This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They both have reasonably sized, well referenced interwikis in Finnish. The history article in fi-wiki is mainly based on a book, which is now available also as an English version (marked in the "Further reading" section). I do not have that book available, but I have made the Games-project in fi-wiki aware of these two articles which I started. --
Tappinen (
talk)
10:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Other wikis do things differently—difference source standards, different notability standards. The question is why the "history" needs to be split from the main article. The standard is to build out
summary style unless there is some overwhelm of sources that require the split even without
summary style. Right now, the two articles completely overlap in scope. czar18:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Well firstly there is enough source material to support the article: two big books released in 2014 and 2015 by Juho Kuorikoski (
[1]) and Elina Lappalainen (
[2]). The history has been subject in Finnish academic game studies also (
[3]). This year also opened a Finnish Game Museum (
[4]), that chronicles the history of Finnish game industry. In the main article there is no need to cover the history so broadly, so main article is needed already for that reason.--
Olimar (
talk)
11:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
All of those sources should be covered in the main article. If there is more content to split out, we do so when that sourced content
outgrows the main article. Compare this with the other "Video gaming in X region" articles {{history of video games}}—they're mostly histories of video gaming in that region, and the histories constitute significant chunks of the articles. There are plenty of books on the histories of gaming in the US/UK, but that doesn't necessitate a split as long as a home already exists for the content. czar18:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.