How to decide what/what does not deserve its own page?

As can be seen with both of World of Warcraft's expansion packs, World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade and World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, games do not necessarily have to be full games to have their own pages. Expansion packs recieve page-worthy treatment, as well. We can also see this with The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind's two expansion packs, The Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon and The Elder Scrolls III: Tribunal, and both of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion's two expansion packs, The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine and The Elder Scrolls IV: The Shivering Isles; however, there are other game addons/ex-packs that have not been given their own pages. Why is this? What constitutes content that can/cannot have a wiki page dedicated to its coverage?

Let's return to the previous examples of TES: Bloodmoon and especially TES: Knights of the Nine. While Bloodmoon is a legitimate expansion pack, introducing new missions and an entire new continent (similar to Wrath of the Lich King's introduction of Northrend,) Knights of the Nine is quite literally nothing more than a few new missions.

I'm not saying these pages should be erased, what I am saying is that if these "games" deserve their own pages, other "games" containing just as much or more content should have pages of their own as well.

Case and point, Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and The Damned. Not only does GTA IV's first expansion pack include new missions (a la Knights of the Nine,) you are also playing this ex-pack with an entirely different character. Instead of playing as the original game's protagonist, Niko Bellic, GTA IV: L&D is played through the eyes of Johnny Klebitz - a member of the Liberty City biker gang, The Lost.

I understand fully that regular DLC additions such as those recently seen in Burnout Paradise should not have their own pages because these are minor content tweaks and addons. In contrast, The Lost and The Damned has an amount of content equal to other previously mentioned examples that have their own pages.

I'm sorry if I have missed the explanation as to why L&D does not have its own page, or perhaps there has been no explanation. Perhaps there simply has been no member who has taken the initiative to create a page. But I am pretty curious about this and clarification would definitely be appreciated. Anyway, thanks for reading/any help you may be able to provide! :D

Sounds like a silly, arbitrary distinction to me.

"Sounds like a silly, arbitrary distinction to me."

"Bellum said:

"Sounds like a silly, arbitrary distinction to me."

^^That."

"If the game is sold in retail, it deserves a page. Expansions, add-on packs (e.g. Sims 'Stuff') and so on.
If the content is just DLC - as L&D is - then it doesn't need it's own page. The game is not getting a retail release, it is simply being downloaded onto an existing game.

Think of it as the expansion is going on top of the game, and the DLC is simply expanding it.
Or something like that."

All the sims expension have their own page actually. Everything that is retail gets a page (including expensions)  DLC should be added to the original game its wiki. True that DLC can sometimes be more meaning full than actual retail expansions but this is the way GB works.

"SuperMooseman said:

"If the game is sold in retail, it deserves a page. Expansions, add-on packs (e.g. Sims 'Stuff') and so on.
If the content is just DLC - as L&D is - then it doesn't need it's own page. The game is not getting a retail release, it is simply being downloaded onto an existing game.

Think of it as the expansion is going on top of the game, and the DLC is simply expanding it.
Or something like that."

All the sims expension have their own page actually. Everything that is retail gets a page (including expensions)  DLC should be added to the original game its wiki. True that DLC can sometimes be more meaning full than actual retail expansions but this is the way GB works.

"

In the case of Knights of the Nine, the PC version was available as a retail package. And Shivering Isles was also available as a retail package.

Now, here's a table to examine how the major sites handle some of these DLC expansions.

What, then, about games that can only be found through digital distribution? What about old games that can no longer be sold? What is the point of the Wiki? To document games, or only to document games that is arbitrarily "important" to the "game journalism industry"?

What about them? Sure, we can write about those.

But in the case of DLC packs, I'd hold off on creating pages for them. There might already be some new feature in the pipe to handle this kind of thing. Regardless, this is the type of decision I think is best left to the staff.

What makes an expansion sold online less important than an expansion sold on shelves. Does this magical difference also correspond to games that are sold on shelves in relation to games that are sold online?

I don't know. But that's just the way it seems to be. Let's wait and see if we can get an official word on this.

"Think of it as the expansion is going on top of the game, and the DLC is simply expanding it.
Or something like that."

"The Lost and the Damned is worthier of its own page than Knights of the Nine."

