User talk:Frecklefoot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

[edit] Computer and video games

Thanks for responding to my query on the discussion page. Since you obviously have a massive amount of experience with video games, do you have time to help me on the actual computer and video games article? I'm going to start by formulating a much better definition for computer and video games (the opening is redundant right now). I was thinking something like "Computer and video games, formally referred to as interactive entertainment, are recreational devices operated by silicon chip circuitry." However, I'm not the expert that you are, and so I don't know if "recreational devices operated by silicon chip circuitry" is too broad or too narrow for the full scope of computer and video games. Perhaps you could help me formulate a proper definition? Help would be most welcome. Thanks! --Tristam 23:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you referring to a new article for electronic game or rewriting the computer and video games article? If it's the former, just word it how you think best and post it. It'll gradually get better over time as people contribute to it. You could even post a link to it on the Project for some community involvement.

Or are you suggesting the latter? Personally, I think "Computer and video games, formally referred to as interactive entertainment, are recreational devices operated by silicon chip circuitry" is horrible. But I was a proponent of breaking up the computer and video games article into separate articles (one for video games, which is "any type of game that uses a video display as a primary form of output") which would encompass computer and console games (which are typically called just "video games" today) and other types of video-output games (e.g. arcade games, handheld games, etc.). Therefore, the term "video game" would be a superset of "computer game" and "console game", as it should be. I think the whole article computer and video games, besides horribly violating Wikipedia naming standards, is just a POS article. I even rewrote it according to my discussion above (after getting consensus from the project), but it was reverted, so I gave up.

But I digress. I think electronic game should have an article separate from the computer and video games article. If I inferred anything else in my post, I apologize. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to reply to this. I was, in fact, suggesting the latter: I wanted a broad definition because computer and video games is a broad subject. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you wanted to break the article up into; you say "one for video games" and don't give a number two. I do agree that the naming is bad, and electronic game definitely needs its own article.

I'm unsure which is a subset to which: computer games or video games? I think the definition of computer games is ambiguous. When we see "computer" we think of our laptop or desktop PC. Of course, a computer is far broader than that and can be many more things. So is a computer game a personal computer game or is it any game played on any computer (if the latter were the case, would computer game not be synonymous with electronic game)? In the end, a video game is a game played on a computer; the condition being, as you point out, that it uses video display as a primary form of output. Personal computer games would thus qualify as video games, because the monitor is the video display. I just wonder should we separate computer game from personal computer game.

Here's a definition of electronic games, taken straight from the newest edition of Funk & Wagnall's encyclopedia: "GAMES, ELECTRONIC, recreational and social activities requiring an electrical device controlled by one or more microprocessor chips." The same article states that "the games usually involve a computer and a software program, or an electronic game system and an insertable medium." And we both know the condition for a game being a video game. If we accept all of this, this is how the hierarchy works:

Electronic games -> computer games (assuming this means games played on any computer) -> video games (includes console games, personal computer games, arcade games, plug-and-play TV games, handheld games, etc.)

I'm interested in revamping this whole article. I've got four books that may be excellent references: The Video Game Theory Reader, Tomb Raiders & Space Invaders: Videogame Forms & Contexts, Gaming Essays on Algorithmic Culture, and The Medium of the Video Game. Plus, I have full access to excellent databases such as LexisNexis Academic and Academic Search Premier. Obviously, it would be ideal to get naming issues sorted first. You being an expert, I hope you're just as interested as I am: two voices carry more weight than one, so we could bring up the naming issues with the CVG Wikiproject. --Tristam 06:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tristam, your reasoning is sound, and I would like to get this heirarchy resolved, since I brought it up so long ago and it never went anywhere. But the terminilogy turns a lot of people off. Many want to keep calling console games "video games" and vehemently deny that any computer game (a game that is played on a personal computer) could be a "video game," though most are, according to the definion. Another problem is that the industry calls console games "video games" and games played on personal computers "computer games". It's a lot to sort out, and a lot of biases to overcome, but I'm glad someone else sees things the way I do. I hope we can make headway on this issue. What do you suggest we do first? — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and I'm glad to have you aboard! As I said, my initial thoughts are to bring this to the CVG WikiProject, though it sounds your previous attempt didn't end well. Based on the hierarchy above, it appears that electronic games and computer games are one and the same (correct me if I'm wrong though). If that's the case, computer game should probably redirect to electronic game. It would seem prudent to add an "other article" template at the top, something like "'Computer game' redirects here. For information about personal computer games, see personal computer game." I think this falls into the argument of accuracy versus popularity: as you point out, even the VG industry calls games played on PCs "computer games."

