Talk:Need for Speed: ProStreet/Archive 1

Archive 1

General

As you all can see this article is about the upcoming, but yet unannounced, next title in the Need for Speed series. Most of, if not all, the information here is unofficial and shouldn't be taken as fact. When the name of the game is officially announced this article and talk page will be moved to appropriate location. --MrStalker 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This game hasn't been announced yet? In that case it should be deleted, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JACOPLANE • 2007-02-23 23:51

It's not officially announced, but it will be this spring. Besides, this is clearly stated in the article, so it shouldn't be a problem for the readers. --MrStalker 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bud, but the fact that the game has not been announced is reason enough for it to be deleted. The fact that the entire article is nothing but rumors and speculation seals the deal. TJ Spyke 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it is not. --MrStalker 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not really convincing. Hbdragon88 07:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

READ THE DISCUSSION BELOW --MrStalker 09:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the article since Hbdragon88 removed the majority of it. Referring to a discussion with the AfD's closing admin, the article or it's sources don't violate any wikipedia policies. If you still think that the article should be deleted or heavily cropped, please refile for AfD or deletion review. It is my opinion to keep the article in it current state. --MrStalker 09:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a single word in WP:RS about fansites. --MrStalker 09:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fansites are self-published sources. There is no editorial oversight or fact-checking, meaning that the cannot be trusted. A reliable site for our purposes would be GameSpot or IGN/Gamespy. It is better to wait for real information to come out over reporting what some guy published.

I don't agree with that, when a better source comes available, like a official announcement, the article can be edited. For now it's the best source we've got and it's better to report what we've got then report almost nothing at all. --MrStalker 09:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The motto of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (was part of WP:VERIFY, which has been depreceated). It may be true whatever happened, but if it isn't reported, it doesn't belong here. Hbdragon88 10:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"While the manufacturer has not said it's coming out, other websites do discuss it, therefor, IMHO, this meets wiki's verifiability requirement, which is all WP:CRYSTAL requires, it does not require an 'official' announcement." --MrStalker 09:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't entitle the rest of the article to be just as speculative. Hbdragon88 22:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing in this article (read my discussion page). --MrStalker 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean other sites who are people posting under psuedonyms and are not checked by independent sources. It is a self-published source, not acceptable for Wikipedia, and does not fall under the two exceptions listed. Hbdragon88 07:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is verifiable. If the sources presented these rumours as facts, I would agree with you, but they don't. I would like a reply on my discussion page) as well, thanks. --MrStalker 09:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports on facts, not rumors. Some rumors are reported because they are backed by a significant num. of people and are a major viewpoint. Stuff reported by three fan sites is not a major enough viewpoint to be reported. Hbdragon88 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The lists of cars and girls are indiscriminate. Well, first, they aren't confirmed, and even if they were it isn't important for the reader to know the lists of cars. It's in-universe information that only a game player would be interested in. And the girls. Who is "Sapphira O'Shannon"? Why is she important? She isn't. If I was interested, I could click on the link. Just say "there are 10 girls, five have been eliminated" and if I was more interested, I would see who the girls are and why they are so important.

Well, that's your personal opinion. If we would remove all in-universe information from all CVG-articles, we would end up with a list of game titles and nothing more. --MrStalker 09:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We can write about in-universe from a real-world perspective. See WP:WAF for details. If you add context and analysis of why it's important, that's real-world. A list is a prime example of "Well, why does this matter?" I don't think there's anything that can be added to it without it sounding like a game guide. Hbdragon88 10:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a game guide, and everything in the article is from a real-world perspective. Please give me an example of something that isn't. --MrStalker 09:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It lacks context on why it's important, which means that it's indiscriminate. A huge list of cars and characters isn't important in understanding the game. Hbdragon88 22:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's an argument I cannot understand. What about Need for Speed: Carbon for example? It also got huge lists, a lot bigger then these, with characters and cars. If you are interested in the game, this is interesting information. I assume you are not an NFS-fan. --MrStalker 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Then that should be fixed too. Our job is to be general, and those who seek more info will go to fan sites or GameFAQs. Don't go by other NFS games; go by CVG featured articles. Most of the individual games (I haven't checked all of them) don't have huge lists? They're almost entirely prose, paragraphs of text that show context. If we take a similar genre game (as close as you can get), F-Zero GX only has a list of tracks (not sure why), and has no lists of characters or racers. Hbdragon88 07:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be fixed, and obviously a lot of people don't either. As you said, the featured article F-Zero GX has a list of tracks... what's the difference? I've never played F-Zero GX, so the question is: Is there even any characters to list?