I'm  sure before the site launched the guys said they wanted to have separate sections on the pages for DLC, and be set up in a way that they can get their own reviews etc. And I'm sure some time after launch they addressed this, saying that it wasn't something the current site could do, but it was something planned for the future. It's something I'd like to see them look into adding pretty soon. Perhaps after they've finished the redesign.

And I suppose these sections, rather than focusing purely on DLC, could incorporate any form of ad-on e.g. retail (like the WoW expansions you mention). These new sections could be pretty in-depth, taking into consideration everything that is in full game pages, from releases to credits. It seems like a good way of structuring things to me. The only problem I can see is that it might be confusing to new users, but this could be easily worked arround by having these add ons show up in searches. The most comon way of finding a page is by searching for it. If people are looking for an expansion, rather than a game, and it shows up in searches, then there isn't really a problem

Downloadable content is additional content for an existing product. It is not a new release. For example; When you eat a hamburger with ketchup, would you consider the ketchup and hamburger two different meals or the ketchup an additional flavor that enhances the purchased product? In keeping with this metaphor, you could liken an expansion pack to a milkshake. It is an individual product served with the hamburger, but only if you choose to purchase.

As is stated in both the General FAQ and Wiki FAQ, a game page is a collection of releases. Downloadable content is never a stand-alone product. Likening this to any and all downloadable games is the exact opposite of your complaint; generalizing.
No doubt there are individual cases where downloadable content features are exceeding those of retail releases, but it is always supplementary to existing content.

 If people are looking for an expansion, rather than a game, and it shows up in searches, then there isn't really a problem"

taging release data with expansin or DLC might do he trick if the search engie would search pages using release data instead of page names(that would als sort the problem of games having different names in diferent regions and us wiki mods having to add them manually to the aliases) Pretty sure the staff is aware of this current limitation and will do something about it when they have the time for it. GB is still far from final.

(sorry Moos misread you)

"Downloadable content is additional content for an existing product. It is not a new release. For example; When you eat a hamburger with ketchup, would you consider the ketchup and hamburger two different meals or the ketchup an additional flavor that enhances the purchased product? In keeping with this metaphor, you could liken an expansion pack to a milkshake. It is an individual product served with the hamburger, but only if you choose to purchase.

As is stated in both the General FAQ and Wiki FAQ, a game page is a collection of releases. Downloadable content is never a stand-alone product. Likening this to any and all downloadable games is the exact opposite of your complaint; generalizing.
No doubt there are individual cases where downloadable content features are exceeding those of retail releases, but it is always supplementary to existing content."

Expansions are also not stand-alone products (with a few very rare exceptions, but then are they really expansions?), and there is no law that says something distributed digitally is less than something distributed via retail.

Let me get this straight... you're required to buy DLC? You don't get to choose to purchase DLC? There really is no argument for the distinction between DLC and expansion packs. Does a retail release qualify an expansion for a page? Then why does the downloadable only expansion to Red Alert 3 have a page? That is DLC. Sure, they use the word "expansion pack" to describe it, but it's still just DLC. I mean, what's the difference between Red Alert 3 Uprising and Grand Theft Auto 4: The Lost and the Damned? You aren't required to download either of them. You can choose to purchase each of them. According to your definition, that makes them both expansions and both worthy of pages. If we're going to be making a rule, it needs to apply across the board."

"Expansions are also not stand-alone products (with a few very rare exceptions, but then are they really expansions?), and there is no law that says something distributed digitally is less than something distributed via retail."

Quality of expansion packs is subjective. Encyclopedic content exists to inform, not to bias. If downloadable content does not have game pages, then it does not do so because Person A or Person B perceives it as inferior. It does so because there is a difference. A difference you can read in my previous post.

Braid is a stand-alone release. Downloadable content and downloadable games are not the same.

And again; Nobody is questioning the quality or quantity of this content. It simply does not meet the qualifiers that are set at present. Whether this can be changed or not is a topic of discussion that can be had elsewhere.

It simply does not meet the qualifiers

Arbitrary use of the word arbitrary, considering it is the exact opposite of the situation at hand. You are free to discuss your personal issues with the Rules and Regulations elsewhere. Suggesting a change for example, or forming and creating actual points on which to base your argument.

