the fact that we are talking about it right now means that it has a strong effect on players."

So from reading these two we can see that the game has repeatedly been called an art game by reliable sources, and it looks like the general rationale is that because it moves the audience emotionally and forces them to think, and because this was the intent of the game's designer, it is a work of art as social commentary just as Andres Serrano's Piss Christ and Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary are considered art even though they also could be labeled an "exploitation pieces" or "troll works".

Now of course this is just my personal interpretation of what the reliable sources are trying to say regarding Super Columbine Massacre RPG, but this Wikipedia article doesn't make any of those claims. By listing the game as an art game the article is merely saying that it has been identified by reliable sources as an art game. There's no reason within this article to try to come up with a rationale for how it fits the definition. Does that help? I know some people find the issue of sources to be kind of confusing at first, so it might help to read through

this explanation if I wasn't clear. -Thibbs (talk

) 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And to not get into too many details that don't apply to improving the article, the reason SCM RPG is considered art is that it deconstructs the kneejerk reaction that the media had to the Columbine shootings that wanted to poke fingers at video games as the cause, providing a re-interpretation of events to mock this. It may be considered trolling, but some traditional art pieces were crafted in the same mocking manner. As Thibbs points out, as long as sources claim this as an art game, we are otherwise not to judge. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. I am (as you can tell) a novice editor and researcher. I will definitely check those sources out. Sometimes I succumb to moral panic too easily. I guess it's the "conservative" in me ConnerFields (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)(Conner Fields)

It's ok. The main point I guess is that Wikipedia isn't supposed to take a stand on whether or not something is a certain way. The whole place is supposed to be built around neutrally summarizing and clearly presenting the claims of reliable third-party sources. If you need any help learning the ropes, by the way, make sure you check out the

Tea Room where friendly and experienced editors are on hand to help new folks with problems and questions. And welcome! -Thibbs (talk

) 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The game's artstyle takes inspiration from watercolor drawings...what makes it less of an art game than Okami? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.46.153 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Anything can be determined an art game as long as reliable sources call it an "art game" or "arthouse game". Find a reliable source that calls it that and we can add it to the list. But note that if all you can find are references to the fact that the game is full of artistic elements and that it is a good example of how games can be (or are) art then you can add it to

reliable sources to be added to either list, though. -Thibbs (talk

) 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

LSD Dream Emulator seems like a good example of an art game. It's surrealistic (based on the dream world). It is based on a dream journal, and came with a companion book, and music album.-ConnerFields (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)(Conner Fields) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.240.241 (talk)

Anything can be determined an art game as long as reliable sources call it an "art game" or "arthouse game". Find a reliable source that calls it that and we can add it to the list. But note that if all you can find are references to the fact that the game is full of artistic elements and that it is a good example of how games can be (or are) art then you can add it to

reliable sources to be added to either list, though. -Thibbs (talk

) 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I will point out that as long as there is one reliable reference to support including a game on this list, there is a good chance (but not required) that the game may be notable, and so while a game is a red line or a link to a section of a larger article, there's no need to remove such games. For example, "Passage" presently is only given a section on Rorher's article, because there's little else to say about the game to make a full article, but it is clearly an Art Game (maybe the first game in the last few years to bring this area of games to light). The sources for a game can be questioned but as long as its a reasonable source, the game can be included on this list. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. To address the redlink issue though, since it is flagged, I don't think there'd be too much of a problem in delinking redlinks that seem unlikely to ever become full articles. For items where the game and the developer are bother redlinked, for example, it might not be unreasonable to delink one or the other if it looks like one would only ultimately serve as a redirect to the other. For example, it's quite possible that "[email protected]" would only ever be a redirect to a "Tiffany Holmes" article where the game could be discussed in context with the artist. Apart from that, I guess the only strategy to reduce redlinks is to actually create the articles. I may take a swing at some of the ones I'm more interested in some time after August when I have a bit more free time. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. The existence of a reliable source is to establish solely that the information can be reliable sourced, not that the information is notable enough to be used. As an admittedly wild example, I can reliably source the fact that Obama is the President of the United States. That does not mean, however, that the information is notable enough for inclusion on *this* article. Articles or sections that are long lists quite routinely use the existence of a Wikipedia article on the topic as a litmus test for whether it meets a base level of notability to be included on a list elsewhere.

