• 14 Posts
  • 210 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle


  • Weird to discover I’m in the minority for trusting the verification check marks. Sure, I’ve played games without a check on Deck, but I usually use the check to determine how smooth and enjoyable the experience will be.

    I’ve realized I just prefer mouse and keyboard so much that I don’t find the deck as enjoyable as others. I still love it, but the number of games I’m interested in playing on it are very limited. So the check is helpful to know how comfy the game will be.

    I don’t want to waste any time setting a game up or fixing issues on Deck. It’s just not what I bought the device for.

    That being said, any recommendations for smooth, out-of-the-box games on the Deck that didn’t appear in the top 10?














  • Thank you very much! I wasn’t aware of these guidelines so it’s interesting to read

    I think the notability is a little hard to define, so I could see some discussion happening, especially about more minute details like individual items in games. But it seems like, based on the existence of a Krillin page, that there is at least some precedent for somewhat broader topics


  • NotNotMike@programming.devtoGames@sh.itjust.works*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I see what you’re saying, but also I don’t think those analogies are necessarily fair. I don’t think putting Yoshi’s birthday on Wikipedia instead of Yoshipedia is quite as critical as a central bank failure

    We’re on Lemmy, which is an aggregation source just like Wikipedia. Some knowledge is only stored here, while other knowledge is an external link. It’s not a bad thing to be a central point of information as long as it is a community-driven process with high levels of transparency, like Wikipedia.

    Lemmy, however, works differently from Wikipedia or Reddit in that multiple services work together to be that aggregation source, which is great, and Wikipedia doesn’t have that, which is not great. So that of course could be better in an ideal world, and I would bet there is a federated Wiki service already out there

    But, I’m not talking about life changing information here, I’m talking about what happened to Krillin in episode 700 of Dragon Ball Super, I think it’s okay if that information lives in one central location - especially since you can always just watch the episode again to verify


  • Do you happen to know where in the rules it would list the “level of relevance”. I did a cursory read through of the content guidelines but I didn’t see anything that would necessarily exclude descriptions of specific video game content, levels, or assets, but I’m no master at Wikipedia - I can’t say I’ve contributed much beyond donations.

    Also I did mention those unique features some wikis have. For example, the Old School RuneScape Wiki has some really great calculators, maps, and data collectors, so I’m very happy with those. But for less popular ones where nobody is putting in the work to make the wiki exemplary feels like we may as well save time and not give Fandom money by using Wikipedia

    And look and feel I would say is good unless it’s a fandom, and then all the look and feel in the world doesn’t justify those ads


  • NotNotMike@programming.devtoGames@sh.itjust.works*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    One thing that recently had me pondering was why do we need separate wikis, why not just add the information to Wikipedia? Unless your wiki has some feature Wikipedia doesn’t support, it just seems to provide a background image and ads.

    For example, I was looking up some Dragonball information, and their wiki was really sparse and didn’t answer my question. So I randomly tried Wikipedia and it had all my answers

    My only guess is some Wikipedia usage rules that say not to but I find that unlikely



  • So I give you articles that are not only referencing the exact version of addiction you want and mention a support group that you keep referencing and you dismiss them because it’s inconvenient. I fit the references to something you might find convincing. I didn’t find sources that convinced me I found sources that might convince you.

    But please, provide your own evidence, as you referenced earlier. I have provided mine, and I await yours.

    You have literally said nothing at this point beyond referencing outdated version of the manual and anecdotal evidence.