![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Image:Al-v-Am.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Possible bootleg, 2004, distributor listed as Global Star, with new cover,, in DVD-style case. [7] Could well be a completely different game that just stole the name. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Izno: This mass-deletion of content does not appear to be supportable. Games, like all other works of fiction, are permissible primary sources for their own content. And some of the material deleted had explicitly cited other sources. If there's something in particular that isn't primary-sourceable to the game itself, or to a third-party source, or which seems like WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE trivia, let's discuss removing that particular bit. However, the coverage of VP3's game play isn't excessive compared to larger VG articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
But even a "down with gamer-cruft" curmudgeon like me sees encyclopedic value in the facts of the years and divisions, i.e. "yes, there was a world Virtual Pool 3 tournament for the cowboy pool game in 2007". I think that WPVG people are apt to insist that the winner's usernames be included, but hopefully I'm wrong. Countries? Only if the competition was set up along national lines like the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, and only if the names are included. At any rate, I don't buy the argument that the entire table is "promotional" since the event series apparently isn't running any longer, VIPLadder is/was free, even the links to players were to stats, not to personal websites (i.e., a clear attempt to source the player names and rankings), and we have plenty of coverage of e-sports events elsewhere.
The entire event table could be compressed into a paragraph or a short list, saying which disciplines had a championship in which year, and without the winner names, since none of them are notable.
@ SMcCandlish: The four video game reviews already-not-cited evidence at least passing notability if not flying-colors notability. Sports video games are generally a dime a dozen (how many times can you re-release NFL Madden?) so I can understand the "they're probably not notable" against which you might have needed to defend, but in this case, we're good. (And even if not notability for VP3, there's most likely notability for the series as a whole.)
Perhaps you need some background so you can understand the rationale of why there are somewhat more-strict guidelines in place for video games. For better or worse, video game articles and related content were considered (and still are to many!--while I won't dispute Jane Austen is probably going to difficult to write, it also has the benefit of scholarship and authoritative works on its side, unlike most of pop culture) some of the easiest to write, and clearly the least-valuable on Wikipedia. This love of fiction in the early days lead to cruft every-which-way, which spawned the fiction decimation of the 2006-2008 era. Since, the video games project has tried its best to hew to the vision that we are a generalist encyclopedia dedicated to principles of NPOV, V, NOT, N, RS, and so forth; while perhaps this might see some content deleted even though you or I wouldn't challenge it, that's to the better of the encyclopedia. (As it happens, I edit within these bounds, whatever my personal opinion of those bounds). Those bounds are still encroached upon from the other side by fan editors who either a) don't know the history; b) don't care about the core content policies; or c) think X random source is Good Enough (categorically, they demonstrate the opposite).
Gameplay has been and will be challenged at GA/FA because gameplay is not immediately obvious or intuitive to many outside a certain generation of people (notably the digital generation). While I'm not shooting for those quality levels with any given article I happen to touch (nor, I would guess, a good chunk of the video games editors), WP:TNT often is the best remedy (there's an essay around which is basically broken windows theory). I tend to take a harsh touch to uncited content as it doesn't provide us the quality content we need to demonstrate that we're here to show how the video game in question is worth talking about.
As for plot, we source plot because, whereas I can identify a specific plot point in a book or a film or a TV show or a comic book within minutes or seconds (under the same restrictions as a video game; notably that you have a copy and the werewithal to do so), you cannot do the same for video games. Some games require literal hours of playthrough for verifiability of a plot, which can and has also been challenged in the quality processes.
Stuff about competitions, esports, tables, and such.
If you don't have a
reliable secondary source about the competition to demonstrate notedness (thanks EEng), the
weight of the content is wrong. That's one of the many dimensions that is a constant fight (I use that term mindful of NOTBATTLEGROUND) with newbies on Wikipedia, even for more impactful video game series such as
Super Smash Bros. or
Counter-Strike, which have had fairly-
undocumented competitive scenes since their series-spawning incarnations. In this regard, I would cut the table. The content can't be substantiated by anything to either your or my hand at this time with any reliability, which we both agree is missing (whether within or without the gaming industry, all we've got is a bunch of citations to a database—and while the sports editors [not the esports ones, though they have similar issues because they take the sports ones as model wikicitizenry] might consider that sufficient for their goals, I aspire to greater). Such databases can barely be considered tertiary sources; no transformation, analysis, or thought of what those statistics mean. I am not alone in this regard; in other words, they are not so apt.
I'm not sure how much we need, mind you, but it actually is important to include which cue sports are simulated in VP3, for example. That's even a factor in how this article is categorized on Wikipedia (e.g., it's also a snooker simulator).