Who is "a lot"? You, the only one who has been reverting the changes? I'm sure they could have waxed eloquence on Captain Falcon and the 29 other pilots in inane descriptions of their appearances and their pros and cons, but they don't. The point is, prose is preferred over long lists. Can't make turn it into prose? It should most likely be removed, because the speuclation isn't well-documented. Hbdragon88 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed numerous awkward phrases and fragments. I mended unduly self-serving and promotional language. Sentences like It is also said that it will feature very advanced graphics suitable for the next-gen consoles, especially taking advantage of the powerful PlayStation 3 can easily be simplified to something like NFS11 will feature advanced graphics. Hbdragon88 09:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's facts, not promotional. --MrStalker 09:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But the prose could be improved. Hbdragon88 10:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good as it is. --MrStalker 09:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's so totally not in the wiki spirit. Everything can be improved, to say that it's prefect is kind of missing the point. Hbdragon88 22:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Improved, yes, cropped, no thanks. --MrStalker 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Try "succulent" - reporting the game item in as few words as possible. Hbdragon88 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the closure of the AfD is not a rubber-stamp on its current state. Starting a second AfD would be considered disruptive and would probably be closed (I'd be accused of ramming another AfD to get "the desired result"). I mentioned that if it survived AfD I would pretty much cut it down to a two-paragraph stub, and you said that there was nothing wrong with a two-paragraph stub. There are some rumors that are encyclopedic to report on, and then there are some that do not. Posting the lists of unconfirmed cars/girls is not one of them. Hbdragon88 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never said, written or even thought that I accept the article being cut down to a two-paragraph stub, and I have not said it's nothing wrong with a two-paragraph stub. --MrStalker 09:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Misattributed. I reread the debate, it was brighterorange who said there was ntohing wrong. Hbdragon88 10:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason for no consensus ruling

I was the closing admin on the afd and ruled it no consenus. Since it was so close, I will notate my reasons here, but as the closing admin, I will not participate in a debate on what to do with the article in the future, but would give advice about what options are available. The voting was clearly close and well within the closing admin's purview to call no consensus. In addition, the article has a "future game" tag and the article clearly says it's not yet released. While the manufacturer has not said it's coming out, other websites do discuss it, therefor, IMHO, this meets wiki's verifiability requirement, which is all WP:CRYSTAL requires, it does not require an "official" announcement. If there were no refs at all, I'd delete it or if there was a clear policy violation, I'd delete it, but unless there is a policy I don't know about (entirely possible), I don't see that. There is no wiki ban on future events as long it can be verified as in the works, as I see the written wiki policy. I understand and respect those who disagree with me, but I can not in good conscience change my mind. The options for those who want to delete the article are to refile for another afd or to seek deletion review. Regards, Rlevse 11:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the game purely next generation, or...

...will the game be released for the smaller consoles (i.e. PS2, Xbox, Gamecube...etc.) as well? When this is KNOWN, please respond. JustN5:12 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

i think that more of a question for the need for speed forums than wikipedia.Chardrc

Third opinion

WP:CRYSTAL states this:

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

The article is almost certain to take place and speculation is well-documented. There's no reason for this to be shortened down as the information does have references.
Seraphim Whipp 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculation is not well-documented. Well-documented implies that the sources are reliable, and they're not. We have one person's word - which is not checked by anybody else - about the list of cars that might appear in the game. Everything is a self-published source - which WP:ATT defintes as not suitable for Wikipedia. Let's look at the references: five are from NFS-Planet, a fan site. [1] isn't even in English, and clicking on the bottom links reveals that it's another fan site. The ag.ru is another non-English site. If only non-English sites have reported on it - not stuff like GameSpot or IGN - it really isn't as well-founded as we'd like it to be. Poor references are as bad as no references at all, IMO. Hbdragon88 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's almost certain that the game will be released as it's part of a popular series. I could understand your qualms better if this was about a brand new game that no one had ever heard of but it does have merit on the fact that it is a popular series.