Now let us look at Wikipedia:Naming, an official policy at Wikipedia. Here, we can see that Computer and video games immediately violates the general convention "prefer singular nouns:" "in general, only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers)." However, the singular "Computer or video game" is ridiculously awkward, another good reason for separating the two terms. On the other hand, convention dictates that: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Our proposal may fail this guideline; however, personal computer game has its own article! This is important because the "Use of 'and'" rule states: "Sometimes two or more closely-related or complementary concepts are most sensibly discussed on a common page rather than a page each." Since personal computer game is already separated as its own article, and we both know that in common usage "computer game" refers to a PC game, should "computer game" not redirect to "personal computer game" instead of computer and video games? If that's the case, then the "computer and" should be truncated from "video games," which should in turn be made singular. In the end, electronic game should cover any electronic game (including such games as Ralph Baer's Simon), video game should cover any electronic game that uses a video display as the primary form of output, and personal computer game (of which "computer game" would redirect to) should cover the nuances of PC games. I think that these arguments are logically sound, but of course I would like more input from you before we propose a drastic name change. --Tristam 06:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Formulating a perfect and elegant response to this (complete with charts and graphs). Let's continue this discussion here so you don't have to watch my talk page and look at all the laud heaped upon me by other users. Stay tuned (there) for my response. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Information Regarding Brad Fregger

Here is a link to Ken Colman's bio on the Ohio State University web site:

http://fisher.osu.edu/About/Office-of-the-Dean/DAC/Coleman

When you do Google "kenneth l coleman" this is the first hit; at least it is on my computer.

I was the game developer's (Maxis and Eclipse Entertainment) producer for 4 and 5, not an employee of Accolade. I worked with Mike Franco. I was also Alan Miller's and Bob Whitehead's producer when they were at Atari.

By the way, how do you get all your games listed on wikipedia? They told me that I couldn't get mine listed unless it could be verified by another source. See Brad Fregger discussion.

Thanks for your comments.

Bradfregger 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

They're right about having your game credits having to appear somewhere else (like a web site or in a book). Your MobyGames profile should be good enough for some. Your book might be a good enough reference for the others. HTH. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Nicklaus Problem

The history of the Jack Nicklaus 4 is all wrong regarding Cinematronics and I don't know what to do about it. The Cinematronics listed is another company orginally formed in San Francisco in the early years of the industry. The Cinemantronics that did Jack 4 and 5, Full Tilt! Pinball, and Marble Drop, was founded later in Santa Cruz, California by David Stafford, Mike Sandige, and Kevin Gliner, and was the one that Maxis purchased. Additionally, Jack 4 (Mac) and Jack 5 were both developed by Eclipse Entertainment (Austin, Texas). I was the producer (developer) for all of these products.

Bradfregger 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'm copying your comments to the Jack Nicklaus 4 talk page. I'll work on fixing the information. Check back there (you can "watch" the article if you like) to see how I resolve it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

Your comments concerning how to verify the "first producer" issue was extremely helpful.

Bradfregger 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Jack 4

I've made some significant changes to Jack 4 and 5, you might want to take a look.

