Talk:Steve Jackson's Sorcery!/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits

Please feel free to add your concerns for the page here, thebladesofchaos, but you wait until I'm done, or you're only wasting time for both of us. CapnZapp (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Going through the edit history, let's begin with "Well meant, but readded colloquial language that was reduced to concise info already (e.g. Spells). Also no source on page re: use of Sorcery spell system?".

What do you mean? Just reverting my edits does a poor job of explaining to me what you find lacking. You say "readded colloquial language that was reduced" implying that I have made previous edits that you have removed.

But I can't remember ever having worked on those text passages before. What do you mean, thebladesofchaos?

My edits are intended to explain more in detail how the spell system in Sorcery! differs from regular FF books, especially since the new publication is imminent. That is not the same thing as not being concise. Please feel free to improve upon my language, as long as you do so without wholesale removal of the new information I'm trying to add.

(I see you have more complains in the edit history, but let's begin with this one, to see if we can have a civil discussion not involving reverts and undo's)

CapnZapp (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is fairly straightforward (I hope - you wait until I done ???).

Firstly, there's no statement on the source page re: Arion using the Sorcery! Spell system in the reprints. If it can be found, no problem. What it can't be, however, is a direct quote from a forum, as I note there is a forum page present.

Secondly, there is the language and sentence structure. All the relevant information was placed there in a cohesive, flowing style. What you have reverted to colloquial (that is, laymen speech) and is also repetitive and has some opinion. There's no "see below" in Wikipedia articles,; the mention of Citadel of Chaos is unnecessary and also inference (point of view); next sentence starts with "But"; then repetition re: classes and hyperbole and extrapolation re: the spell codes. In short, it reads like an entry for a fan page.

This version ([1]) conveys all the necessary information without the flaws mentioned above. All I think can be added is that the original Spells were in an appendix at the end of each title.

I also find it odd that the article has not been edited for months ([2]) and after I rewrite in a concise fashion it is then reworked that very day... Thebladesofchaos (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, thank you for starting to use Talk pages for the purpose they were created for. Okay then, now that you have put forward your criticism, let's discuss them:

• re: a source for the Sorcery-Arion Games connection. Did you know there's a template to indicate a lack of a reference? It's . Please consider adding this template instead of wholesale page reversion. I'll go to try to find one if you will reinstate my statement in the meanwhile, okay?

Comment: Actually, we should always try to make statements that can immediately be backed up. If no such animal exists, then it is perfectly reasonable to remove a comment as it is unsourced hearsay. This is the case here. If a statement can be found that supports the claim, then no problem. After all, it states at the bottom of EVERY edit page Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Every time. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• re: "language and sentence structure". First off, I oppose your opinion that your version said everything that needs to be said. (In fact, that's why I came here and expanded the article.) Feel free to edit my language to better conform to your "flowing style" but do not mistake removing facts for making it more "cohesive". Cohesive is not a synonym for "only retain the facts I personally consider important" after all.

• You consider my language "colloquial", "repetitive" and opinionated. Yet your only course of action is wholesale reverting, like showing me the previous version magically tells me everything I need to know about your preferred standards. Have you considered actually editing the text? That is restructuring the words without changing the information?

Comment: I'll tackle both of those paragraphs together as you are essentially saying the same thing. First of all, there was no wholesale reversion. In fact it can't even be called a reversion because I added addtional material to the Publication history. I simply removed a small section you added. As to why, did you read what I posted above regarding the weaknesses in the material? The fact that Wikipedia articles do not have colloquial statements such as see below? That the mention of another FF book outside the Sorcery! series is inference and unnecessary? That no sentence begins with the word "But"? There is also the issue of repeating the same information. Stating The series has some additional features, such as allowing the player to choose between playing as a warrior or a sorcerer is more concise and still accurate, as opposed to prettymuch repeating the same information twice. I suppose a mention as the sorcerer being slightly weaker may pass muster, but we don't need too much micro-detail.

As to the remainder, it has simply been said in the other version in a more succinct fashion, without the point of view, and by that I mean with a real possibility to choose a wrong option, either because the spell is the wrong tool for the job, because you lack necessary ingredients, or simply because you chose a false code word that doesn't exist as a spell! This is an emotional statement, and if we go again to the bottom of the Edit Page, it also states Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view. That's very important. The information is all still there, but is presented in a condensed, objective format. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• What I will not stand for, however, is a work procedure where I make an attempt at creating a version you're happy with, and you telling me "not good enough" by undoing my changes, rinse and repeat. That is completely unacceptable and if you put yourself in my shoes you should easily see why.

Comment : Whoa! Time out! You are doing it again! Don't start a sentence with What I will not stand for... That's an ultimatum. Not good. Take the emotion out of things and discuss objectively. As to editing, I have been in your shoes (at least in my early days on Wikipedia) and there were almost instant reverts and fellow editors showed me why my edits were reverted. A big one is those days was the dreaded...point of view. That is what is creeping in here. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally, no, despite your suspicions, I don't visit this page regularly. It was me finding out about Arion Games plans for AFF and the Sorcery! spell system that prompted my visit here, and my work to expand the section in question.

Comment: Fair enough. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I won't be making any changes to the article until you respond (or a fair time have passed), so as to allow you to meet my arguments. As your first action, and as a sign of good faith, do consider reinstating the work in progress that was my version of the article (remember, you reverted even though I specifically templated it as a work in progress). Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing to remember above all, is that the reversions are never personal. I am simply trying to keep things at encyclopedia standard. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass removal of content

While I agree that this page could be better sourced and worded, how can it be 'opinion' to describe the mechanics of the game? A lot of the text which was recently removed described the elements which make Sorcery unique among Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, and in my opinoin should be reinstated.Euchrid (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Another problem is that the changes the editor has done to text in many places are -more- opinionated and colloquial then the original (like the change from the clear and precise statement that the sorcerer "is weaker in combat" to the vaguer and more evaluating statement that the sorcerer is "slightly weaker" without specifying that this weakness only extends to combat) and that he in places makes the the intended meaning more obscure to people who have not played the game (like the change from "as author Jackson has placed false spell words alongside the possible correct choices" to "as author Jackson has placed false three-letter spell words throughout each adventure"). He also removed all mention of probably the most central game-play elements of the series, so I will reintegrate most of the old material and rephrase places that may be questionable. --Painocus (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that what the reverter means to say is 'original research', rather than opinion, and it's true that a few citations would be an improvement. I'll dig out my copies of the books this evening and add references to them.Euchrid (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)