Scope

[najzere]

I was wondering if it might not be time to revisit the policy on scope, since we've lately been adding a lot of guides for games that don't fit very well within the current policy. For example, here are some guides that have been added recently:

-Particracy
-Super Mario World: The Second Reality Project Reloaded
-MechQuest
-Iji

There are some freeware, some homebrew, a ROM hack, etc. Most haven't been discussed all that much, but it seems like a trend toward laxer rules on inclusion. Plus we have a whole Adobe Flash category and Web-based category. Is the policy good as it is to limit these kind of guides, on which we can make a case-by-case determination, or should the policy be changed to better reflect the standards we're looking for?

[prod]

Particracy was brought in from wikibooks and it can probably be deleted.

I've voiced my opinion on Super Mario.

MechQuest is by a notable game developer.

Iji I don't really have an opinion about. Seems like a pointless freeware game by an independent. However, WP has an article about it, and it seems to be at least mildly notable.

[Dukeruckley]

I'm torn now...

On the one hand, I think a guide for some of those games would be useful and unique (like the Super Mario World game), but on the other hand I think we need to be afraid of scope creep. Once we make a final decision on scope, we should probably stick with it, otherwise we may see problems in the future.

[Procyon]

I'm only weighing in on the Super Mario ROM hack. If the game is covered by romhacking.net, that's notability enough for me. That 2nd reality project really is an incredible quality hack. I'm happy to see a guide for a game that would never appear on GF, even though very few people will have a chance to play it. Then again, maybe the presence of the guide will encourage others to try it.

[najzere]

Okay, does anyone want to say something about the policy itself? I don't see why the scope should be so restrictive, as if someone wants to make a page for a game, it means someone is interested in it. The only thing I don't want to see in the wiki is blatant self-promotion by the maker of the game.

Also, there is a huge population of flash games players out there, that we may be able to tap into from Google searches on the game name. I thought the issue of scope was to protect the quality of the wiki, not so much to limit guides to well known games. I wouldn't mind seeing guides for flash games, ROM hacks, homebrews, etc. as long as the game is mentioned somewhere on the internet besides the game's homepage, and the guide doesn't turn into the maker's pesonal ad campaign.

[Notmyhandle]

Yeah I write guides for myself for flash games. They would usually fall under single page guides. I myself would vote for inclusion.

We don't include them for a few reasons: notability, audience size (small), unnecessary (easy), and they would tend to be promotional (not a bad thing), and there are an unlimited number of them. If you google "Flash Tower Defense" you'll get 100+ variations of the same game (not to mention non-Flash games; like Java based). This is daunting for a community who tracks statistics (for example, we are only 1/5 of the way done with writing 1500 NES games). I don't think we're at a point where "openness" is our goal.

[Sigma7]

The scope does have loopholes that allow these games to appear in the listing. In some cases, it's hard to tell whether a game should be included or excluded, but most likely they sneak in through one of the loopholes:
* "The game has a very large player base" is difficult to judge. There's plenty of metrics available, whether counting number of players in a given moment of time, counting total number of game plays, or some other means. It may also be confused with large player base, but a single statistic can be used to lever inclusion into StrategyWiki.
* Receiving non-trivial mention... on a recognized industry website. This is slightly vague, and open to interpretation. Adverts are probably trivial, but if you manage to get yourself on websites such as Destructoid.com, Slashdot, or another place with significant readership, that seems to allow inclusion.

I'm not suggesting that the policy should be converted into a solid or rigid system that uses statistics, but rather to give a better explanation of the scope.

For the individual examples provided:
* Particracy is probably off-scope, more so if it is using an IP-Address url as shown here. While it does have a better IP address, there isn't much mention on other websites. Also, it is a single-page content, which doesn't show much depth. However, there is still a wiki available for the game, and any information on that site can be transferred once it is known to be in-scope.
* Super Mario World: The Second Reality Project Reloaded is probably off-scope. It has limited content in it's current form, and the only sub-page doesn't match the style of the guide (i.e. "The ??????" says you have to plat the game to find out.) However, it probably would be within scope of a wiki specializing in Super Mario.
* MechQuest is in-scope. They show a constant metric showing ~2000 players at a given time, and have been advertising here on StrategyWiki (and other sites.) While not a "very large player base" when compared to Adventure Quest (around ~8000), it is classified as shareware where you can purchase an account upgrade for additional features. Their upgrade cards can also be found in stores, which is technically cheating their way in to the retail market.
* Iji was a bit of a judgement call for myself. However, since it was featured on the websites currently listed on Wikipedia and has several videos from different users, I considered it acceptable for inclusion based on the player base. The websites that mentioned it (including jayisgames.com) were also stating that it was one of the best games of the year.

[najzere]

I've given a lot of thought to what we're trying to accomplish with scope rules and why we're having issues with it now. I think the goal of any policy is to protect the quality of the wiki, and scope in particular is meant to deter dilution of the site by crap games no one cares about. The things that are actually outside our scope are no-brainers that we don't have a problem getting rid of, like flash game portal sites, board games and general gaming information that isn't about a specific game. Where we're running into problems is with guides that are games, but don't fit current scope half-policy.

I think the reason for this is that we are trying to use one set of scope rules for all types of games. What we're seeing is that individual games within certain genres are making it in under certain "loopholes" and then we have to have case-by-case discussions on these. What I propose is breaking down scope by the type of game we're talking about. We don't really need scope rules for any game that came out for a notable home console, as I think that's pretty much been decided. But flash games are different than ROM hacks which are different than homebrews and freeware.