Lists like this are never supposed to be exhaustive lists. That's what your argument would require: anything that can be proven to be true on this topic must be included. That's horribly impractical and just gets space taken up by trivia. So if you reject this standard criteria used throughout Wikipedia as a way of judging what should be included and what should not, what do you propose as an alternate criteria? Anything you can source which anyone who comes here feels like adding? If so, it sounds like what you want a category page, not a list on an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This article as it current stands violates

Indiscriminate? Surely you mean indiscriminate apart from the requirement that the games must be reliably sourced "art games" as explained several times throughout the article, right? I mean your thoughts do sound good to me in general, DreamGuy, because that's usually the way I like to handle lists myself. But I've been involved with a great many discussions over list inclusion criteria and I can tell you that there is no such rule that lists must be restricted to bluelinked members only. If by consensus it is agreed that the inclusion criteria should require notability and that bluelinks should act as a proxy for notability then that's one thing, but no such consensus exists at this article. In fact the opposite is true. Check the talk page. At present this is intended as an exhaustive list and exhaustive lists are definitely allowed on Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I've reverted the listcruft tag you added since it was misleading (i.e. there is nothing poorly defined, unverified, or indiscriminate about the list. All entries have sources and all sources make direct claims that the games are "art games" or "arthouse games". Some relatively in depth research went into this article and this list does actually hit the majority of games described as art games by the RSes). From your edit summary I think what you really want to be doing is proposing a split. If you read the talk page above I think you'll see we've discussed this in the past. For the record, I'd still be in favor of a split. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thibbs is right. While blue-linked/proper articles can be used to restrict contents of lists (often the case for "List of people from X"), that's an option, not a requirement. And again, I stress - because we are requiring one source to be on this list, there is potential all of these current red-links could be blue links. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Since User:DreamGuy has blanked (as "complete nonsense") the note I left on his talk page explaining that this page is not an unmaintained pile of cruft, and he's opted to reinstate the listcruft tag, I feel it's pertinent to address the impropriety of this tag directly. Let's start by taking notice of the fact that the article underwent a major overhaul and expansion last February. Since then we've had 9 goodfaith additions to the list and 8 reversions for failure to meet the inclusion criteria. So in the last 6 months we've seen this admittedly long list grow by exactly 1 member. In addition, disclaimer notes have been added to the list sections in several places and tweaked to clearly delineate the inclusion conditions. Thus an editor adding to the list will see this note (repeated no less than 8 times):

• "Only include games that have been explicitly described by reliable sources to be 'art games', and provide a reference for the source. Other games with a strong artistic element can be put on the related list in the 'Video games as an art form' article."

The reason the listcruft tag has been removed is that it characterizes the list as "poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate" and this is simply false on its face. Let's break it down:

• "poorly defined" - The definition of this list is this: "video games described as art games or arthouse games by game designers or critics". This is further clarified by the disclaimer notes bulleted above. In short the definition is quite clear and the article history shows that it is obviously maintained.
• "unverified" - The inclusion criteria clearly say "by game designers or critics" and "explicitly described by reliable sources". Every item on the list is supported by a source that has been checked for verification - usually by several editors. Unverified items are routinely removed from the list upon their addition. I'd humbly submit that this is probably one of the best-sourced lists among those covered by WP:VG.
• "indiscriminate" - Currently the items on this list must be (1) video games, (2) "art games", (3) verified by sources, and (4) the sources must be reliable. Apart from the clearly limiting definition, and the clearly limiting requirement for explicit RS verification, I'm not sure how else the list should be limited. Is this just a fancy way of saying that it's a long list? It's clearly a long list and it seeks to be complete within the confines of its restrictive definition, but it's not indiscriminate by any means.

I hope that clarifies the issue. Again, if overall length is the issue then there are certainly better ways to address it than deleting the list in its entirety or hoping to arbitrarily slash verifiable list members. -Thibbs (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the argument DreamGuy's used that if these were on a separate list article it would be okay, but that breaks down DG's original point - the list either is or isn't indiscriminate whether it is part of this article or a standalone. Yes, length might be an issue but I don't think we're close to a point where it must be split off. Every point that Thibbs explains is spot on as to why this is a reasonable list and why it is okay to leave red links. I point out again because of the fact these games have a source to be on here, that means there is a reasonable likelihood of being notable and the fact they are red links simply means someone hasn't gotten around to writing the articles to support them. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the idea of a split in the last few days. My initial feeling was that it should definitely be split, but now I'm not as certain. There is something about the list that is helpful to a full encyclopedic understanding of the topic: It provides a handy means to see the chronology of the varying kinds of art game from the early wave in the early 80s to the re-emergence in the late 90s and finally to the indie art game explosion in the late 2000s peaking in 2008. The granularity is rough since we've limited it to games with RS coverage, but it provides a basic timeline for which other chronological events like the video game crash of the early 80s can then provide interesting context for the informed reader. If and when we get to the point where it's simply too long then I think a split is inevitable, but for now it might be worth considering the benefits that an embedded list can provide here. Just a thought. -Thibbs (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I move red link discussions should continue below at #MoS linking.

Because "black links" do not signify the product of a discussion, neither should 65 red links in one article signify 65 reasons for 65 items inclusion. Lists make excellent what is over-linking elsewhere, but their excellence is in blue.

Simply, red links are being abused. More to the point, they are being used to hold information they were not designed to hold. They could hold it anyway. Even so, never will such a hoard (as could shocked the newcomer admin) un-cloud the notability or reliability issue, nor should should classifying as over-linking (link counts) usually involve the subject of splitting or sectioning of articles. References to discussions or guidelines are often just as cloudy. It's simple. There are too many red links.

