Need help: Wikipedia article!

[Naki]

Someone that has played the game more and/or has finished the campaigns, please update the lacking and very incomplete article here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_%26_Magic_Heroes_VI

Thanks a lot!
I can't do it, because I have played too little so far (only finished 2-3 missions).

[Corlagon]

Sure thing, I'll take a look at it.

[boazmeg]

it's completely incomplete

[Corlagon]

By God what a sordid mess of an article... this looks like quite the challenge. You'll probably have to give me a few days to kick this one into shape, I'm afraid.

[Angelspit]

Don't get into too much detail, or you run the risk of having your hard work questioned, summarized or simply removed by another contributor. It's hard for us to remain neutral.

[Naki]

Well, if you are afraid of much detail, then at least provide medium details, not the current "tiny" and very outdated level of detail...

[ywhtptgtfo]

Don't get into too much detail, or you run the risk of having your hard work questioned, summarized or simply removed by another contributor. It's hard for us to remain neutral.

My experience with editing Wikipedia is that you shouldn't really bother writing a comprehensive page in it. Even though it's an open project, the bureaucracy there is messy and "respected editors" may come in and trouble you with a bunch of rules to fuel their sense of self-importance (and yes, I completely understand their rules and was an experienced editor there).

If someone wants to write good articles on Heroes 6, try Wikia instead since there is less bureaucracy there. Afterwards, just add an external link to it on the Wikipedia page.

[Naki]

I disagree.
If you don't want to make a very long and comprehensive article, you can make a shorter article instead. But the current article is awful, leaving it alone is no good...

What the hell is Wikia?? Not sure if I ever used it (on purpose - probably stumbled upon when searching for something).

[Corlagon]

I tend to notice that people who don't stick around at Wikipedia for very long sometimes get annoyed when they run into what is described as "the bureaucracy", such as an editor cutting detail as you mentioned, and take it personally.

For example I know that CH tried to make an article on Fabrice Cambounet but took offence when somebody slapped a non-notability tag on it. And I also saw a few people whining that some info on H6's horrible bugs was taken off of the page and attributed this to some Ubisoft employee. But the fact is that you can't just stick up whatever info just because you know it's the truth.

They more or less judge notability by news coverage, so you are almost universally required to justify the truth with external coverage from news articles or somebody of authority. Fabrice may be a nice guy but as far as notability in the world news goes, he may as well be a ghost - hence the deletion. Sure he was a celebrity in the HoMM spectrum. But the fact that he exists doesn't qualify him for inclusion there in itself. That may sound like a Monty Python thing to say at first glance, but it's really quite a reasonable guideline when editors get into pointless arguments the likes of "what is the value of an opinion", "is your opinion better than mine", etc. This rule severely limits the number of valid opinions you can put into the article, and thus cuts out most of that crap.

Also it's correct that they'd be better described as introductive than encyclopaedic. But I'm not ashamed to say that the only viable wiki-like site for posting detailed Heroes content is our own wiki here at CH. I think Sikon and I can vouch with absolute sincerity that you'd be way better off staying as far away from Wikia as humanly possible. For the love of God, just don't even go near that place.

[Angelspit]

For example I know that CH tried to make an article on Fabrice Cambounet but took offence when somebody slapped a non-notability tag on it.

Yeah, that was me all right, and I don't even remember why I bothered to do that or felt frustrated by the deletion.

[ywhtptgtfo]

I disagree.
If you don't want to make a very long and comprehensive article, you can make a shorter article instead. But the current article is awful, leaving it alone is no good...

What the hell is Wikia?? Not sure if I ever used it (on purpose - probably stumbled upon when searching for something).

Wikia is similar to Wikipedia (also founded by Jimmy Wales). They are decentralized and exist separately for independent projects (i.e. games, movies, etc). Dragon Age has a very good wikia and Might and Magic has one as well (though not as good).

I consider it much more preferable to doing lots of work Wikipedia because Wikia's tend to be maintained by fans and are less likely to develop some form of nasty bureaucracy.

URL: http://mightandmagic.wikia.com/wiki/Mig ... _Heroes_VI

[Angelspit]

Heroes VI is a prequel to bang ?

Maintained by fans, you got that right buddy.