As for now, you are merely trying to illicit a negative response. Constructive criticism is highly encouraged, but please stop trolling.

Hey folks I just got word about this topic and figured I would pop in and provide some confirmation on how things work around here. The Staff make the rules and final decisions concerning the Wiki Database, the Moderators (Wiki Mods specifically) are tasked with making sure those rules are enforced and followed by the community who is asked to respect and please abide by the rules laid down.

Now I know not everyone is going to agree with the way information is classified within the database and we don't want to discourage folks from discussing, debating and thinking in-depth about this sort of stuff. Thats awesome people are taking the time to really think hard about the Wiki that much. However there is a fine line between expressing a personal opinion on how the Wiki is run and information classified within it and causing a scene over it because the final answer is not what you agree with.

I can't speak directly for the Staff so don't take what I'm about to say as fact. But I think we can all agree the way information is classified in the database is not perfect, there is some grey areas which needs debate and discussion over. And there may be some changes to the way the Wiki works in the future and how information gets added into it. But until that, assuming it does, happen I would ask you all respect and abide by the rules for the current way the Wiki is setup.

So in short all I'm asking and hoping is people can respect the rules and the way things are for the moment, even if they disagree with it.

"it is the exact opposite of the situation at hand."

You are free to discuss your personal issues with the Rules and Regulations elsewhere.Suggesting a change for example,

or forming and creating actual points on which to base your argument.

What, then, about games that can only be found through digital distribution? What about old games that can no longer be sold? What is the point of the Wiki? To document games, or only to document games that is arbitrarily "important" to the "game journalism industry"?

What makes an expansion sold online less important than an expansion sold on shelves. Does this magical difference also correspond to games that are sold on shelves in relation to games that are sold online?

Expansions are also not stand-alone products (with a few very rare exceptions, but then are theyreally expansions?), and there is no law that says something distributed digitally is less than something distributed via retail.

As for now, you are merely trying to illicit a negative response. Constructive criticism is highly encouraged, but please stop trolling.

We're asking why a rule is a rule and the only response we've gotten is "because." That is the arbitrary nonsense that makes people get angry. And yes, arbitrary is the right word. Justin_Case is either unaware of how vague he is really being, or is intentionally disingenuous. I prefer the former and I'll roll with that until further notice.

P.S.

Bellum is not being a troll for disagreeing with you, Justin_Case. You have been inversing the word order of our argument and then stating it to be the reason why you are correct. And that's just crazy talk.

"Downloadable content is additional content for an existing product. It is not a new release. For example; When you eat a hamburger with ketchup, would you consider the ketchup and hamburger two different meals or the ketchup an additional flavor that enhances the purchased product? In keeping with this metaphor, you could liken an expansion pack to a milkshake. It is an individual product served with the hamburger, but only if you choose to purchase.

As is stated in both the General FAQ and Wiki FAQ, a game page is a collection of releases. Downloadable content is never a stand-alone product. Likening this to any and all downloadable games is the exact opposite of your complaint; generalizing.
No doubt there are individual cases where downloadable content features are exceeding those of retail releases, but it is always supplementary to existing content.

"Hey folks I just got word about this topic and figured I would pop in and provide some confirmation on how things work around here. The Staff make the rules and final decisions concerning the Wiki Database, the Moderators (Wiki Mods specifically) are tasked with making sure those rules are enforced and followed by the community who is asked to respect and please abide by the rules laid down.

Now I know not everyone is going to agree with the way information is classified within the database and we don't want to discourage folks from discussing, debating and thinking in-depth about this sort of stuff. Thats awesome people are taking the time to really think hard about the Wiki that much. However there is a fine line between expressing a personal opinion on how the Wiki is run and information classified within it and causing a scene over it because the final answer is not what you agree with.

I can't speak directly for the Staff so don't take what I'm about to say as fact. But I think we can all agree the way information is classified in the database is not perfect, there is some grey areas which needs debate and discussion over. And there may be some changes to the way the Wiki works in the future and how information gets added into it. But until that, assuming it does, happen I would ask you all respect and abide by the rules for the current way the Wiki is setup.

So in short all I'm asking and hoping is people can respect the rules and the way things are for the moment, even if they disagree with it."