Topic on User talk:Rose

This is a permanent link to the first version of this post. You can view later versions on the post history page.

Other information being used for loosely everything under the sun doesn't seem wrong or bad, it is after all the "whatever is left" section (though of course it has to remain up for grabs because no other section is good, not because you forgot to check one).

But I cannot really come up with any comprehensive guideline other than "keep it simple, stupid", because it's not even about the content per se and the only priority seems to be the page look.

As I said it's no biggie if you write even the most inconsequential cruft on a game without much else "happening" anyway (in fact, adding even some "almost pointless action" to a very skinny article may still embellish it). But the very same things would be atrocious on a much more busy article like the ones above (putting even aside that if there are really so many separate "unquestionable fixes", then it comes natural to ask why nobody bothered yet to bunch them together)

Maybe the instructions should focus more on the art of succinctness and cherry-picking?

Then, mods aren't exactly the most objective things on the shelf to begin with, but I don't believe that's any fundamental obstacle... even though it's hard to word out properly just how many "70% game world HD packs" are worth a "150 hours partial conversion or "coop total conversion.

p.s. I also thought we were all about fixes, and then we started to add overview and taxonomy