Whoever was trying to help by piling up all those "source certified citable" articles, guaranteeing notability, has wasted there time. Unfortunately on Wikipedia teamwork edit-sessions are scarce; indeed unless there is something, say "WikiProject cleanup" going on, the list of red links here may just grow of course because there is not enough follow-through after the red link "assignments" made by an army of one.

The red army appears to me to have wasted its time because I am here to help clean things up per the category and template efforts. Please see #MoS linking below, where I'm offering some ideas and some services to back them up with. — CpiralCpiral 19:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a very hard time taking seriously your claim that "Whoever was trying to help by piling up all those "source certified citable" articles, guaranteeing notability, has wasted there time." Are you seriously suggesting that the reliable sources used in the list represent a waste of time? Anyway I agree that we should discuss the delinking of redlinks in the #MoS linking section below rather than in this months-old thread which might otherwise escape the notice of contributors to the article. I also hope you'll consider adopting a more civil tone. Calling your fellow editors "the red army" isn't conducive to any sort of collegial atmosphere. -Thibbs (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's clear from our discussion at

I'm quite short of time currently and won't really be able to do much at all in terms of searching for additional RSes as corroboratory evidence for the two claims that are currently supported by the Kierkegaard book alone. I've suggested to hahnchen that his concerns over

fringe ideas could be eliminated by moving those two claims into talk until further sources can be located. I think that the Kierkegaard refs should be left in place where they are backed up by other RSes, though, because it's been demonstrated that he's been cited by numerous 3rd party RSes and there can be no legitimate concern of fringe in cases where his refs are only backing up other RSes. As yet hahnchen is still maintaining his position that the only thing he will be satisfied with is complete removal of all mention of Kierkegaard so this compromise is effectively rejected, but I wanted to bring it up here as a suggestion that I think might provide a good way forward. I hope fresh eyes can consider the suggestion on its merits. -Thibbs (talk

) 11:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OK well I did a little bit of reffing just now, but we need more. This criticism section should really be expanded if possible since it is just a bulleted list of grievances right now. I added the criticism that "art games aren't games" per hahnchen's suggestion at the "games as art" article. Whereas the Kierkegaard source provides a large number of criticisms all in one document, the other RSes are much more diffuse in their critiques and so it will take a bit of time to sift through them properly. I'll get on that when I have a bit more time. -Thibbs (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss fringe claims and claims given undue prominence

I'm confused about how the criticism section's problems could run no deeper than the Kierkegaard source alone. During the past few weeks Hahnchen has repeatedly argued that the Kierkegaard source was being used to support

So what does this mean for Kierkagaard? Well, it means that theories and ideas only gain credence when they are widely discussed, exhibit some level of support from experts in the field, and have garnered enough notoriety to warrant peer review and publication. This is the only objective way to determine which individuals have contributed something important to our collective understanding of the world, regardless of whether they are actually "right" or "wrong" in their beliefs. Without holding to this standard, every blog, letter to the editor, call-in to a program, or forum post has to be accepted as equally valid, and my theories on how the universe works become as relevant to the conversation as Einstein's, which I assume we can all agree would be laughable. Kierkagaard has been the subject of no scrutiny. His self-published work has not been subjected to analysis or criticism. Few, if any, scholars are debating the merits of his ideas or building on them in their own work. Blogs and journalists mention him from time to time, but do not actually bother to seriously engage with his ideas. To all appearances he is just one man with an opinion, which makes him just like any of the several billion other people inhabiting this planet. Responsible scholarship --and Wikipedia policy -- requires more. Indrian (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I do see evidence that some of Kierkagaard's ideas have been examined, considered, and analyzed/expanded upon by several RSes. The fact that he has a certain level of exposure in reliable sources - some couple dozen citations at least - was central to the decision to add the source in the first place along with the fact that his coverage of the topic of art game criticism amounts to a 104-page book rather than a few paragraphs as we see with the coverage from the other RSes. The reason he was selected as a reference was not completely haphazard or without regard for WP:RS. I've been actively participating at WP:VG/RS since March of last year and I can tell you that in general dozens of RS citations (journalistic and academic) and praise from 4 or 5 notable journalists is sufficient to make out the prima facie case for reliability. I've personally never seen a case where more than 15 RS source citations were needed to establish the bona fides of a source under discussion. I'm confident I could locate double that amount pretty easily, precisely because he's received a degree of exposure that belies the "internet no-one" honorific recently bestowed upon him here. The determination of any source as reliable is a judgment call of course and I accept the fact that you and hahnchen think this source falls short. It seems that no amount of evidence to the contrary is able to change this view.