Bradfregger 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. You don't have to tell me when you do that. I watch the page so I see whenever it is changed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Webster: gratuitous trivia

The source of the trivia is the anonymous user, who was present at the hypnosis session. That anonymous user wishes to continue in anonymity but added the trivia in an attempt to humanize what otherwise looked like one of them "promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign" that are meant to be deleted. Selah.

User:anon 1 Dec 2006

Um, okay. But you should've put this comment on the article's talk page. That way, other users, besides me, would see your argument. But it still can't be allowed. Wikipedia users can't call you up to check what happened. It needs to be from a source that can be verified. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video game crash of 1983

Can I get some help over here? Just had a new editor who has never contributed to the article come through an mark a bunch of simple-to-verify-facts (e.g. typical cost of a console disk manufactured in 2005) as OR. Threatens deletion, etc. etc. etc. We have still more sourcing in the article but it's been pretty stable for a while now and I think this is about overreaction of a newcomer rather than actual deep faults. Thanks! Coll7 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Design CART

I appreciate your comments about the changes I made concerning CART. There is a category which involves game design and I was wondering if you could go through and link the proper words to their proper page on Wikipedia. Since I'm unfamiliar with the subject and you obviously are, it would most likely fall under your category of being a Wiki Gnome. It wold be greatly appreciated.
User: Zoogarama 9:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me put on my big, red, pointy hat. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did my gnome thing, but it still has serious, serious problems. See the article's Talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:31, 6 December 2006

[edit] Tom Hanks Trivia

It is true that most of the trivia is useless, but most of it is about him. So I only felt that the peice of trivia about his daughter was the only thing that I needed to get rid of. Bcody 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you get rid of more, just pointing out that most of the trivia on Hanks is drivel (and speculation). — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Also section on Mormon Missionary page

You weren't sure what I was doing. First, I tried to alphabetize the list (guess I goofed up on that a bit). Second, I thought it would be a good idea to label the films as films, although I guess that's why they are in italics. Just didn't seem like an encyclopedia would list fictional entries (by that, I mean films that are mostly or entirely fictional) about a subject as supplementary references on a topic. I think it would be more correct if the films were taken out of the "See Also" section and put in their own section. What do you think? Cheers! Sylverdin 23:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan site external link examples?

Would you please have a look at Wikipedia talk:External links#Fan sites, and help provide some examples of WP articles where lots of fansites have been linked? If you could help me explain why the existing WP:EL policy is inadequate, I'd really appreciate it; I'm facing a tough crowd. - Brian Kendig 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Design Novice

I have placed the link to Game Design Novice back where it belongs. Why you chose to delete it rather than the other three mostly inactive wikis, I can't say. Before you decide to delete it again, contact me. -Hartnell2

I'll leave it in this time, giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's a suitable link (that won't soon go dead). But for issues such as this, bring them up on the article's talk page, instead of contacting me individually. That way, others interested in the topic can chime in. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -Hartnell2

[edit] Autobiography removal

Hi.

I saw this:

"Dndn1011, since you are Dino Dini, you really shouldn't edit this article. I removed the sections on your early life, etc., since they don't really add much to the topic of you being a game developer/designer. It's also completely unsourced. I know that you don't really need a source, since you lived it, but that kind of OR isn't permitted on Wikipedia. But moreoever, Wikipedia policy stricly prohibits anyone who has an article from editing that article, apart from blatant corrections ("Hey, I wasn't born in 1932!") and reverting vandalism. Therefore, I removed most of those sections you added."

So, even if all of the claims were sourced, neutral and did add a lot would you still remove it on WP:AUTO grounds (since it is supposedly "strictly prohibited". It does not say that on the guideline page. It discourages it, but does not "strictly prohibit" it.)? I'm trying to assess the fairness of the WP:AUTO Wikipedia Guideline.

