This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was not to add a mandatory "Game mechanics" section to game articles. Graestan^(Talk) 14:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've been writing the article for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, I've recently begun to see a need to detail the different classes and other functions that go into the games, functions commonly known as game mechanics. Though these things such as the command posts in Battlefront or the Force power bars in games like the Jedi Knight series, are considered to be non-canon in most cases, they are very important to the individual games they are associated with. I propose that we add a new section to video game articles detailing these aspects, placed after the Continuity section. It would detail any particular aspect of the game designed solely to enhance the game experience, and not necessarily meant to be taken as a matter of fact within the universe of the game. NaruHina ^Talk 04:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

VotingEdit

In favorEdit

1. NaruHina ^Talk 04:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. I always though such material needed a home. Din's Fire 997 04:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
3. I think it sounds like a good idea, especially since sometimes questions of game mechanics validate/invalidate previously established canon (or vice-versa). It would be good to separate what parts of game mechanics are canon and which ones aren't. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Taral, as well as NaruHina's comment below. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 19:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Although I do support the idea of making an entire LG entry. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 09:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Soresu. —Lucius malfoy7 ^{(Give it up for Lil' 'Soka Tano, ladies and gents!)} 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OpposedEdit

1. Not that I think this is a bad idea necessarily, but a) we don't even have a Layout Guide-stipulated section guideline for video game articles yet, b) thus nothing is stopping you from using a "Game Mechanics" section, c) we should look into getting a LG-stipulated video game layout first, and d) in doing so, going about it piecemeal like this isn't such a good idea. Standardization is usually a good thing, IMO, but this one is just too arbitrary at this point in time. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Per, Tope. A LG entry should be devised in its entirety. Grunny ^(Talk) 05:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Much work to be done, before this can be feasible. Graestan^(Talk) 05:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4. I don't see why this can't be simply covered by the Gameplay Description section. Mauser 12:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Pretty much per Tope. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
6. With the caveat that this is a vote against anchoring anything down before a Layout Guide is formed, and shouldn't be construed as saying "never have a section like this". - Lord Hydronium 21:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
7. I think that a full LG entry should be created for video game articles—one that will include a game mechanics section. The fact that there is a general LG for OOU articles doesn't exclude the creation of a LG tailored to a set of specific needs. I'm sure that if one looked closely at video game articles, other "gray areas" not covered by the general LG could be found. Cylka^-talk- 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
8. IFYLOFD ^{(Come with me if you want to live.)} 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Mecenarylord^{Enter if you dare} 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Per Toprawa. —Xwing328^(Talk) 03:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
11. You generally need a number of high quality articles of a genre before this thing needs to become mandatory. --Eyrezer 09:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
12. No need to formalize until we really have something to formalize. Havac 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Not yet. Let's make an LG for video game articles and then discuss this again. DarthDragon164^{Dragon's Lair} 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Per Tope. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Indeed, per Tope. --Darth tom (Imperial Intelligence) 14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Don't we already have a MoS that describes the sections for OOU articles? The sections are already laid out there and video game article does not, under normal conditions, deviate from that. This is a proposal for an addition to the MoS for a section exclusive to video game articles. NaruHina ^Talk 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I admit it was probably a mistake to run this as a standalone section so I have a new idea. Should we include game mechanics in the game articles at all? Thats pretty much the intentional question to this but its less about formalizing layout, more about an unconfirmed and undefined area of the articles. Anyone else think that would probably be a better thing to confirm? NaruHina ^Talk 02:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• You're right—that might be a better idea. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 06:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Everyone opposed seemed to be for the LG not opposed to the actual info's inclusion. If you really wanna add it before the LG is complete, I guess you could go ahead (based on others' statements so far), but you'll just have to re-edit after the LG is complete. IthinkIwannaLeia^WaddaUthink? 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)