But I guess what I am confused about is how simply removing the references to Kierkegaard (like this) addresses the problem of his fringe theories or unduly prominent theories. Hahnchen is fond of comparing Kierkegaard to Gene Ray, founder of the pseudoscience Time Cube theory. Imagine if the article on "time" were edited to include the line "When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth" with a citation to Gene Ray. Simply removing the citation would not solve the problem because the fringe theory would remain. For weeks the argument has been made that this article ("art game") contains fringe theories attributed to Kierkegaard. Shouldn't we discuss which ones those are and determine if they should be removed? The same goes for theories that have been give undue prominence (the other major argument made against claims reffed using the Kierkegaard source). -Thibbs (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that we are trying to present opinions and not trying to promote any one over another, compared to what typically happens in fringe theories where editors trying to promote the fringe theory elevate it to try to make it "truth". Just having what various opinions that exist in the "video games as art" arena, as long as others have identified that as a possible opinion. This is a far cry from including fringe theories and trying to promote them as fact. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hahnchen is the one worried about fringe theories; I am worried about credibility. Anyone can create a blog and self publish a book and get an opinion out there. That does not make that opinion worthy of attention. Neither does a person being mentioned in blogs from time to time. Despite your protestations to the contrary, Thibbs, you have yet to provide sources that actually analyze what he is saying rather than just mentioning that he said something. A blog post or two from a site that needs to constantly post articles to generate hits is not significant coverage within the context of said blog's total output. Unless we actually have sufficient reliable sources declaring Kierkagaard an expert or acknowledging his original thought as significant then all we have is a Wikipedia editor's opinion that Kierkagaard is significant. We are not allowed to make those judgment calls. Show me some sources that certify him as an expert rather than just acknowledging that he exists, and I will have no problem with his inclusion. Indrian (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that your use of the phrase "a blog post or two" is intended here to discredit normal RSes like

UGO.com entitled "Deconstructing Kierkegaard") deal directly with Kierkegaard's ideas, I can only guess that you don't find them to be long enough articles. Is that it? Or is it the fact that some of them are critical of his ideas and argue against them? I'm really not sure how we can be interpreting these so differently but let's be honest about the situation: this isn't a standard level of citation for an actual internet no-one. I've reviewed plenty of sources during the last year and a half at WP:VG/RS and I can tell you that dozens of RS citations and praise from 5 or 6 big-name journalists is rather unusual. This level of reception is usually sufficient to establish a source even without certified documents attesting to expert tier opinions. -Thibbs (talk

) 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Since this is now the third forum for this conversation, I guess I should provide yet another summary of the sources engaging with Kierkegaard's ideas, praising him, and otherwise citing him. See the box below:

The above evidence has all been offered previously so I don't expect it to change any minds, but just for the sake of the record I think it's important to establish what exactly the anti-Kierkegaard camp is dismissing as normal accolades regularly given to internet no-ones. -Thibbs (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Note how the writers above are published in reliable sources, and Kierkegaard is not. Thibbs highlights the Loading journal, which is a reliable source. Note how that is the only reliable source to have even mentioned the book Thibbs wants to cite in its entire publication history. This is a book with zero reviews. -

n

02:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, if Kierkegaard was remotely prominent, you wouldn't have to dress up your links with so much fluff. Indiegames links to insomnia because of a magazine scan they uploaded. Siliconera highlights a list of shops to buy games from. You wouldn't have to argue that non-games are a close cousin to art-games, when if you actually read the article, you'll find that dictionary apps are not remotely art-games, and the piece had nothing to do with this subject. Most of the GameSetWatch mentions (note how he's only linked to from GamaSutra's sister blog, and never Gamasutra) are from the regular links roundup. -

n

02:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

More barrel scraping - I mentioned previously that the "Gameplay pipeline, med skriptspråk" paper was a Master's thesis and not a peer reviewed piece of research. Thibbs' most recent find is the "Irrevocability in Games" paper, which is a piece of coursework for a bachelor's degree, it's not even the thesis, it's someone's homework. And by "less depthy", it means that they copied a screenshot from insomnia.ac. That's it. -

n

03:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely missed the point. It's not that every RS citation covers him in detail, it's that he's covered in a variety of RSes. Are you suggesting that the only thing he's ever been cited for is image hosting? That's obviously flat wrong. He's covered in greater depth in the sources you didn't attack and at those linked from the previous two talk pages we've been chatting on. Anyway the above is a thoroughly useless recycling of all your old arguments. We disagree. Get over it. You're probably not going to convince me that he doesn't meet Wikipedia's minimum standards just like I'm never going to convince you no matter what evidence I offer that he is reliable. I've actually read all of the articles I've linked and they demonstrate to me that the RSes do actually pay some attention to AK. As far as I can see you've already made up your mind that he's not reliable and I don't think there's anything anyone could do to change it. This back and forth with me saying "He's not perfect but he meets the minimum threshold and covers the topic in depth" and you saying "He's pathetic! 40 words is all the coverage of him I've seen! Fringe! Undue!" is getting us nowhere. If you don't like any of the compromises offered so far, please make an effort and come up with one yourself. -Thibbs (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion #3

I'm concerned that this return to discussing the merits of the source in talk here is unlikely to be productive as we've already tried it at two other fora previously. I just don't think we're going to agree on whether AK meets the minimum threshold for citability on Wikipedia. I've already offered plenty of evidence that he does and Indrian and Hahnchen have not accepted any of it. So there's little hope in my mind that any of us will suddenly have an epiphany and realize that the other side was correct all along.