Instead of a large, cumbersome set of scope rules that tries to accomodate all types of games with convoluted "if-then" logic, it would be easier and more streamlined to first determine the type of game we're talking about, then apply that type's scope determination. I think this will also make it easier to actually make scope rules, because they won't be so complex. We could look at a smaller picture and ask ourselves for instance, "What kind of flash game do we want on here?" and go from there.

[najzere]

In an effort to determine notability for flash games, here is a list of major flash hosting sites (basically the first page results of "flash games" on Google), and what statistics they track. Maybe there something else to look at, like Alexa info or Google trends?

1. addictinggames.com: # plays, # votes, # reviews, rating
2. flashgames247: no stats
3. newgrounds.com: # views, # votes, rating
4. armorgames.com: # playes, # favorited, rating
5. flash-game.net: # total hits, # votes, rating
6. miniclip.com: a top ten list
7. shockwave.com: # plays, rating
8. gameprison.com: # playes, rating
9. 2flashgames.com: # views, # votes, rating
10. onlineflashgames.org: rating

[Dukeruckley]

I'd like to add that there is virtually nowhere out there that has walkthroughs for flash games or ROM hacks. StrategyWiki could become the one and only place to find a guide for select ROM hacks or flash games. However, and this is where the issue lies, we need to make sure we set a stringent scope policy and stick with it. Otherwise, we'll start seeing completely non-notable games flooding our site. This is problematic because that could lower our credibility as a good guide provider.

I think Naj is right about having separate requirements for different types of games. The trick is to make these requirements set in stone, without loopholes, and then to stick to it.

[Sigma7]

In an effort to determine notability for flash games, here is a list of major flash hosting sites (basically the first page results of "flash games" on Google), and what statistics they track. Maybe there something else to look at, like Alexa info or Google trends?

Kongregate.com also keeps track of stats as well; in this case, number of individual plays (although this does include the same person multiple times). THe main issue is for games that are hard to judge, because there are no hard stats (but there is a review on a few websites.)

I'd like to add that there is virtually nowhere out there that has walkthroughs for flash games or ROM hacks. StrategyWiki could become the one and only place to find a guide for select ROM hacks or flash games. However, and this is where the issue lies, we need to make sure we set a stringent scope policy and stick with it. Otherwise, we'll start seeing completely non-notable games flooding our site. This is problematic because that could lower our credibility as a good guide provider.

I think Naj is right about having separate requirements for different types of games. The trick is to make these requirements set in stone, without loopholes, and then to stick to it.

I did post a propsal on a talk page, and it seems to be suitable enough. For example, Sonny has a rating of 4.45 on Kongregate.com with 5.7 million plays on that site. It also received mention on a Gaming website, which could meet the requirement for scope.

Popular Rom hacks/mods go through without problem. We have a guide on Half-Life: Natural Selection, and if a game is popular enough to become featured, it can be listed too. Unpopular rom hacks don't get through, since there's hardly mention of them. If the original author is gone, so is the Rom hack. If necessary, a few links can be posted on the talk pages of the affected game (or if necessary, in the game itself) showing that the game meets notability, or at least should be kept if a guide was already written.

[Tathar]

Yeah I write guides for myself for flash games. They would usually fall under single page guides. I myself would vote for inclusion.

We don't include them for a few reasons: notability, audience size (small), unnecessary (easy), and they would tend to be promotional (not a bad thing), and there are an unlimited number of them. If you google "Flash Tower Defense" you'll get 100+ variations of the same game (not to mention non-Flash games; like Java based). This is daunting for a community who tracks statistics (for example, we are only 1/5 of the way done with writing 1500 NES games). I don't think we're at a point where "openness" is our goal.

I have to say that when the platform has 99% exposure of all internet-connected computers (I don't think even Windows has it that good) it's hard to claim you've got a small audience size with Flash. However, what needs to be addressed is that only Flash games that would be in-depth enough to create more than a one-page walkthrough -- Elements comes to mind -- should be included in the scope. Since the majority of the extreme number of Flash games don't meet this requirement, and would never be capable of making a decent guide anyway, it's plenty to allow the Flash platform some recognition on SW while keeping the number of game guides under control.

EDIT: Also, I happen to be deeply involved with Flash games, portals, and developers, so I could probably help get info you guys need to determine if a game meets whatever requirements you end up going with. Just send me a message asking what you need and I'll try to get you the answer.

[Garrett]

That sounds like a sensible approach. Thanks Tathar. :)

EDIT: my smiley isn't making a smiley? Bwah. :(

[Skizzerz]

EDIT: my smiley isn't making a smiley? Bwah. :(

Blame squidbear, he removed the smiley set and never replaced it with another one.

[NewUser]

What a complicated issue... It's so hard for me to begin to express my opinion here. I have already re-written this post so many times because it always seem to just drivel on and on.

What I fail to understand is, what does it hurt to host walkthroughs for ROM hacks, unlicensed games, flash games, etc.? Is it that contributions of the text and screenshots store too much data or something like that? If it draws more readers and more editors to the site, I think that it seems fine to host them. After all, am I the only one that thinks SW needs more editors?

I mean, what is the real issue here? The only thing I can think of besides the "using too much data to store the walkthroughs" idea is that some administrators are worried that readers will see the site and think "this site hosts a bunch of ROM hack and flash walkthroughs but doesn't have a walkthrough for Modern Warfare 2? What a bunch of amateurs...".

So really, please help me understand a reason not to host such walkthroughs. If I can understand that, maybe I can help you guys edit the scope in the best way to help SW. Thanks!