Talk:Delta Force: Land Warrior

Doomed article

I've reduced the article to bare bones, believe me I did what I could to try to filter the little relevant info from all the crap, but I had no luck. I might try scrounging some info for the Gameplay section, but first I'll have a look at the history; see if there isn't a version that's actually remotely close to what one might call an encyclopedic article. Eik Corell (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Incredible - This article's entire history consists of edits that are gamecruft or excessive vandalism, 50-50. How the bloody hell has this article stood for this many years? Did people just kind of stop caring? I'm sorry for taking an attitude, but this is just amazing, in a negative way. Eik Corell (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

RV your POV is irrelevant. while the article will never be a featured article, there is no reason or excuse for removing almost all of the REFERENCED information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.204.214 (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Eik Correl, please, stop! We have many others old games and with many informations (Super Mario Bros.). Don´t kill informations! STOP! MisterMario92 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What I removed and why: : "Attractions" goes in too much depth without actually explaining that much, none of it is sourced. I'll have a look at it see what can be used. DFLW - Characters section: Should be removed per WP:GAMECRUFT, contributes nothing to article. The two groups mentioned could be salvaged and made part of a "Factions" category. Multiplayer - Way too much detail, none of it is sourced, also, I addressed this aspect in my Gameplay summery(which the article doesn't have now). Other Features section: Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and the section also violates WP:SOAP by advertising. In general, it doesn't contribute to the article either. What sayeth thee then? Lastly, please assume good faith and don't call my edits vandalism. Eik Corell (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanding the article

I have added the Reception section, a template for the plot of the game, and I used some of the data from the ridiculously long Characters section to form a "Factions" section. This should probably be merged into the plot section when we get around to that. I'm hoping someone can expand upon the plot section, because I'm not familiar with the game. Just in case no-one volunteers, I'm gonna play through the game and see what I can come up with. Eik Corell (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

... MisterMario92 (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

like quite a few other articles you have raped this one in the name of CRUFT what a bunch of crap.. its sad that you think that all of the editors who have worked on the various game articles did such a poor job and instead of "tweaking" it you feel you have to pillage them of all pertinent information. i played this game for more than 5 years online with a squad called *EZR*. what was written before you came along was damn near perfect. it just needed a little rewriting. 4twenty42o (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC) aka *EZR* kola

Well, "kola", I think you should read WP:VG/GL and line your notion of perfection up with that. 13:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

when i achieve that level of writing you will be the first to know i hope. "damn near perfect" for surely means that "yes it needs work, maybe quite a bit of work. but it was written by people who HAVE PLAYED the game. my point is clear and simple. 'why not use the information already provided to make the article worthy of a front page piece. while i may not be an editor of much worth, it seems to me that YOU would be inclined to dicuss serious changes first, take what many others now have told you seriously and work from that instead of against it, and most importantly understand that wikipedia regulations, like most regulations, are there as a guidelines. no where does it state that THIS IS THE WAY YOU HAVE TO DO IT. regulations are guidelines my sarcastic friend. guidelines are not written in stone on Mount Sinai. they are the base of what wikipedia expects from us, but by no means does wikipedia expect a robotic automated black and white article. its just food for thought man. i gave up trying to unscrew what you screwed up. eventually this will just be a passing fad for you. then the real work will begin again. 4twenty42o (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, real work in this case translates to describing every playable character even though the difference is just in the voice, and descriptions of everyone you hear in the game, like Whiskey 1, the artillery commander, who has no lines other than confirming artillery strikes. Moving on we get to hear about how even though the game is old, there is still a loyal following who play daily. Oh, and how Sgt. Daniel Lonetree is sunburned on his cheeks and nose. Trivialities, gamecruft, game-guide material, advertising, unverified claims, original research are the guidelines I've followed in this particular case. The new version has most of the categories that video game articles should follow, all in line with the guidelines that are supposedly not relevant to this article. Also, check the names of the categories of the old version and the new version, that'll give you an idea about how the different versions were written. Needless to say, it's not typical for an encyclopedic article to start with the "Attractions" of a game. If you want to help you are more than welcome to. I'm still working on getting the Plot subsection of the Synopsis category added, but seeing as you are apparently an expert, why don't you add it? Thus far, the article has lacked something as basic as this. On a side note, you are right about the discussion, but it usually leads to either of these things: No-one responds, or a lesson on the WP:VG/GL guidelines, which the anonymous IPs don't really care about. So what I usually resort to when I see content in breach of the guidelines is to to being bold and fix it, because some of these articles have looked like this for years because no-one has taken an interest in them, other than the hundreds of people who add un-encyclopedic stuff to them week after week. Eik Corell (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Im good man, as ive alluded, i am not really an editor.. besides we take way different approaches to wikipedia.. i look to improve others work, and you do.. what you do.. have fun with it. 4twenty42o (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Important informations

• Eik Corell, please don't kill informations. MisterMario92 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Eik Corell, please don't kill informations. MisterMario92 (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Furthermore, Wikipedia is shouldn't deal with gamecruft material. That is why I'm removing the "informations" - They are not relevant to the article, and they do not contribute anything. The article has been in the horrible state you keep reverting it too for way too long. Do you really think the fact that Sgt. Daniel Lonetree is sunburned on his cheeks and nose should be included in an encyclopedic article? Per WP:GAMECRUFT, it should not. For reference, look at the Half Life 2 article and look at how it's structured and what info it contains, and how many references it contains. I've actually already outlined all of this, see my entry above this one. Eik Corell (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

I've recently rewritten the synopsis. Whoever wrote it before clearly does not own the game. New Dawn officials being taken captive? Really? I have played through every level in the game, and I can't recall one about capturing New Dawn officials. In the future, I'm going to add some more sources and possibly add a characters section under the Synopsis. SergeantGeneral (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)