If you appreciate the work done within the wiki, please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support!

Template talk:Call of Duty series

From The Cutting Room Floor
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sorted by series

-- Einstein95 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2013 (EDT)

We had this conversation on IRC, but I figured I'd put my thoughts somewhere more (semi-)permanent. I think some kind of adjustment of our current system is ideal for a lot of game series, but I'm not sure that sorting by series is an ideal solution. Since about 2000, multiplatform games have all been essentially the same (with the notable exception of the Wii and handhelds), whereas the wiki is still very much arranged around what platform a game is on, which is only really relevant to an earlier era of gaming.
This leads to awkward situations where templates such as this link to the same article once per platform. One rather egregious example is Template:Sonic the Hedgehog series, which is drowning in multiplatform releases: e.g. the Sonic Heroes article is linked to four times, three links point to Sonic Adventure 2 (2012). I think this is an issue that probably calls for discussion outside of the talk page for this one template, as it's a sitewide problem that's only going to get worse.
That said, while I think sorting by series is better than the current system in terms of reducing bloat, it does also confuse some matters. It's nice to have at least some platform delineation, especially on platforms that aren't part of the usual post-2000 multiplatform arrangment, like the Nintendo DS. Those games clearly aren't the same thing as their console counterparts, possibly constituting an entirely separate series. Perhaps we should be looking at something like this (note: fake games added to help with explaining in detail):
Here, both "platform" (slash generation) and series sorting are represented. This method isn't without its own issues:
  • PC-exclusives like the original Call of Duty don't fall under any given "generation", so what's the solution there? A separate PC navbox row? Just put it in sixth-generation with its contemporaries?
  • What about the Wii U, an eighth-generation system that is closer to seventh-gen in terms of the multiplatforms it receives? What about other cross-generation releases like PS2/Wii or Xbox/360?
  • Sorting by generation sacrifices some specific information ("Did this game come out on GameCube, or just PS2/Xbox?"). Is it enough to preserves enough to get the general idea of the game's age and have the specifics on the article itself?
Of course, despite the above points, the clear benefit of sorting by generation (from the sixth-generation onward) is a reduction of repetition where the same game is released on two or more contemporary platforms. However, it is something that needs more thought on the salient issues before it can be implemented on a wide scale. — Vague / Rant 11:52, 15 August 2013 (EDT)
I think the problem is that systems are easier to distinguish than "Sixth Generation", "Seventh Generation", etc. Listing by system is easier for visitors and editors, and the "generation" thing would require quite a bit of rewriting for series templates. I think it's good as it is, even if it might be a bit redundant. -WarioBarker 16:34, 15 August 2013 (EDT)
I can see how the current layout is "good", since it offers all the platform information right there, but is "good" the ideal? Phrased differently, is the "as much redundancy as possible" system really the best one? Maybe there's a better way to cut down on redundancy without sacrificing this information, like having platforms share a navbox row: "Xbox 360/PS3/PC" instead of "Seventh Generation", for example. What are we gaining in a template as uniformly repetitive as this one by sticking to the current system? Multiplatform games have been the status quo for over a decade and it's likely to go on that way. Is there a reason why this situation is desirable ...
... when it doesn't need to be this obsessively categorized? (Then again, maybe I'm talking to the wrong person. ;) The way it works right now is unwieldy, and with each new multiplatform release, it gets worse. I'm not saying we need a hard and fast rule about these things--there will always be exceptions that make separate listings better--but sticking rigidly with a single-platform-minded arrangement is just as bad and rapidly becoming outdated. — Vague / Rant 02:13, 16 August 2013 (EDT)