I've come up with another idea that could represent a compromise, though I have to say I've lost a lot of stomach for compromises considering that every compromise offered so far has been resisted/rejected and I've seen no proposed compromises coming from the anti-Kierkegaard camp whatsoever. Given that both sides understand the other's position very thoroughly now, there's no need to give a detailed explanations here but a simple yes or no !vote will be good enough. I propose that the entire Criticism section be reworked with help from both sides to ensure that no fringe theories are presented and that the Kierkegaard source be shifted down into a new "Further reading" section without providing a reference to any claim. It would be unlinked since it's a book and it would only take up 87 bytes (representing 0.1% of the total article size) so undue prominence couldn't conceivably be an issue. We'd of course need additional "further reading" sources to balance out its negative POV with positive POVs and to expand other facets of the topic. Would this satisfy everyone at last? -Thibbs (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• As compromises go, that is not bad. I accept it. I also want to clarify something to provide greater understanding of my position, as I think I did a poor job of conveying this earlier. My problem with the sources presented is that, generally speaking, each one only addresses one particular statement or theory rather than his whole body of work. This causes two problems: no specific idea of his receives a high level of coverage, while at the same time there is no good indication that he deserves general recognition since each source is examining one specific area without addressing the question of general notoriety. If every source you provided covered one specific idea of his, I would probably be satisfied that this idea had been widely discussed. Likewise, if every source you provided recognized him as an expert general theoretician on video game topics, that would also probably be sufficient. I do not believe it is possible to infer general or specific expertise from the current sources, however, due to a lack of such focus. Indrian (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that, if you applied that criterion to other references used at Video Games articles, very few of them would come out as reliable sources. Diego Moya (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Remember this person is self-published, not a writer for a blog that has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The standards are different when self-publishing is involved. Indrian (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Even someone who is self-published but has been commented on by other reliable sources means to someone their opinion "matters" (favorably or otherwise). There is a danger of SPS's being used to justify controversial claims, but when we are using an SPS to cite the person's opinion, and an opinion that has been called out by others, there is no RS violations going on here. As an external link to such as a section it would be fine. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, like I said, I am fine with an external link as a compromise. Still have to see what Hahnchen thinks though, so the two of them don't end up in an edit war. Indrian (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I can speak for Hahnchen when I say that there's no danger of us getting into an actual edit war. We've both been editing for long enough to know better. I hope we can soon put this behind us and move on to something productive like improving the criticism section. -Thibbs (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No external link. The level of coverage that Kierkegaard has attained is pathetic. Compare that to actual writers who are published in reliable sources.

WP:V

specifies - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", Thibbs claims we can ignore the "published" criteria because the links above qualify him as an expert who's opinion matters. I disagree.

This book has generated 40 words of coverage. No content is lost by removing it. The only reason it's even being discussed is that Thibbs thinks highly of it. Reliable sources do not. We go with the latter. -

n

02:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess we've simply hit a total deadlock. I notice hahnchen has now decided to start the same discussion all over again at a 4th forum and from previous comments I can see that he's prepared to

1. The AK source does not in fact introduce any WP:FRINGE whatsoever. No support has emerged for this claim despite several invitations.
2. The AK source does not in fact serve to provide WP:UNDUE coverage of his ideas. No support for this claim has emerged either.
3. AK himself has been sufficiently cited by RSes to be considered sufficiently reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. In actual practice, several dozen citations by academic and journalistic RSes and praise from several renowned authors is sufficient to establish reliability for most RSes including self-published blogs. Obviously I recognize that some parties wish to hold this source to higher standards and thus do not find this to be an RS.
4. The AK source is useful, informative, and the only one currently available that even comes remotely close to "comprehensive coverage" of the topic of "art game criticism". If any similarly-cited source of equivalent scope and breadth on the topic of "art game criticism" in fact exists then please bring it forth and we can forget about AK. If, however, the proposed "improvement" of the criticism section is to excise from the entire article its most in-depth source on "art game criticism" then I have to disagree that it helps in the least.

It looks to me like Hahnchen's draconian approach has failed to gain consensus after 3 weeks. The most recently suggested compromise has been accepted by everyone so far apart from Hahnchen. I don't think the inclusion of this source harms the article in any way but it does improve it by informing readers of criticism of the genre in a lengthy 104 page book, and it provides a useful service to the article's neutrality by presenting the contrary perspective. I'm concerned that there is more effort being put into battlegrounding than into collaborating. And I'm not at all impressed by a total inability to compromise (see "no fucking compromise") when faced with deadlock arising out of a goodfaith difference of opinion. It's not remotely collegial. -Thibbs (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's on another fora, because

n

12:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We've discussed the issues of sourcing. No one disagrees that Keirkegaard is an