I would like to point out that it is quite ethnocentric of you to discriminate against a website purely based on the fact that it is "non-english"; wikipedia is for everyone, not just english speakers.

As well as this, the translated russian site (the translation of which is quite bad yet still clear) states that the title had been leaked therefore attributing it's existence. As well as that, the FHM idol does strongly suggest that there will be a new Need for Speed game.

Also please don't change the way I have posted my message, it is a personal preference to keep my signature beneath my message.

Seraphim Whipp 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I tend to like to use wikimarkup when possible, and I thought that adding a colon sets off the quoted block much better.

My term "non-English source" wasn't purely attended to be an effect of my flithy ethnocentrism, just the fact that English is preferred and this line here: if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it. I tend to favor caution and a better, more accessible source over publishing something of dubious quality.

Only a leaked title? There's always tons of speculative titles, especially for franchise games. For instance, rumors were flying around one month after the release of Doom 2 that Doom 3 would be coming out. It didn't happen for a long time. Perfect Dark Zero was announced in 2002 but didn't come out until 2005 (and had three platform changes). Video games are fickle, and things can change around - the existence of a leaked title doesn't necessarily say that the game will exist or not.

My chnages to the article didn't trash the FHM bit (it just removed the listcruft of model names and try to tighten it up), though that too is not a sure, definitve proof that the game will come out. I remember seeing surveys after the release of NSMB about a possible sequel, for instance. But there is nothing to go off on until some official guy says that something will come out. Hbdragon88 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The point to remember is that it is very probable that this game will be made and new information will emerge in time. The article does not claim that it is certain of the details but enough information exists that it can't be disputed that there is a planned existence of a game.

Languages for attribution also states:

"Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found."

They haven't been found yet so until then this link is the best one available. Changes to the game will be included in the article as and when they happen. Also, if you don't understand the language, it doesn't make the content "dubious".

Note: The colon does set the quoted block off better.

Seraphim Whipp 23:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't dubious because it's only in Russian. What's dubious is that no other gaming site has picked up on it. What's dubious is that it is a fan site that doesn't have any editorial oversight. If it was that huge, someone else would have - should have - also posted a story about it too. It's just really flimsy, that's all. AFD was no consensus, I'll take that, but I just think that most of the speculation should go. Hbdragon88 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Many game sites have picked up on it. When researching this game I looked through a number of pages from a variety of countries who have recognized that the game is going to be created or is in the stages of being created.

Let's face it, half the articles in wikipedia are, unfortunately, unsourced. This one will develop sources in time and for that reason it doesn't seem helpful to delete the content. Of course, a two line article could work and be expanded with sources from games sites when the game is absolutely and officially confirmed, I'm not disputing that. I think content could do with being trimmed as there are 2 lists on there which aren't particularly necessary, but none-the-less, the article has got sources which confirm the possibility of the game.

Seraphim Whipp 02:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I'm not seeing it...I just googled "need for speed XI" and "need for speed 11," and all I see are dozens of forum links, Wikipedia mirrors, etc. Links? And other unsourced articles are just a red herring, IMO; the issue is here. I can deal with the existence of this article for now (until/if Jacoplane takes the AFD conclusion to WP:DRV). The reason why I posted up on WP:30 was because of what in the article to include or not. I favor knocking this article down and rebuilding it as real sources come in, which for me is this revision. Hbdragon88 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah you know what, I was thinking that myself. Lol. I looked another lot of websites and they all seemed to have posted the exact same information. The source? NFSplanet or the like. I'm starting to think their team has just permeated quite a wide area and started forum discussions or messageboards themselves. The result? Every website that likes to think it's in the know and up-to-date might google a suspected title, to be returned with lots of forum messages saying that the game exists or has been announced and then the information becomes purported on that website too. I do stand by what I said before, it's clear the game will be created or is in the process of being created so this article isn't redundant.

I have been checking out other articles for style and such and this article doesn't really match a similar style. The possibility of it becoming a better article may need it to be stripped down and built up again. My previous reason for not wanting to reduce content was that I thought you wanted to remove all the content and leave it quite bare but the diff you provided seems much better. The content remains intact whilst reducing some features which have been purported by the one, now (in my opinion), questionable website.

Seraphim Whipp 03:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)