[ywhtptgtfo]

I tend to notice that people who don't stick around at Wikipedia for very long sometimes get annoyed when they run into what is described as "the bureaucracy", such as an editor cutting detail as you mentioned, and take it personally.

That's an understatement. Despite being all volunteers, long-term participants tend to build some sort of special culture around themselves. Some like to show-off their length of participation in the project as proof that they are right and others are wrong. Others think it is a crime to edit to primarily a narrow selection of pages and label "offenders" as "single purpose accounts" that are not to be trusted. Then there are higher "elites" in the club in MedCom and ArbCom who like to remind others that it is privilege to speak to them.

Anyway. I can go on about this topic for pages, but my point is that "the bureaucracy" you mentioned is not simply a bunch of strict librarians but something even less pleasant to deal with.

For example I know that CH tried to make an article on Fabrice Cambounet but took offence when somebody slapped a non-notability tag on it.

Notability is a pretty subjective matter. Fabrice's page falls into "biographies of living people", which is a pretty bloody battleground in Wikipedia for numerous reasons (I didn't follow the discussions back then but it's a very common source of contention).

And I also saw a few people whining that some info on H6's horrible bugs was taken off of the page and attributed this to some Ubisoft employee. But the fact is that you can't just stick up whatever info just because you know it's the truth.

Or just anyone. One of the favourite past times I've seen from experienced editors is to remove content that are not supported by "reliable sources" (such as news articles and books). In the case of video games, it's hard to come up with sources that talk about bugs until there are "reliable review articles" that talk about them.

I think Sikon and I can vouch with absolute sincerity that you'd be way better off staying as far away from Wikia as humanly possible. For the love of God, just don't even go near that place.

Oh, whats up with Wikia? Or are you referring to Might and Magic's Wikia? If that's the case, then I agree that it's terribly maintained.

[Corlagon]

I agree entirely with your more comprehensive response to the bureaucracy and elitism problems, and am happy to concede to it.

At least I do stress though that the rules on sourcing and verifiability have a purpose and a rationale, and don't serve only to malevolently fuel anybody's sense of self-importance, even if that's often the result of enforcing them these days.

Oh, whats up with Wikia? Or are you referring to Might and Magic's Wikia? If that's the case, then I agree that it's terribly maintained.

I consider it alarming that you present Wikia as decentralised and say that it has less intrusive bureaucracy, as that is simply untrue. Wikia is mutating from an encyclopaedic site into Facebook with its achievements and its gimmicks, which is much more intrusive and unwelcome than anything I can say for Wikipedia's evolution.

[ywhtptgtfo]

o.O

If that's true, I take that back then. My experience with Wikia was more limited and took place before 2010 so that's probably why I did not experience the same frustration. (Although I am very doubtful about the fact that it can be more unpleasant than dealing with the Wikipedia bureaucracy)

Let me read that link a little...

Update: Hmm... I certainly don't like the Wikia skin and thought it's just the sloppiness on the part of the admins. It appears this bad design is actually enforced by the Wikia staff. Also, it's pretty sick that they ban people for moving out of Wikia.

[Naki]

Someone add GameSpot info to the Wikipedia Heroes VI article!!
GameSpot review is here
http://www.gamespot.com/might-and-magic-heroes-vi/
and the Wiki is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_&_Magic_Heroes_VI

[Naki]

Someone add GameSpot info to the Wikipedia Heroes VI article!!
Article is here
http://www.gamespot.com/might-and-magic-heroes-vi/

BUMP???

[Pol]

Someone add GameSpot info to the Wikipedia Heroes VI article!!
Article is here
http://www.gamespot.com/might-and-magic-heroes-vi/

BUMP???

Our Wikipedia is still in the maintenance.

[Yurian Stonebow]

Our Wikipedia is still in the maintenance.

As the game Might and Magic: Heroes VI by the magnificent French company Soft:Ubi is itself. I find this to be quite spot on in an amusing, ironic way.

Yurian

[Naki]

Sorry, what do you mean?
Do you mean the person who worked on the Wiki article is busy?

I meant adding info on that GameSpot review, which he said seemed significant, but has NOT been added yet. Maybe info on the recent CelestialHeavens review of the game can be added too?

If someone is confused, I meant the Wiki article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_&_Magic_Heroes_VI
If you meant a different/separate CelestialHeavens Wiki, I did not mean that and was not aware one exists.