WP:SPS, but as the SPS page says, these aren't forbidden as sources, but should be used with due care. Now, if no one else in the world ever mentioned Kierkegaard, ever, yes, stuffing his view in here would be a misuse of an SPS (the usual result of an SPS), but this is not the case. Others in clearly reliable sources have mentioned him and his art games essay alongside other viewpoints about video games as art, though generally pointing out how his view is out in left field. For purposes of talking about the various opinions on the concept video games as art, we have RS that suggest that this viewpoint be considered, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with using any of Kierkegaard's SPS works as citable material, as long as we clearly don't swing the entire article into one supportive of his theories. --MASEM (t

) 13:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"nothing wrong with using any of Kierkegaard's SPS works" -

n

14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Thibbs has argued that WP:SPS does not apply because these are opinions", because

that's what Wikipedia guidelines say. Are you in favor of following Wikipedia guidelines or not? Diego Moya (talk

) 15:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about opinions on the concept of art games, and as long as his opinion has been discussed by others, its reasonable to include. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider the books coverage, 40 words in one paper. Elevating this to an external link, pointing it out as further reading would be giving this book significantly more weight than it deserves. The one paper it has been cited in, also cites 3 and a half pages of references. Would you place each of those in an external link?

And so the question goes, why - given Kierkegaard's lack of coverage in third party reliable sources, are we to elevate his self-published work on Wikipedia? -

n

23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your argument up until now has been that the original version of the article gave undue prominence to the ideas contained in the book. That problem, if it had any actual merit, could not be cured by blanking the reference alone because the undue idea would still remain. It's not very hard to understand. You're now changing your UNDUE argument to say that because one piece of writing by an otherwise reliable writer hasn't been discussed by anything apart from a top Canadian university journal it's therefore unusable by Wikipedia for a "see also" section. I disagree. -Thibbs (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with citing the journal. That's a reliable source. I don't buy your argument that sources do not have to be reliable if it's an opinion. Giving Kierkegaard any kind of special elevation to "see also", over the 3 and a half pages of citations in that paper would clearly give it undue weight. -

n

12:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I'm on vacation currently and won't be able to respond much in the next few days but I'm still open to the compromise #3 above and unless someone can come up with something better, I'm definitely opposed to hahnchen's complete removal of the book which is to my knowledge the most comprehensive work on "art game criticism" produced by an author who has been frequently cited and praised by the RSes. If a better source is produced while I'm gone then go ahead and swap out the AK source. Otherwise I strongly object to its removal and will rejoin the discussion when I get back. -Thibbs (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've put the question whehther Kierkegaard can be a valid SPS RS to

