Jump to content

Proposal: Remove wikis from General information


Recommended Posts

Proposal to remove wikis from General information and the Editing guide.

Wikis were included because generally speaking there was 'the one' wiki everyone used. However with the advent of massive wikifarms, a single game could have several wikis associated with it.

Problems:

  • Inconsistencies with 'community wiki' / 'official wiki' terminology - meaningless as all wikis are community wikis
  • Wikis don't offer technical information
  • If a wiki contains a good technical page, this could be linked to separately

Proposed solution:

  • Remove any game wikis from General information

Time limit: 7 days (14th June 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm okay with the idea and I don't think PCGW will miss out on anything if those links are removed.

When adding a link to an article I'm thinking of whether it would be valuable to a potential reader and how much weight there is to it. There's no universal approach, because linking a wiki or a subreddit for a game released on the EGS with no official platforms to offer is of different value compared to adding it to a game that is on Steam, where the Steam Discussions and Guides platforms are commonly used to achieve the same purpose as that of a subreddit or a wiki, to name a few.

I don't think the discussion started over the presumed confusion between official vs community. It was Aemony asking about the more appropriate wording for a non-official wiki - "community" (used by me) vs "unofficial" (used by Aemony). It's of no essence but my argument for and reasoning behind the word "community" is purely based on the guidelines and commonly used words in the articles - GOG.com Community Discussions, Steam Community Discussions, and especially Community wikis - all taken from Key points and General information. The word "unofficial" isn't even used on the page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about GOG and Steam 'Community' is that it is the name of the page, we just link them with that name because it's what their titles are and it so happens that these titles are descriptive. However they are essentially forums with threads and replies.

I am open to the ideas of discussing Community vs Unofficial but this should be a separate thread with a proposed outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I'll abstain from making a choice either for or against, as I can't really make up my mind on it yet.

 

For removal:

  • What's mentioned in the opening post.
  • Games in a series often have the same franchise-reaching wiki listed on all games in that series.
  • Can be the cause of edit wars as a result of "competing" unofficial wikis.
    • This is applicable for all non-official links.
  • In the case of multiple "competing" wikis being available, no simple answer for editors is available on which one to include.
    • This is applicable for all non-official links.

 

Against removal:

  • Still relevant to visitors in some fashion, and the General information section "is a list of general links that are relevant to the game."
  • This touches partially on what PCGW wants to be, and cover. PCGW have included mentions of official/community wikis as well as "fan sites" as acceptable being listed in the General information section for years now, and while perhaps a wiki haven't been listed in all cases, it is one of the more frequently seen links of articles. This is one of the least "technical-focused" aspects of articles, and is more about general information about the universe of the game etc.
    • Basically, do PCGW only want to concern itself with technical stuff about a game, or try to serve as a universal springboard for further resources a player might want.
      • Should players be linked to PCGW only when it concerns technical matters, or should PCGW be able to link players forward in non-technical matters as well?
    • This relates to possible discoverability of titles through PCGW, if such a thing is desired as a goal of the site.
  • Minor food for thought that can potentially be affected:
    • How would search engine rankings be affected by the removal of these sorts of keywords?

 

Alternative proposals:

  • #1: Remove unofficial wikis only, and keep official wikis when possible.
  • #2: Don't change anything, but clear up the phrasing involved when listing unofficial wikis in the Editing Guide, and continue to allow the PCGW community to sort this out themselves what wiki to link to as have been done for years.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aemony said:

#1: Remove unofficial wikis only, and keep official wikis when possible.

This would be my choice if any change would have to be made and it is the way I've been listing wikis in the past. Usually these are the ones that are linked on a games official website.

