Talk:Video games featuring positive female characters

This article is pretty crappy. Either the headline and title needs to change, or the article needs to be scrapped. Portal, for example, is a puzzle game. It's not a "feminist game", whatever that is. It could as well be argued to be a capitalist game as it's made to be sold to users, or an "alternate history" game. Or a "pseudoscietific game", as physics don't behave like that. This article - while well-written - is stub, misinformative and incoherent. I move for deletion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking real hard at your text, but I'm not sure what you're really trying to say. :/ If the title is inaccurate somehow but the article is well-written, as you say, why would that be a reason to delete it? Pages can be moved, you know. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

So the article claims to literally list "feminist video games", and defines this as "video games with explicit or implicit feminist undertones (or generally advocate for the feminist ideology), whether scientific or pseudoscientific.". It then further goes on to convolute things even more, claiming "almost none exist" from companies like Bethesda Softworks (misnamed as Bethesda) and Nintendo (both randomly grabbed and unsourced). Even by its own definition, this is incorrect and odd. None of these games were made from any kind of third wave feminist stance, and it's pure conjecture to categorise these in that system of thought. And if that is what we're doing, then the TITLE needs to change on the page if nothing else. Say, allegedly feminist games. Calling them "feminist games" is utterly out of context. If the point is to be made to further Anita's views or to critizise gaming as it exists today, that's one thing. But this is equating feminism with Anita's views and it's forcing these games and game companies into a framed context with defitions set so losely as to make the summary completely confusing. Any game ever made has either implicit or explicit feminist themes, for example via either empowering female characters in them or not. If they don't, that's still a theme that is very much interpreted in feminism. I just feel this is a pointless category that lacks sources and doesn't even know what it's trying to accomplish. I'd say if this term was coined by Anita, why not just make this a subsection to the article on her? These games are grabbed so randomly too, no sources, and the facts are even highly questionable. Add to that the extremely shallow criteria and we've got an article that's going to be permanently unfinished confusion, or list every game ever made. And even then it's still forcibly applying a framework of intentions onto people who with all certainty have their own stories to tell regarding what these titles communicate. Et cetera. By any standard, this article is just horribly titled, horribly summarized and an incomprehensive stub or permagrowth list article that will never be as well sourced as it needs to be to make sense. Now again, this could certainly find a place e.g. as a subsection or mention in the Anita article, but even then I don't at all support this "list of games" model. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on video games which includes content on sexism & feminism within the games industry & gamer community. It's covering the subject better than this stub is. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Either add this - in reworked format as to make the summary make sense - to the video games article, or add this as a subsection of the Anita article. I'm not saying this doesn't deserve mention on SOME level, I'm just saying that this article from top to bottom is an atrocity. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything salvageable here. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I see garbage that will be a magnet for trolls, adds nothing to the "debate" and isn't particularly informative on the subject either. Leaning towards a nuking. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I know this article is completely unfinished, but I intelligently and purposefully put it like this so as to really start off things and to have discussions like this like "all videogames are feminist" or ""this is poorly written". We have had article stubs have things like this that transformed into nice articles. I know we aren't Conservapedia but they have a list of "Conservative Movies" somewhere that shows we can have original research (honestly, I was lazy yesterday in putting in the sources but sources for part of the story or setting aren't necessary (at least by Wikipedia's rules). The Gamergate article was allegedly like this too in the third paragraph too. You people need to put in the work too, you know. Help me at least rework the criteria, as this article has good potential. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. It's an ill-defined subject with arbitrary examples & adds nothing to a topic which we already have better covered elsewhere. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Then let's put in the work...Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid, why don't you start with the summary? I'll go find the sources we actually need. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I already provided a summary: It's an ill-defined subject with arbitrary examples & adds nothing to a topic which we already have better covered elsewhere. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone tell Dragondragon about this article, it's kinda related to his pet issue GG.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Apart from adding redirects, I'll also add much more, but it seems like we are too lazy to do anything so I'll have to do the work. Also, troll-baiting may actually be a good idea: it adds incentive for us to modify the page frequently. The most debated pages are often the most intriguing.Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)B