• While I am still willing to accept the compromise for the sake of wikipeace, I fully agree with Hahnchen's statements. Self-published authors are held to a higher standard by wikipedia's policies that require they be certified as experts by published reliable sources before their works are cited. None of the many sources presented here have actually accorded Kierkegaard that stature. His works are therefore not reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that the best way forward is through compromise. As Indrian's comments suggest, and as I've long felt myself, the best compromises result in the giving of ground by both sides. In dropping the stick and allowing the current compromise to persist, Hahnchen can rest assured that the source he considers toxic is no longer used in any way as support for the claims making up the substance of this Wikipedia article. Any fringe ideas it has are no longer presented in Wikipedia if they ever were and whatever weight the ideas may have been given has been reduced to a single line buried in a section at the en suggesting longer sources that readers can look into more deeply if they are interested. At the same time, those who view the Kierkegaard source as helpful to a neutral and complete coverage of the topic can rest assured that one of the most in-depth sources on the topic of "art game criticism" remains available (even if only by brief mention) for readers interested in the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• The compromise is that the content remains, Kierkegaard doesn't. I'm sick of having to remove this self-published book with next to zero coverage, just because it enjoys the protection of 2 Wikipedians who hold it in high regard. This entire debate has been a mockery of
  n
  17:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's absolutely not a compromise (much less the compromise that has already been agreed to). Are you joking? You're trying to establish an edit that has not in any sense achieved consensus. This is not your own personal encyclopedia and you can't hold your breath and keep reverting to get your way.
    Due to a month-long crusade to remove the source from all of Wikipedia, every effort has been made to offer you a compromise. And you've spat at it all, meeting the collaborative spirit with rancor. I see no evidence of any effort to work with your fellow editors, but only to impose your will on them regardless of the merits of their position. It's wonderful that you've managed to get Indrian to support your underlying concerns, but even after spreading the argument to 4 talk pages, he remains the only one who shares your concerns and significantly he's agreed to the latest compromise - relegating the source to a single footnote at the tail end of the article, lost among several other sources. Although I disagree with Indrian's view on the matter, it's clear to me that he's at least interested in taking this discussion in a constructive direction. You are the only person who views this source as so dangerous to the readers as to require complete excision from all corners of Wikipedia despite clear evidence that the author has been praised and cited by dozens of journalistic and academic RSes.
    Despite your thinly-veiled accusations, this isn't in fact some elaborate plot to promote an obnoxious writer. It's an effort to provide the readership with comprehensive and neutral coverage of the article's topic. That selection of this 104-page source over the other 2-paragraph alternatives is based on the opinions of your editor-peers (i.e. the unsourced view that it is in fact a thorough criticism) is absolutely not a proper basis to dismiss it. It should come as no surprise to you that the selection of all sources in all articles comes through the discretion of your editor-peers exercising their good faith opinions in the interest of the readership. As sick as you are of having to revert war to get your way, I'm sick of the rancor and bad faith assumptions. Nobody came to Wikipedia to play at wiki-gladiators with you in your own special arena. The rest of us are here to collaborate constructively. Neither Indrian nor those who view the Kierkegaard source as useful and informative would consider the current compromise to be perfect, but that's what it means to compromise. That's the first step leading to constructive collaboration. If you can't handle that and your only frank interest here is to remove the Kierkegaard source then perhaps the best way to do so is to propose a superior alternative source. Until that time, your draconian edit represents a change contrary to consensus and is thus completely unproductive. I find the revert war games to be repugnant in the extreme and I refuse to participate in them. You've been here 8 years and yet you think this is an acceptable way to behave? -Thibbs (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "Editor-peers" are not experts, it's why we use reliable sources. Independently published, reliable sources - we trust publishers and reviewers as the filter as to what should be used, not the word of an editor-peer. I tried to remove one sentence at
      n
      00:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
      • You have edit warred and failed to abide by the consensus of others that this is a reasonable source to include. Consensus does not require everyone to like the result. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Why should I accept a "compromise" that is against policy? You understand that the argument to keep this book boils down to "I like this book", and that the argument against it is that "reliable sources don't". This "consensus" consists of exactly same editors who deemed the book a reliable source in the first place. -
          n
          00:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Because the book's inclusion is not flat-out against policy, so ergo edit warring over its removal is inappropriate. If it was something like a problem with BLP, you'd have every right to keep removing it, but that's not the case here. Yes, it is not the best source in the world, but there's no policy that you have been able to cite for how the book is being used here that makes it against policy, except in your own opinion. As consensus has evaluated the book differently against policy (which has been pointed out above) as a reasonable source to include for the author's opinions but nothing else, there's no reason to remove it. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Congratulations on finding a section of an article where promoting the work is "not flat-out against policy", that's a great place to be. You've Wikilawyered and found "further reading", the only place on Wikipedia where apparently anything goes. And standards of
              n
              12:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
          • You're of course encouraged to suggest a superior alternative source if any exist, Hahnchen. The point is not that this source must be included but that
            neutrality must be preserved by presenting a comprehensive critical view of this topic. Please stop revert warring, though. -Thibbs (talk
            ) 03:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Essentially, the reason against its removal, is that in the "further reading" section, anything goes - and that "editor-peers" suggestions take primacy over reliable sources. Sure, he doesn't meet the standards of
  WP:RS, but in "further reading", anything goes. Not a single editor has been persuaded that Kierkegaard is suitable, instead I've been buffeted by the same editors who felt that Kierkegaard was qualified and reliable enough to be cited in the lead of the Video games as an art form
  .
• Thibbs' assertion that source is necessary because of
  n
  12:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been explained sufficiently above that the inclusion of Kierkegaard's work is not something out of the blue, that others have pointed to his SPS as a counterpoint on the topic of art and video games; however, these sources don't explain the details, just that he has an alternate take. Thus, a single mention among all the other opinions that already exist about art and video games, using the noted SPS (which, again, is not necessarily an automatic WP:V/WP:RS failure) is completely acceptable inside policy. You're the only one fighting outright removal against what policy and IAR allows. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you guys think? Should we have any? There are definitely a few key websites that crop up again and again if you look for more info on the art game scene. Several of them also house the writings of key figures in the scene and several of these are university professors or art museum curators. So there's at least some kind of a good RS-related rationale for including them. I'll list the main ones I've run across below. Please give me input on them and on the general idea of adding external links. As with any topic like this I'm wary about letting it turn into a massive link-farm from good-intentioned people who just don't understand Wikipedia's rules.

• ArtGameStudies.org - Maintained by School of the Art Institute of Chicago professor, Jon Cates
• ArtGames.ning.com - Members only (although some parts are indexed by Google)
• ArthouseGames - Jason Rohrer's website
• CriticalGameStudies -
  Georgia Institute of Technology
  professor, Devin Monnens
• GameScenes.org - California College of the Arts professor, Matteo Bittanti
• NYU Game Center
• Rhizome.org - Affiliated with the New Museum.
• SelectParks at Ljudmila.org - The current home of the early Select Parks website, featuring the writings of Rebecca Cannon, Julian Oliver, and others.
• VideoGamesAsArtMedium - An art&game blog run by Lubisintern
• We-Make-Money-Not-Art.com - An art&game blog run by curator and author Régine Debatty

I'm kind of torn over whether this article needs an external sources section at all. Most of the other game genre articles do not have such a section. And again, I'm concerned about the potential for this to encourage others to add their own websites as SPAM. If we do want a section like this, though, then the above are some examples of the most active related websites. -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Referring to the Diego Moya edit summary "Who put the template? These red links are compliant with the guideline" I answer that admin ilk put it.