 

However, all the above mentioned problems can just as well be applied to fan sites and not only wikis. So this discussion should probably concern both types of content.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't yet thought this through, but I'm in favor of removing at least Wikia (fandom.com, wikia.org) as the information in the game wikis is often unsourced and non-encyclopedic (subjective most commonly), in addition to Wikia, Inc. being a for-profit company with millions in funds

I can't recall of Wikia has hosted the "official" wiki for a major game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If wiki links are to be removed, we should consider making exemptions for the following sites:
ftlwiki.com
gunpointwiki.net
prisonarchitectwiki.com
siryouarebeinghuntedwiki.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

Is it allowed to start removing Wikia (now fandom.com) under "general information" in all articles? For instance the Harry Potter series pages always include this line:

{{mm}} [http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Harry Potter Wiki] - A massive wiki for the Harry Potter universe

"Massive" is subjective and the URL is entirely outdated (but redirects) — should be completely in any case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mars icecream said:

"Massive" is subjective and the URL is entirely outdated (but redirects) — should be completely rewritten in any case.

I would remove the "massive" part without thinking. Absolutely subjective indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/7/2019 at 3:45 PM, Andytizer said:

Wikis don't offer technical information

False

Then of course, not every wiki can be as thorough as ME one. But if any this should be the determinant factor. 

Is that an actually useful resource, perhaps with many people to get in touch with, or is just like ten not-even-finished pages?

On 6/7/2019 at 5:02 PM, Aemony said:

This touches partially on what PCGW wants to be, and cover. PCGW have included mentions of official/community wikis as well as "fan sites" as acceptable being listed in the General information section for years now, and while perhaps a wiki haven't been listed in all cases, it is one of the more frequently seen links of articles. This is one of the least "technical-focused" aspects of articles, and is more about general information about the universe of the game etc.

I'm really desperately in need of an answer to this too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Found PCGamingWiki useful? Please consider making a Donation or visiting our Patreon.
  • Similar Content

    • By onlinepc
      This wiki provides lots of info on patches, fixes and ways to tune the game to work on pc. But as someone who plays kb+m, it's difficult to find ways to tell if a ported game managed to convert controller prompts to kb+m equivalents.
      Any chance we could add this information to wiki's for games ported to pc?
    • By stuttgart
      I've had the idea that the infoboxes should somewhere contain information about a game's save system, since there are a lot of different ways games handle it:
      - Roguelikes (dying completely resets you, but you retain certain benefits)
      - Hardcore-modes where dying deletes your savegame, e.g. "Trial of Iron" mode in Pillars of Eternity 2
      - Only at the start of each level, e.g. Freespace 2
      - Only checkpoint / autosave, e.g. most modern shooters
      - Checkpoints that can be manually activated several times, e.g. Resident Evil typewriters or sleeping in Kingdom Come: Deliverance
      - Bonfire-system, e.g. Dark Souls (like above, but respawns all enemies)
      - Free, manual saving (and whether it also allows in combat + how many available save slots)
      - "Free" saving that still resets you to checkpoints, e.g. Tomb Raider: Legend
      - Manual saving, but at a cost, e.g. Kingdom Come: Deliverance (consumes alcohol)
      - Quicksaves
      - Special savegame shenanigans (e.g. message if you save too often in Metal Gear Solid 1, deleting your savegames if you die too often in Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, voluntary savegame deletion in Nier and Nier: Automata...)
      - Whether it allows to select individual chapters to replay, e.g. Syndicate (2012) and Condemned: Criminal Origins
       
      What do you think about this feature? For me personally, not being able to save freely is almost disqualifying for a game, so I always want to know such information. And it often changes even inside a franchise (e.g. FEAR 1 has manual saving, 2 and 3 only have checkpoints; Splinter Cell 1-4 allow manual saves and quicksaves, 5 and 6 only have checkpoints; Call of Juarez 1+2 has quicksaves, 3+4 only has checkpoints; etc.), so even if you like the previous installment you can't be sure if the next game works the same when you want to buy it.
      This information could be included in the infobox below the "save game location" info. It could just be simplified into a simple checkbox whether the game allows manual saves or not, and a "Notes" field with additional information (e.g. the things I listed above, how many save slots etc.). This way it wouldn't be cluttered, you just have a simple "Manual Saves?" checkbox next to the save location, and if there is any additional custom information, it can be written into the Notes field. What do you think about that?
    • By Dave247
      This is follow on from my post on the Special K Steam Discussions, but expanded to include other third party tools such as Re:shade.
      Link to Steam Discussion thread: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1157970/discussions/0/2650881941771332222/
      Reply from: @Aemony
       
    • By EVERGREEN
      Today more than ever, (fast) storage space is expensive. One thing that always makes me mad is the insane amount of unused Localizations, game modes (often dead/closed multiplayer modes) that are installed by default - this is literally dead content. Wasted storage. Wasted money.
      Now back in ye old days, it used to be a gigabyte at best. Not the end of the world, and not exactly worth the time investment. But old habits die hard, and I'm still doing it today.

