Topic on Talk:Dead Rising 3

So PCGW port reports are the objectively only allowable references for assesment of the quality of a port huh?

BONKERS (talkcontribs)

You realize that sounds absurd right?

Primey (talkcontribs)

That's a bit daft. I could agree on the rule if the game has a PCGW Port report and it is more in depth than another port report from a different source but if this case the game doesn't have a PCGW port report so I don't see the harm in linking a different source.

Mirh (talkcontribs)

By the way, remember port reports should go under General information, not under key points

Anonymous (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure where you have gathered that from. However, I like to think we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Additionally, this is the PCGamingWiki. This is not the Wiki with a list of YouTube videos. This is the easy defence as to why PCGW content is included and linked to. There is no easy defence as to why we should include this or that video/article, and not other content, and I'd prefer we avoid that, unless we want to lower ourselves to silly spats over why is X better than Y and why person A is more trustworthy than person B.

For the second time, please also avoid inflammatory or accusative behaviour when writing this. Rather than make assumptions, open a discussion, especially if you believe the current approach is incorrect.

Andytizer (talkcontribs)

While don't have a specific set of rules governing 'key points/general information yet', this will be codified in the near future, and will follow the pattern of removing links to specific YouTubers in that section. If a specific point is being made, it can be used as a reference to describe an issue or its fix. If we started to include videos or content from a specific YouTuber at the top of the article, then we'd also have to include them for every single game that that YouTuber has also covered too. Rules on this section will be laid out more clearly in the future.

BONKERS (talkcontribs)

Inflammatory or accusative? I'm not doing either. I'm not the people are the ones taking it upon themselves to deem what is worthy of being a qualified estimation of how a release fares and isn't and removing things(Check the history buddy. Someone removed it because of the reason "Only PCGW reports should be included." )

" Rather than make assumptions, open a discussion"

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING. Why are you being so defensive about it?

I am allowed to think this policy or frame of mind sounds and IS absurd.

The fact I started this topic in the FIRST PLACE is to CREATE discussion about this. To get other individuals opinions and discussion on the matter.

I am assuming NOTHING and basing everything entirely upon the FACTS visible. ^See Edit History

Mirh (talkcontribs)

You must recognize that huh in the end of a question is quite provocative though.
As said we are totally fine with external reports. In particular I found and particularly high-quality (and usually even better than ours)

Anyway, RaTcHeT302 is not the soul of the wiki or Andytizer. I don't think that (aside of this) somebody had ever claimed here that Only PCGW reports should be included.

In conclusion then I personally don't find that that video was videos (in key points/general information) are really important after all.
So tl;dr, even if the reasons were amiss, the actual issue in this case was quite limited

Reply to "So PCGW port reports are the objectively only allowable references for assesment of the quality of a port huh?"