My reverted edit had randomly minimized the red linking. Give me the shortlist, and I will relink them, and without further need for discussion about the several guidelines (within guidelines and around), hopefully.

There were 416 unique link names. I had left a random four red.

Now there are again 484 links, the difference being red links going from 1% to 14%. So here is a (editable) list of 65 red links:

want two per section? Want a percent per article? Would you consider editing me a list from it? I can relink automatically with any kind of list (keep, remove, add) you leave me. — CpiralCpiral 18:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally redlinks are permissible as a guide for the creation of articles that should be created because the subject is notable and verifiable. In the list at hand all entries have at least one RS backing them up and so the verifiability criterion is met. Notability isn't established here, but other sources exist for the majority of these topics. So most of them, considered individually, would probably be fine. The template was probably put up for reasons of overlinking concerns, but of course that's a valid editorial judgment as well.

My personal view is that there are some members of the list that should certainly be redlinked. Good articles could fairly easily be written on: Eddo Stern, Mark Essen, The Huffington Post, Tiffany Holmes, and Zach Gage at the very least. In fact it looks like an article has already been started on Randy Balma: Municipal Abortionist

valid redlinks. -Thibbs (talk

) 19:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We have already agreed that there are too many red links. I will agree to Eddo Stern, Mark Essen, The Huffington Post, Tiffany Holmes, and Zach Gage, or whichever you say they are. I say that because I can text process the relinking (automatically). So we could continue to tailor the look and feel, and adjust. I will advocate downward adjustments until the a number is a quantity of red links exactly equal to the number of subjects needed to support this article plus subjects this article could support, thus beginning a stance that is disregarding "article creation and deletion guides" for the most part, and refocuses on subject creation guides, plus a few article creation guides. See, when those red links are blue, what it takes to understand Art games has reached such a degree as it is being reviewed for a featured article, such as the red links at the featured list article

WP:CSC) in the other featured list articles (Wikipedia:Featured lists). — CpiralCpiral

01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have no idea what you mean by "subjects needed to support this article plus subjects this article could support" but I'm glad to see that you've agreed to stop delinking every redlink in sight. There may be redlinks that should be delinked, but please only delink those redlinks that are associated with non-notable topics. To determine which are non-notable you must make a goodfaith effort to look for reliable sources on the topic. If no RSes can be located on a redlinked topic then it's reasonable to assume that no article could be written on the topic. Simply delinking them all without looking to see if they are notable topics is not helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

During my absence I was very busy thinking about the general situation this discussion brought up. It is sad that I cannot just go by the cleanup tag and point my bot and click. I wish a red-link cleanup gnome's work could be without discernment, but here is what that would take: 1) WP:RL explained the two kinds of red links 2) The tag was placed by someone who understood the two descriptions. 3) The authors clearly demarcated the two, preferably by avoiding mixing the two in a stand-alone lists (

WP:CSC), if possible. Now the two kinds of red links are these: one is the subject kind (WP:outlines), where "subjects support each other" and the other is the "article creation guideline" kind where "articles support each other". That is what I have come to believe. — CpiralCpiral

18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get where you're coming from, Cpiral. Are you measuring the suitability of red links for inclusion depending on the volume and percentage of links in the page, instead of the topic that the red link points to?

The topic suitability is already measured. It is suitable. (For an understanding of red-link functionality that is suitable-topic related, namely scoping functionality, see

what I wrote in MoS talkspace. The suitablity for editors differs from readers. By "a percentage of links", I'm speaking for the readers. Thibbs has given me a list to keep, and I intend to relink to his recommendations for the editorship here. — CpiralCpiral

01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm the first one to

their letter; my pointing to WP:Red link

was a reminder that there are cases where a red link provides value, and in my opinion most if not all the instances in this list are thus valuable "legitimate red links", as they inform of topics for which an article or section can likely be written (and could signal when such article has been written).

What is your rationale though for wanting to reduce the number of red links? What would be gained by turning them in plain text? Diego (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Readability, that readership-orientation value we'd better have. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If the only reason is readability, the rules are not the same as for plain text; as this is a list, one red link at each line is OK, and in this case actually better than the black text. At least all game names should be red linked. Having one red or blue link per line helps readability; in the version where some games are written as black text, it's more difficult to scan the start of each line. It could be Ok to remove the second red link for the game publisher at lines where both are red links. Diego (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. The list items with sentence structures, if all black, are not as quick to read. I looked at some other lists and saw the "lead effect" where the first word is almost always blue link, and how red link is the same light, and how black would not start as well. Your point is that, like syntax highlighting

class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello World!"); // Print "Hello World!"
    }
}

    print "Hello World!\n";

class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello World!"); // Print "Hello World!"
    }
}

    print "Hello World!\n";