However, critical reception info is easy to find from "the usual suspects" like IGN, GameSpot, GameFAQs, and so on
[10], also at
MetaCritic. Also, VP3 is still available from Celeris and was re-released as Virtual Pool 3 DL (not sure if "DL" stands for "download" or "deluxe" or what, but it's the only version for which later patches were made; doesn't seem to have been updated since Windows 7). It provides 21 different pool games, plus 2 carom billiards games, and snooker, which seems to mean 24 disciplines total. Has the "Career Mode" (plot) and the rest, including the online play. Honestly, the dearth of on-the-Web material is pretty disappointing. Likely just due to age. I may have to dig around on forums to find stuff; way back in the day, that's how I first found out pro players had reviewed its physics.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
08:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
VP 4 was released August 15, 2012. Probably needs an article. At very least the "Sequel" section in this article needs an update. I may get around to it, but I'm trying to minimize the time I spend here on pop-culture topics. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Image:Al-v-Am.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Possible bootleg, 2004, distributor listed as Global Star, with new cover,, in DVD-style case. [7] Could well be a completely different game that just stole the name. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Izno: This mass-deletion of content does not appear to be supportable. Games, like all other works of fiction, are permissible primary sources for their own content. And some of the material deleted had explicitly cited other sources. If there's something in particular that isn't primary-sourceable to the game itself, or to a third-party source, or which seems like WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE trivia, let's discuss removing that particular bit. However, the coverage of VP3's game play isn't excessive compared to larger VG articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
But even a "down with gamer-cruft" curmudgeon like me sees encyclopedic value in the facts of the years and divisions, i.e. "yes, there was a world Virtual Pool 3 tournament for the cowboy pool game in 2007". I think that WPVG people are apt to insist that the winner's usernames be included, but hopefully I'm wrong. Countries? Only if the competition was set up along national lines like the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, and only if the names are included. At any rate, I don't buy the argument that the entire table is "promotional" since the event series apparently isn't running any longer, VIPLadder is/was free, even the links to players were to stats, not to personal websites (i.e., a clear attempt to source the player names and rankings), and we have plenty of coverage of e-sports events elsewhere.
The entire event table could be compressed into a paragraph or a short list, saying which disciplines had a championship in which year, and without the winner names, since none of them are notable.
@ SMcCandlish: The four video game reviews already-not-cited evidence at least passing notability if not flying-colors notability. Sports video games are generally a dime a dozen (how many times can you re-release NFL Madden?) so I can understand the "they're probably not notable" against which you might have needed to defend, but in this case, we're good. (And even if not notability for VP3, there's most likely notability for the series as a whole.)
Perhaps you need some background so you can understand the rationale of why there are somewhat more-strict guidelines in place for video games. For better or worse, video game articles and related content were considered (and still are to many!--while I won't dispute Jane Austen is probably going to difficult to write, it also has the benefit of scholarship and authoritative works on its side, unlike most of pop culture) some of the easiest to write, and clearly the least-valuable on Wikipedia. This love of fiction in the early days lead to cruft every-which-way, which spawned the fiction decimation of the 2006-2008 era. Since, the video games project has tried its best to hew to the vision that we are a generalist encyclopedia dedicated to principles of NPOV, V, NOT, N, RS, and so forth; while perhaps this might see some content deleted even though you or I wouldn't challenge it, that's to the better of the encyclopedia. (As it happens, I edit within these bounds, whatever my personal opinion of those bounds). Those bounds are still encroached upon from the other side by fan editors who either a) don't know the history; b) don't care about the core content policies; or c) think X random source is Good Enough (categorically, they demonstrate the opposite).
Gameplay has been and will be challenged at GA/FA because gameplay is not immediately obvious or intuitive to many outside a certain generation of people (notably the digital generation). While I'm not shooting for those quality levels with any given article I happen to touch (nor, I would guess, a good chunk of the video games editors), WP:TNT often is the best remedy (there's an essay around which is basically broken windows theory). I tend to take a harsh touch to uncited content as it doesn't provide us the quality content we need to demonstrate that we're here to show how the video game in question is worth talking about.
As for plot, we source plot because, whereas I can identify a specific plot point in a book or a film or a TV show or a comic book within minutes or seconds (under the same restrictions as a video game; notably that you have a copy and the werewithal to do so), you cannot do the same for video games. Some games require literal hours of playthrough for verifiability of a plot, which can and has also been challenged in the quality processes.
Stuff about competitions, esports, tables, and such.
If you don't have a
reliable secondary source about the competition to demonstrate notedness (thanks EEng), the
weight of the content is wrong. That's one of the many dimensions that is a constant fight (I use that term mindful of NOTBATTLEGROUND) with newbies on Wikipedia, even for more impactful video game series such as
Super Smash Bros. or
Counter-Strike, which have had fairly-
undocumented competitive scenes since their series-spawning incarnations. In this regard, I would cut the table. The content can't be substantiated by anything to either your or my hand at this time with any reliability, which we both agree is missing (whether within or without the gaming industry, all we've got is a bunch of citations to a database—and while the sports editors [not the esports ones, though they have similar issues because they take the sports ones as model wikicitizenry] might consider that sufficient for their goals, I aspire to greater). Such databases can barely be considered tertiary sources; no transformation, analysis, or thought of what those statistics mean. I am not alone in this regard; in other words, they are not so apt.
I'm not sure how much we need, mind you, but it actually is important to include which cue sports are simulated in VP3, for example. That's even a factor in how this article is categorized on Wikipedia (e.g., it's also a snooker simulator).
However, critical reception info is easy to find from "the usual suspects" like IGN, GameSpot, GameFAQs, and so on
[10], also at
MetaCritic. Also, VP3 is still available from Celeris and was re-released as Virtual Pool 3 DL (not sure if "DL" stands for "download" or "deluxe" or what, but it's the only version for which later patches were made; doesn't seem to have been updated since Windows 7). It provides 21 different pool games, plus 2 carom billiards games, and snooker, which seems to mean 24 disciplines total. Has the "Career Mode" (plot) and the rest, including the online play. Honestly, the dearth of on-the-Web material is pretty disappointing. Likely just due to age. I may have to dig around on forums to find stuff; way back in the day, that's how I first found out pro players had reviewed its physics.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
08:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
VP 4 was released August 15, 2012. Probably needs an article. At very least the "Sequel" section in this article needs an update. I may get around to it, but I'm trying to minimize the time I spend here on pop-culture topics. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)