Difference between revisions of "Electro-mechanical arcade games"
From Sega Retro
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::I think EM history is probably better spread across each of the game pages. If it becomes unmanagable, we can reconsider it at a later date. We've got by without needing a page devoted to video arcade games, so I think we can survive without an electro-mechanical one for now. | ::I think EM history is probably better spread across each of the game pages. If it becomes unmanagable, we can reconsider it at a later date. We've got by without needing a page devoted to video arcade games, so I think we can survive without an electro-mechanical one for now. | ||
::It's really to just reduce the chances of writing things more than once. Because if some new information comes to light, that would be twice as many pages to update and there's a strong risk of things getting out of sync -[[User:Black Squirrel|Black Squirrel]] ([[User talk:Black Squirrel|talk]]) 14:16, 6 April 2017 (CDT) | ::It's really to just reduce the chances of writing things more than once. Because if some new information comes to light, that would be twice as many pages to update and there's a strong risk of things getting out of sync -[[User:Black Squirrel|Black Squirrel]] ([[User talk:Black Squirrel|talk]]) 14:16, 6 April 2017 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I hate to do it but that "history" section is just repeating things, and we don't care about Kasco (unless there's a genuine Sega-Kasco story to be told, in which case it's better placed elsewhere, like on a Kasco page). I think three or four paragraphs max is enough to get the point across on a category page - if we're using subheadings we've gone too far. | ||
| + | |||
| + | And those references are not great. Wikipedia is not a bastion for demonstrating how references should be done - it points towards sites which have taken their information from Wikipedia, i.e. it effectively references itself. Just because it's on a database doesn't mean it's true - far better to use sources from the era (e.g. stuff on Retro CDN) than works produced in the post-internet age. -[[User:Black Squirrel|Black Squirrel]] ([[User talk:Black Squirrel|talk]]) 14:47, 13 April 2017 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:47, 13 April 2017
Erm, yep. Bit big for a category page I think. If we're having to scroll down to get to the "category" part, that's not generally a good sign.
I would say this is better suited to an "Electro-mechanical arcade games" page, but I'm very much aware that most of this is copy-pasted from Wikipedia (spoilers: not the best of plans - the clue was dodgy references), and is a mixture of things outside the scope of this wiki or better suited to the indivdual game pages (like that paragraph on Periscope). Wikipedia is better placed for general overviews of the history of arcade games - we're more focused with Sega-specific titles.
I could flatten this page out myself but here's your opportunity to beat me to it -Black Squirrel (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2017 (CDT)
- My apologies. I only noticed this post now. I was thinking about moving much of the content to individual game pages. What about a separate page for electro-mechanical games? (But with more of a focus on Sega.) Over9000 (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2017 (CDT)
- I think EM history is probably better spread across each of the game pages. If it becomes unmanagable, we can reconsider it at a later date. We've got by without needing a page devoted to video arcade games, so I think we can survive without an electro-mechanical one for now.
- It's really to just reduce the chances of writing things more than once. Because if some new information comes to light, that would be twice as many pages to update and there's a strong risk of things getting out of sync -Black Squirrel (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2017 (CDT)
I hate to do it but that "history" section is just repeating things, and we don't care about Kasco (unless there's a genuine Sega-Kasco story to be told, in which case it's better placed elsewhere, like on a Kasco page). I think three or four paragraphs max is enough to get the point across on a category page - if we're using subheadings we've gone too far.
And those references are not great. Wikipedia is not a bastion for demonstrating how references should be done - it points towards sites which have taken their information from Wikipedia, i.e. it effectively references itself. Just because it's on a database doesn't mean it's true - far better to use sources from the era (e.g. stuff on Retro CDN) than works produced in the post-internet age. -Black Squirrel (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2017 (CDT)