Talk:OmniBus (video game)

Source redundancy

@Lordtobi: Regarding this edit, we could use a single one of those sources for all of those sentences. None of them has any usable information that the others don’t, I think, and two of them (Kotaku and IGN) have everything. It seems redundant to have four of them saying the same things, and doubly so to have them explicitly supporting different claims. Could we remove three of them? The Kotaku one looks the most comprehensive to me, including a quote detailing the different versions. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, it strikes me as inappropriate to cherry-pick the citations like that, especially for aesthetic reasons. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed version:

On May 19, 2016, it was announced that OmniBus would be released on May 26, 2016, as a Game of the Year Edition including the game's soundtrack, composed by Jeremy Crockett. Additionally, a one-off, $7,500 Ultimate Bus Driver Edition would give the purchaser the contents of the Game of the Year Edition as well as a real-life 1977 MCI charter bus, which will have to be picked up at Devolver Digital's headquarters in Austin, Texas. A Free Edition was also released on May 19, 2016, as a three-page PDF document containing cut-out papercraft models of different objects from the game.

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No good. The way you've structured it, each source has to confirm each point made in the para. Kotaku makes no mention of the dates in the first sentence (nor does it refer to "yesterday" when published on 20th, from which we could infer 19th). I didn't bother checking further, as that alone is enough to invalidate the sourcing.

Assuming that the existing sources actually support the points made, the sourcing in the article is fine as is. Bromley86 (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

IGN supports the announcement and release dates. All the claims are covered between these two sources. As is, one of the citations on the “Ultimate Bus Driver Edition” (which was “additionally” announced on the 19th for release on the 26th) makes no mention of date, so if that one’s fine, so is this. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Where there are many good reasons to add more sources, there are no good reason to remove some. Considering that Wikipedia editors try to reach a claim-per-sentence structure, every sentence ending may be sourced. Using more sources on a claim that is split into multiple, more sources add to the notability. Then it should also be considered to not clutter up the style of the source, as you previously made four sources after another. Lordtobi (✉) 14:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn’t WP:Citation overkill a good reason to remove some? All four of these sources support most of these claims. We don’t need four where two would do. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Citation overkill discribes an "overkill" of citations (obviously), which does not mean "4 sources for 4 claims is too much", but rather "4 sources for 1 claim is too much", which is just as my previously concerned citation cluttering. Lordtobi (✉) 17:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"All the claims are covered between these two sources." Yes, but both sources do not, by themselves, support all the claims. Essentially you've created the situation below, when we could instead separately support each sentence to avoid readers having to review multiple sources to confirm a point:

The sky is blue. The sea is green.{Atmosphere Weekly}{Oceans Quarterly) Bromley86 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Which, again, is presently the case for the two sources on the sentence about the bus. The status quo has the same problems you’re claiming this version has. Also, could you point to a policy or something that mentions this requirement? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Where does Wikipedia policy state the requirement you claim? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and checked whether the sources in the currently preferred version of this section support the text. It fails verification at several points, in part due to the wonky placement of the citations (the source mentioning the bus’s year is cited before the sentence stating it, for instance). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, let’s just rewrite that whole bit—hopefully in a way everyone can agree on. And @Bromley86, I’m pretty sure what you’re demanding as if it’s a rule is actually a personal preference; WP:CITEFOOT does say to cite close to the claims, but grouping citations at the end of a sentence or paragraph is not forbidden anywhere. (I did my best not to do this, though; I only have an extra citation at the end to support the exceptional claim. Alternatively: the Ultimate Bus Driver Edition, a one-off $7,500 package including the Game of the Year Edition and a 1977 MCI charter bus, which would have to be picked up in Austin, Texas.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Belatedly, here you go: WP:INTEGRITYWP:CITEBUNDLE. It's usually pretty easy to avoid having to go down the source bundling route though. Bromley86 (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, but unless I missed it, there’s nothing on either of those saying that every cited source has to support every associated claim. There’s nothing saying we can’t have a situation where, e.g., one source supports claims A, B, D, and E, and another source supports claims B, C, and E. And you still haven’t explained why you were opposing an improvement over a revision where the information was nowhere to be found in the cited source. For comparison:

A B C D E.

A B C D E.