but yeah, we might have to change the title. Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see a vote or something in which we may move for deletion. No offense Dandtiks69, but it's beyond stupid to try to force games into this narrative of yours. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, but I don't see this as furthering the cause of feminism in any way. You literally claim troll baiting might be good. But this article isn't trollbait, it's regular thinking person bait. Why piss off our actual userbase? I wouldn't be able to defend the presence of this article on RW if somebody asked me, and as an avid gamer and RW contributor I think this article - if anything - demonstrates the downsides of overarching third wave feminist theory. If anything else, this might just infect the debate. I mean, to me, this is where third wave feminism approaches Poe's law. Let's do something about this atrocity, people. And again, nothing personal Dandtiks69. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ain't that what AfD reqs are for?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm blushing very handsomely now, but... What are those, milord? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wild guess: Articles for Deletion. D-did I win? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

MFW! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mazal tov.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, people, deleting the article is NOT a solution to our problems with this page. Somebody please go and fix the title, the list, the sources, anything to rise the quality of the article, as it has great potential. So what if it's poorly written right now? Nothing I have seen in RW started out perfect. This may be accidental regular thinking person bait, but that has actually made a semi-meaningful discussion right now on what I and others have to improve on in this infant-stage page. Make it work, guys. In fact, I'll go and make some changes now. The list won't be stupid like the list in Conservapedia for conservative movies, but instead it will rival it. Like he said... I write by hand, making many, many corrections. I would say I cross out more than I write. I have to hunt for words when I speak, and I have the same difficulty when writing.- Jose Rizal [THIS GUY FORGOT TO SIGN HIS POST]

I don't think the criticism has been fully grasped here. The problem with the article isn't that it lacks content, the problem is that it is an incomprehensible article that has at once a completely bizzare and yet poorly defined goal. It's beyond arbitrary, who is going to read this article? Some kind of random judgement of games based on an armchair application of what is alleged to be feminism? I just don't see how the ends tie up at all when it comes to this article, and the votes from the community seem to agree on the AfD page. I'd say, if you want to make something out of this, why not just paste it into an essay of your own? Then you will be free to pursue your goal with your peers. But as an article on RW, everybody here gets a say. And the numbers are not in the favor if keeping this trainwreck around. No spite or anything, but this article has problems far beyond just having been newly made and not yet contributed to. It seems to me absurd. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Unsigned person: I also switched your cquote to a quote format that doesn't completely break the page formatting. I hope that was fine, I didn't mean to take freedoms with a post of yours on a talk page. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I second the motion. Moon walking to deletion (is that the appropriate motion?) InfinitelySingular 12:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed the title to something more accurate. In addition, calling games like these "feminist" is arguably more something detractors would do. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:12, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Will edit the article in accordance with the new title. Gimme a minute. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:44, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

My advice is that you convert this article into an essay before the community moves for deletion, if you want it to stay on RW and be able to rework it extensively. Wouldn't want you to have lost you efforts, even when the case for deletion is clear cut. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I mean by that advice: I suggest you saving a text dump of the page contents into a .txt on your computer and then creating an essay with those contents or whatever to do as you please with. We wouldn't want to break the AfD discussion links, redirects, and/or generally mess things up when we're oh so close to landning a near-unanimous delete vote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And now it's deleted. Great.</sarcasm> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:53, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

For reference, some of the sketchy non-reasons used to argue for deletion: "I'm not saying this doesn't deserve mention on SOME level, I'm just saying that this article from top to bottom is an atrocity" (cognitive dissonance much?), "Many feminism related things are on mission for RW, an article about games that are feminist are not" (because feminism suddenly becomes non-missionable when games are involved? >.>), "I think the new title is about as bad as the old one (it's swapped inaccuracy of description for verbosity)" (titles with 6 words are too verbose to exist? wut?) and "Cruft magnet" (this is just synonymous with "I don't want us to treat this subject").