Also, you said this is a "policy", but it's not, it's a guideline. You called it a policy in your posts, but this is incorrect. 74.38.35.171 02:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed myself from trying to keep that article in check. I reread the guideline and couldn't determine what was allowed and what wasn't. If Dino wants to edit his own article, that's fine with me. I don't have the bandwidth to fight it right now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well I've read it. It "strongly discourages" but does not "strictly forbid" autobiography, because autobiographies often tend to be POV, original research, unverifiable, etc. What is forbidden, of course, are those types of things, since they violate official policy. As a guideline, is it not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. So it seems then that a policy-conforming autobiography, by common sense would be a reasonable exception. However it does seem his edits violated WP:V/WP:NOR due to lack of citations, and those would be more reasonable grounds for deletion (those should have been the "moreover" concern, instead of WP:AUTO, which as a guideline would have been a secondary concern.).

Okay? 74.38.35.171 19:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RtZ

Rooms is a community catchall to describe locations. I am not denying that the "note" was pointless, just explaining that the wording was accurate. WookMuff 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't use "jargon" unless it is explained first. Several I just changed to "locations" as that is just as accurate and not as incorrect as "rooms" is to non- text adventure gamers. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Return to Zork WookMuff 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. :-) Since I did that to dozens of articles, it wasn't immediately obvious to me. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pong TM Issue

I know its probably not worth her time, but do you think your wife would mind coming on the Pong talk page to discuss why its a big deal for the TM to be there? I'm already contacting Atari Legal on the matter to get their view. --Marty Goldberg 19:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think she'd only care if it were Intel, not Pong. I don't really think we need the TM since we're not making a press release for Atari or anything. If I can convince her, you'll see her post. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just rewrote the entire first paragraph then to try and compromise and further clarify the ownership. --Marty Goldberg 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paperboy

Thanks for fixing formatting issue, but there is no NEED TO YELL IN CAPS!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.146.145.50 (talk • contribs).

Okay, but I WASN'T SURE YOU'D SEE IT OTHERWISE. ;-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fancy Signatures

Thank you for your reply on my question at the Villiage Pump. Chris 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CVG

Sorry man, I've kind of taken a wiki-break due to classes and work. Hopefully you can spearhead this change for the better, though; you have a lot more experience and capability than I do, anyways. :) --Tristam 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DungeonMasterGuide4Cover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DungeonMasterGuide4Cover.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sandstein 17:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the page and the rationale seems to be given, not once, but twice. It says over and over again that it is a low-resolution book cover image and that its use is sufficiantly fair use. Please elaborate if I've missed something. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming

Admit it, Frecklefoot, upon seeing "Do you have to be on the Welcoming committee to welcome new members?", you felt at least a moment's temptation to answer:

"Yes! Yes, only members of our high and holy order are ordained with the awesome authority to initiate new members into the fold of the Accepted! Any layfolk who presume to trespass upon our Sacred Turf shall be Cast Out, to wander forever in the Dismal Realm of Thud!" (cue Monty Python's "Spanish Inquisition" routine)

Congratulations for restraining yourself from that nearly irresistible temptation. May I hope to learn from your ascetic example! -- Ben 04:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 13:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] Removal of Bills Tomato Game.

I added it to the page just before you removed it, i have read up and you have the knowledge from the gaming industry. But i have the game infront of me right now and it says Psygnosis, is there something i missed? i even did a few engine searches and checked old amiga forums pretty sure i got it right. Cheers Lukey12345 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find it on MobyGames, so I assumed it was made up. The title does sound pretty suspicious. But if it really exists and you even have a copy, go ahead and add it back in. Sorry, but I just never heard of it before and it sounds like an odd name for a video game. You may also want to consider adding the info to MobyGames. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ye no worries, i get that alot. there was no wiki on the game, so had to create one. Thanks anyway Lukey12345 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch...

Thanks. I guess I didn't check back far enough to see that one. Sorry, I'm a little new at this vandal-fighting thing. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFrecklefoot_f6c2.html"