Talk:Battlefield Vietnam

This article sucks and is way in need of attention. Untitled Please improve it in any way you see fit.

This has to be one of the worst full length articles I've ever read. Just thought I'd say that, don't know enough about the game to fix it...--Gяaphic 04:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody put a link to a site with "hacks" for this game at the bottom of the article, and I deleted it.

Soundtrack

What happened to the little soundtrack section of this page. I was coming back to it to try and find some of the song names and saw it was gone. Someone bring it back? 63.135.20.210 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)CDClock

It was removed along with most of the other minutiae lists as per WP:NOT. --Scottie theNerd 08:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and what not to do

I've removed all the lists in this article. For future editors and people seeking to revert these changes, please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a game guide and should not contain lists of information that would only be useful for people who have actually played the game. That means no lists of weapons or vehicles, especially considering how extensive those lists will be. We want to create an article that is informative at first glance rather than something you would see on GameFAQs. --Scottie theNerd 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The list of maps in the game should remain. I'm going to add it back.

You seem to have blatantly ignored what I have pointed out. Please see WP:NOT and Scope of Information. The consensus among the video game contributors is that game articles should not contain extensive lists of game-exclusive information. I'm not saying that the information isn't relevant; of course it's relevant. The point here is that the information is not significant. A list of weapons, maps and vehicles will only benefit players and will be useless to readers at large. As an encyclopedia, articles are meant to contain brief informative information rather than minutiae. If you are interested in maintaining these lists, consider contributing to StrategyWiki or e-gamia. I will briefly summarise the game's content in the article, but will not revert to the full lists. --Scottie theNerd 07:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in either WP:NOT or Scope of Information which excludes lists of weapons or maps, nor were the previous versions of this article violating anything that I saw in either of those links. I believe that both of these are extremely significant to this article and would be of interest to all readers. In the description you left, there was discussion about some weapons and an add-on map. Don't you see the problem here? --Far Beyond 07:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you want to rid weapons and maps from every game page on Wikipedia, you have a long, hard fight ahead of you. There's even a whole article about Counter-Strike maps. Was this your first attempt to remove such info, or have you successful removed material from other game articles before? --Far Beyond 07:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Taken straight from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Scope_of_information:

Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. Such topics should be moved to one of the gaming wikis: Encyclopedia Gamia for general info/trivia or StrategyWiki for walkthrough/strategy/gameplay content, due to the pending deletion of the Wikibooks computer and video games bookshelf.

A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. To propose that an article or section should be moved to a gaming wiki, use the Move to gaming wiki tag."

GameFAQs-style lists are discouraged by Wikipedia and have been removed from game articles as well as specialised articles being deleted. Certain exceptions remain, but in general unless the content of the game is significant in itself and references such as game reviews point that out, there is no need to list out every single item in the game. This might be useful information for a gamer, but Wikipedia is not a game guide, and the information contained in game articles must describe the game, not what is in it or how to play it. Again, such lists belong on GameFAQs, e-gamia or StrategyWiki, which are specialised sites for game guides. For a similar discussion on including lists like weapons, see Talk:Gears of War#Weapons, as well as this deletion debate.

Believe me, I used to be a proponent of keeping weapon lists on articles and still maintain and cleanup several lists. However, policies change, and with the implementation of StrategyWiki and other game wikis, Wikipedia has redefined its scope and slowly but steadily removing unnecessary game articles. I've seem many lists axed, so this is all part of the process. You have to understand that what you are posting here is beyond what Wikipedia is intended for. I could direct an admin or someone part of the CVG wikiproject here and they will tell you the same thing. --Scottie theNerd 07:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, take a look at the featured articles on the bottom of that CVG WikiProject page, such as Perfect Dark. These articles are designated good articles because the follow Wikipedia style guides and have been been featured for exceptional quality. Note that these articles contain extensive encyclopedic information and not trivial lists such as weapons. --Scottie theNerd 08:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So I see you've added a sentence about which maps are in the game. A sentence is fine but a list isn't? --Far Beyond 08:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's basically what I said above. Nothing is wrong with mentioning a few things in order to provide a better idea of what the game is about. There is no need to list every single thing in the game because, despite what you claim, it is not essential information. Such lists fall under "excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia" as indicated in the CVG guidelines. People can live without knowing every single map in the game. --Scottie theNerd 08:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can live with what you're doing, but deletionist views are ultimately going to make Wikipedia less and less useful. When people can't get all of the information they need in our articles they're going to quit coming here altogether. Plus it is a bit hard to say that people who have never played the game would not be interested in what weapons or maps appear. You will probably face future resistance about this, but I'll move on. --Far Beyond 08:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, Wikipedia is not a specialised game site. If less gamers come here for game information, all the better. Game sites such as GameFAQs, StrategyWiki and e-gamia can and do cater for them. Wikipedia has its purpose, and removing needless game minutiae helps the site focus on communicating informative encyclopedic information. A gamer can look up a proper game site with equal ease; you seem to overlook the fact that Wikipedia is not a game guide. I should also point out that this isn't my policy, so I wouldn't direct any veiled threats towards myself. --Scottie theNerd 08:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Scottie. As it was, it was a giant list of stuff in the game, which you could find on the official website anyway. --69.120.63.248 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with what he did if he'd maybe first put the lists in the appropriate wiki to build a good page, instead of deleting straight away without putting it in the places he says it belongs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.110.134 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

What if another article was created for this information? e.g. List of Weapons in Battlefield Vietnam 64.201.52.55 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree76.205.140.185 03:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic User: 198.99.32.5

This user is irritating my last nerve, I'm growing tired of having to help others undo his/her non-constructive and undo-worthy edits.

Is this user banned yet? His edit on the "Article Sucks" header pushed me to typing all this out. ShootinPutin109 (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference material

I found this: GMR review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)