Anyway, my rewrite seems to enjoy consensus, so, awesome. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Italicizing editions

Regarding this edit by @Lordtobi, I’ve just requested guidance at WT:MOS#Are editions of major works also major works?. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:ITAL#Titles: "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as [...] computer and video games [...]." We could at all points say "OmniBus: Game of the Year Edition", "OmniBus: Free Edition" and "OmniBus: Ultimate Bus Driver Edition". It would have to be italicized this way, and will still do even if we cut the "OmniBus: " at the front. Lordtobi (✉) 15:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that it’s not a part of the actual title, though, which is “OmniBus.” It’s a descriptive label attached to the title, not identifying a separate major work—Omnibus Game of the Year Edition. And then there’s the fact that we’re discussing a Game of the Year Edition, and an Ultimate Bus Driver Edition, indicating they’re not being used as partial titles. But this is why I posted at the MOS, as well as to get some consistency with such names across Wikipedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We can hardly argue on what is and what is not. For example, the upcomming System Shock: Remastered Edition will be a whole new game, though is just titled to be an edition of the game. Same went for System Shock: Enhanced Edition, which released last year. It is generally a thing to italicize edition names. The only exception, however, could be the Free Edition, as it is just a PDF with parecraft models, but there is no generality in how this exception would work; and as long as that is, I'd stick consistency, which in my opinion would be italics. Lordtobi (✉) 17:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Italics aren’t consistently applied to edition names across Wikipedia, though. Just do a search for the phrase “game of the year edition” and look through the results.

• Call of Duty 2 does not italicize “Special Edition” or “Game of the Year Edition,” and doesn’t even capitalize “a collector’s edition” or “the mobile version” (the latter of which is indisputably a different game).
• The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind italicizes “Game of the Year Edition” alone and both with and without a preceding colon, but not “Special Edition Soundtrack.”
• Batman: Arkham Asylum has “Game of the Year edition” roman with a small E, but italicizes “a Collector’s Edition.”

Bottom line is, we need the MOS to address this, and there’s no point sitting here saying what should or shouldn’t be until it does. I will however say that I don’t think I’ve ever seen any style guide advocate italicizing “editions.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There is some discussion of the question at WP:Help desk#Style questions go where?, though I’m still hoping for some kind of discussion at the MOS. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You will hardly get any reply at any MOS page, especially as an anonymous editor. People often do not care enough on those pages and are most likely "busy". Your best try would be to remove the question from whereever you put it and instead give the inquiry to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. The community there is way more active and will give you the answer you need. Lordtobi (✉) 06:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess WP:BRD is always an option, but that seems bad form for the MOS. I was actually going to make it into an RFC, which should get it more traffic. And good point about the wikiproject; I’ll post a notice on there when I do. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your best try would be to remove the question from whereever you put it—It hardly seems appropriate to discuss altering the MOS anywhere other than an MOS page or WP:VPP. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The question is not about altering the MOS, but to reach clarification and (if needed) consensus on the question itself. You will hardly get anyone to change any term there. Lordtobi (✉) 06:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. We have inconsistency and confusion because the MOS doesn’t give guidance on this particular point. Add guidance, problem solved. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That is what consensuses are for. The broad acception of a rule on a certain case goes over a guideline, as guidelines are no restricted policies, but are set to guide you in the form of "use it or let everyone agree on its not-usage". Once the WT:VG community tackles the issue it matters not if a guideline says otherwise, although in this case there isd nothing that prohibits it. Problems as such might get a chance to just be taken up into the MOS, but most likely not through the MOS itself. Lordtobi (✉) 09:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I’m certainly hoping WP:VG informs the discussion. But why do you expect theirs to be a minority opinion? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I’ve opened the RFC and notified WP:VG, WP:FILM, and WP:WPMU. If you can think of anywhere else where it would be relevant to discuss differently named editions of creative works, please notify them or suggest them here. Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Back to this particular article: Can these be called partial titles when we’re talking about “a […] Edition”? That’s a descriptive name for the edition. It’s talking about Batman: The Movie vs talking about Batman getting a movie. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention: the latest revision avoids this question. Iff “OmniBus: Ultimate Bus Driver Edition” is proper formatting, then the article now uses proper formatting. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I’ve deitalicized “Ultimate Bus Driver Edition,” since pairing the game with the purchase of a bus doesn’t seem to constitute a media work, per MOS:T#Neither. (Contrast with the standard game known as “OmniBus: Game of the Year Edition” [you can’t buy a copy that doesn’t come with the soundtrack], or the Free Edition which is in fact a printable document.) If anyone can explain otherwise, please feel free to revert with an explanation. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous citations

I touched on this late in the discussion about #Source redundancy, but I’m just now checking through the rest of the citations and it seems like none of them match up. Not only were there details that weren’t mentioned in the source, but there were sources that had nothing whatsoever to do with the cited sentences. So for the time being, I’ve removed all the unverified information, leaving only what actually is in the cited sources. I may go hunting for sources to restore the removed material, but if anyone else is up to it, please feel free! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)