{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Pritzker Military Library Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from Battlefield 1 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 May 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (https://imgur.com/SdJJrSX) --66.60.157.2 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Multiplayer map location links
I've been thinking about changing the current links for the locations of the multiplayer maps (Arabia, France, and the Alps) to the specific pages for the Arab Revolt, Western Front (World War I) and Italian Front (World War I) respectively, but I'm not sure if this would constitute original research in that we only know the maps are set in these locations and not necessarily in the specific context of World War I. Alcherin (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:TheAirstrip partially implemented my proposals in this edit so I've finished by including the Italian front wikilink as well. Alcherin (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
about the controvery
Hello, I would like to discuss (notbaly with Ferret ?) about what is problematic about the forum and reddit sources. Also, if they are problematic we can remove them, but the game-news magazines that i referenced are still valid I believe. thanks ! Another problem, is that i cannot include this link change-dot-org slash p shash russian-empire-and-france-in-battlefield-1 into the document because of copyright something. what can we do ? Lightness1024 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Without reliable sources, none of that can be put into the article. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Adrian ! did you check all the links I put in there ? there are reliable articles. I understand about forums, and we can take those away, which would also collapse into the removal of the phrase "Online backlash" because not citing forums policy will prevent from making that claim. (does it really make sense ? does the fact that we cant cite forums remove the truth that the backlash exists ?)Lightness1024 (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Only Polygon is a RS, and it does not say anything about the inaccuracy. The rest are all unreliable. Forum opinion is not needed, unless they are covered by the reliable sources. (see Mighty No. 9) In addition, we shouldn't have a controversy section dedicated to only criticism. So, no matter whether they are covered by reliable sources or not, it shouldn't be presented like this. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Right, in fact I agree with you. There is still one sheer truth that remains and I really feel should get exposition, is the fact that french and russian armies are just plain absent from the base multiplayer game, and that is perfectly sourced (le monde article) and it was accepted on the french version of the same wikipedia page. So, bias and controvery aside, it could be presented on a neutral manner (in fact, just like the french article version does). How would you word this ? and do you agree that the lemonde article is amply sufficient for the fact ?Lightness1024 (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- The game isn't released yet, so you can't say for fact what factions won't be in-game until the actual game release. Only limited information is allowed to the public about the game from DICE. Since it is still in development anything can change regards to the game. Regarding the claim that the French armies are absent, see this article. This isn't a controversy, it is a business model, DLC has played a large part in Battlefield games. Offnfopt(talk) 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Right, in fact I agree with you. There is still one sheer truth that remains and I really feel should get exposition, is the fact that french and russian armies are just plain absent from the base multiplayer game, and that is perfectly sourced (le monde article) and it was accepted on the french version of the same wikipedia page. So, bias and controvery aside, it could be presented on a neutral manner (in fact, just like the french article version does). How would you word this ? and do you agree that the lemonde article is amply sufficient for the fact ?Lightness1024 (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Only Polygon is a RS, and it does not say anything about the inaccuracy. The rest are all unreliable. Forum opinion is not needed, unless they are covered by the reliable sources. (see Mighty No. 9) In addition, we shouldn't have a controversy section dedicated to only criticism. So, no matter whether they are covered by reliable sources or not, it shouldn't be presented like this. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Adrian ! did you check all the links I put in there ? there are reliable articles. I understand about forums, and we can take those away, which would also collapse into the removal of the phrase "Online backlash" because not citing forums policy will prevent from making that claim. (does it really make sense ? does the fact that we cant cite forums remove the truth that the backlash exists ?)Lightness1024 (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe Adrian and Offnfopt have already covered most of the points, but here's my position. Forums and reddits are user generated and unreliable sources. While Lemonde appears to be a reliable source, it never mentions a controversy. It confirms three things: France is not playable but is featured in single player, France is missing from multiplayer in the base game, and that DICE plans a DLC for France specifically because they wanted to take extra time to work on it due to the contributions France made to the war. If anything, the Lemonde source shows there's no real controversy at all. PCGamesN has been briefly discussed at WP:VG/RS and currently seems to be leaning towards unreliable, as user contributions can apparently be posted without editorial oversight. Regarding the Harlem Hellfighters... Polygon praises DICE for including them at all, regardless of how much historical background is included in the game. Even if the French commanded the unit, they WERE still American, and Wikipedia's article on them supports that too. Thisgengaming is almost certainly unreliable, but supports Polygon with no mention of a controversy or history revision. In short, there's no reliable source claiming the game has any sort of revisionist history. -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)