      With games becoming larger and larger, storage has become an issue that can thankfully be alleviated. 
      I'm going to list a few interesting examples, then propose a solution and finally suggest a way to integrate it to PCGW's structure. I'll also list a couple of issues with my proposal, potential flaws and uses cases etc. If you have a better idea or any suggestion to make this a thing, you're more than welcome.

      Please note that all the numbers given are taken from Steam, but GoG, Uplay, EGS & Origin are guilty of the very same thing. Uplay's even worse, as always. 
      Any constructive feedback would be much appreciated - I never suggested a feature before, but this one has been on the back of my mind for at least a year. I feel like it could be very useful to many folks out there.

      So, let's get to it. Those are easy ones to "clean-up" (more on that later):
      Batman Arkham Origins. Had a multiplayer mode, servers are down. Delete one folder and the install size goes from 27.06Gb to 18.1Gb. 9Gb (33%) saved Final Fantasy XIII. Well documented, check the PCGW entry for it, you can remove ~20Gb if you don't want the Japanese audio. 57.6Gb to 37.7Gb. 19.9Gb (52%) saved (!!!) Doom 2016. Do you really play the MP or Snapmap modes? That's ~15Gb (11Gb if you only delete the MP) saved. From 69.68Gb to 54.68Gb. 15Gb (21.5%) saved Here's the problem. I can manually delete all localizations, "deluxe edition content", Readme/Support and redists safely from most MT_Framework, UE3 and Ubi games just fine because they use the same naming conventions. All I have to do is search in the root folder for any file with the _ita. suffix for instance and delete it - but that's because I know what I'm doing and I'm willing to take the time to locate and delete those files. 
      Listing that would massively bloat any page of course, and not many users would do it anyways. 

      The best way I can think of to implement a reliable and simple method to delete files that we're absolutely sure are safe to delete goes something like this:
       
      Add a "debloatable" boolean to the Other Information infobox, If True, how much can be shaved-off at best. Users like myself could build a database of games we know we can "shave" (much like SK/ReShade compat, with a dedicated page) The end user would download a batch file, hosted here and verified by members based on a template which would include one option for each localization, and a "clean-up" option (remove Readme, Deluxe content, redists if safe) So for instance, I can flag all the localization for Resident Evil 6 and write them down in the dedicated page. I don't have any experience making modular batch files like that however, so someone else would have to make a template. I can then edit that batch to point it to all the files we want to delete. The end user launches the batch file, delete all locales but the one he's/she's using and boom. That's money saved right there.
      I know there are programs that are much better than Win Explorer's Search feature - if we can feed such a program with a config file it should do the trick too. We'd still need to build a database though. 

      I do realize that I make it sound much easier than it may be, or that it may sound overkill if we're talking about a Gb at best. But for extreme cases like Doom 2016, Far Cry 3/4, FF XIII, the Arkham series, The Evil Within - huge games basically, it would be very helpful and hey, I'm already doing it anyways so might as well share it. There's also games like Battlefront 2 (2005) where you can cut the install size in half. It's about 5Gb (vanilla) if memory serves, about 2-3Gb when cleaned. 
      With that said, if anything I hope that this thread at least brings more attention to this issue. 

      Last but not least, to everyone: Happy holidays! I hope you're all doing well, and ready for more PCGW grunt work for this year to come.
      "Keep on keeping on". 
    • By mrrobertman
      Proposal to show support of Steam Family Sharing on the Wiki pages, as some games do not support Steam Family Sharing (this is the most recent list I could find) and this could be useful information to be recorded.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 317 Guests (See full list)

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    1,512
    Total Topics
    8,163
    Total Posts
×
×
  • Create New...