Talk:Project CARS 2

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Starwing Paradox (2 participants)
Pit (Kid Icarus) (8 participants)
Dancing Stage Max (3 participants)
Bez-MX (9 participants)
Vette (Star Wars) (5 participants; relisted)
International Hobo (2 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Disruptive editing[edit]

Neverrainy - please desist form removing huge chunks of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.26.156 (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neverrainy is removed sources from the video template that are not used in the prose, per the template's documentation. Other content he removed were sources that are unreliable. In addition, he repaired several citations, added new sources, and an awards table. If you have issues with a particular piece that he removed, you should focus on that and stop undoing all of his valid work on the templates and sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see:

"removed sources that are not used in the prose" - it's work in progress. The game came out 2 weeks ago and new reviews are coming in every day. It's better to have some scores than none - we can start deleting some once we have too many.
"sources that are unreliable" - Edge is the most respected gaming magazine in the UK, where this game was made. Metro is the biggest newspaper in the UK. Evo is the biggest car magazine in the UK. EuroGamer is huge. One of the others was the biggest publication in Germany, and one was the biggest publication in Spain. Failing to have these does not represent a worldwide view.
"added an awards table" - we're not supposed to have one! Awards should be part of the critical reception template.

It would be good if Neverrainy actually came to the Talk page to discuss before removing 4000 bytes of text. They don't even use an edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.26.156 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to talk about coming to the talk page, you only opened this after reporting @Neverrainy: to EW, without even properly reporting it or notifying him. If I had not already protected the page, I suspect both editors would have been blocked. Commenting on the content: Award tables are very commonly used, typically when more than 2-3 awards exist, as is the case here. The template doesn't allow for breaking out noms, wins, etc. The table syntax Neverrainy has used is common across many video game articles. As for the sourcing, yes, I was too blunt there. Some of them are reliable, but are atypical for video game. Otherwise are unreliable, like gamecrate and hobbyconsolas, which as far as I know have never been vetted. You could pursue that at WP:VG/RS if you wanted a definitive answer. Otherwise, its a very clear project consensus to only include reviews in the template if they are mentioned in prose. See the instructions at {{Video game reviews}}. Of the prose that was removed, we have Hobbyconsolas (Possibly unreliable), PlayStation Lifestyle (Uncertain reliability), Evo (Probably reliable), Metro (Reliable), and Driving (Uncertain reliability). It's an odd collection of non-English and UK based sources. We typically go with English sources unless there is nothing available (And we have plenty), and the others are all UK based. You're complaining about maintaining a worldview, but are focusing on sourcing from the developer's home country, which wouldn't be a worldview. Edge, GameStar, PCGamesN and Eurogamer are certainly solid sources, but weren't used in prose. Prose is far more important than scores in the table.

Meanwhile, you removed new awards, several citation fixes, new GameInformer prose (Again, prose is more important than scores), etc. So this sword cuts both ways. Sounds to me like you would be best served by writing some prose for each of the sources you want back, then inserting them in a couple days. I'll gladly fulfill an edit request for that during the protection as well if you leave prose here. -- ferret (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing again.[edit]

Neverrainy, what did you mean by "You obviously haven't learnt your lesson yet"? The last edit was meticulously constructed (i.e. didn't revert your date formatting, etc), and added Hobby Consolas (biggest Spanish magazine, founded in 1991), Evo (magazine) (very highly respected magazine, established 1998), Metro (British newspaper) (the most-read newspaper in the UK), Edge magazine (highly respected, published worldwide, established 1993), Eurogamer (largest readership of any independent videogames website in Europe). A reception section is incomplete without these. You need to provide justification for continuously removing these.

Oh, and USE AN EDIT SUMMARY, Jesus Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.36 (talk • contribs) 2017-10-29 11:12:10 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Project CARS which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]