Remarkable how quickly RW's fervent interest in/support of feminism wanes as soon as video games get involved somehow. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Come on buddy, walk it off, walk it off. You'll be fine. I don't think "our" reasons were sketchy for deletion at all. They weren't even really met with anything other than "Hang on while I expend more time and energy on this article literally as it's on the chopping block". I think the article was sketchy, and the article had nothing to do with furthering the cause of feminism or even documenting it in a meaningful way. The only cognitive dissonance that might be present in that quote from me would be the fact that I give you any benefit of the doubt regarding any conceivable use for that article, while also pointing out the obviously derpy nature of that whole attempt at writing. If you suggest that only one of those convictions can stay, it's obviously the latter, although I maintain you're just swinging for the fences right now. I would admit extending a positive message even to an article so blatantly broken would appear a little contradictory, but I stand by that. I'd rather be too generous than too unforgiving. And besides, egalitarian and feminist principles are not poorly represented here. But armchair third wave feminism placed in contribed contexts and practiced by people who make things up as they go along (in contrast to academia) is an irrepresentation of anything you could call feminism, as even its opponents would agree. And besides, I'm still not leaving anything out of the question for all time. I didn't start the vote, I suggested it. I didn't delete the page, that was also done by another contributor. I didn't sockpuppet votes to the end result of 13 to 2 (in under 24 hrs). I'm just saying that that list was cringeworthy and admittedly trollbait. Nothing personal to anyone. Make an essay out of it, grow it with your henchmen and then one day it might in fact be different enough from that other one in important ways enough that it'd be fit for an article. Nothing to it but to do it, so let's get to it, buddy boy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see... "nothing to do with furthering the cause of feminism", "documenting any of this is not a meaningful endeavour" (paraphrased), "derpy [...] writing", "third wave feminism placed in contribed contexts and practiced by people who make things up as they go [...] is an irrepresentation of anything you could call feminism" You make a pretty strong case against your case. Thank you. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

You lost the vote, simple as that. When all around you disagree then, maybe, you're not the one in the right. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Tell me that again after Trump is elected president. :) (This emoticon does not even begin to illustrate the wideness of my smile right now; cynical but wide.) (Also, blatant argumentum ad populum much?) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Democracy - worst possible system (except for *ALL* the others) Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And, if Trump is elected, you'll have to suck that one up as well. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No, no, that's exactly the scenario I'm anticipating. Remember; a wide but cynical smile. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Incidentally, I reject your argumentum ad populum suggestion. Whether or not this article should have survived is not about truth, it's about opinion. When you're discussing with your mates whether you should go out for an Indian or a Chinese then, if the majority want to go for an Indian then the one who wants to go for a Chinese can't reject that using argumentum ad populum. Similarly, when deciding what articles are, or are not, worthy of this site, the majority, having gone through the laid down procedures, rules. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I may be naïvely idealistic, but shouldn't the correctness of people's argumentation be taken into account as well? Either way, I'm not protesting that the article was deleted improperly, I just think most reasons used to argue for deletion were rather blatantly bogus. And I think our tolerance towards this bogus is rather problematic. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:24, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I would worry more about the tolerance for malignant misrepresentations of the opinions of other people, in broad daylight no less. That affects us all, despite how easy it is to catch red-handed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It might help if you didn't make it so easy to make yourself seem like an anti-third-wavist and blatantly dismissive of any feminism that relates to video games. Actually, I'm still not quite sure what your exact views are on these issues, but I'm gonna assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

My hope and goal in all my writing is to not make myself seem like anything in particular aside from the holder of my own opinion. I don't think I've lent myself to appearing like what you just described, though I forget that you can't safeguard your clarity considering the endless creativity of people who try to force you into any given of their categorisations and interpretive models (not meant specifically directed against you, but in general). Writing on good faith and assuming good faith in others greatly limits one's mistakes to, at the worst, misunderstanding or simply being wrong - which is part of being human. Which in turn makes it not just easier but literally attractive to apologise with sincerity when needed, and accept the apologies of others. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@142․124․55․236 There's that derpy writing again. You certainly speak volumes about the extent to which your contributions should be considered trustworthy when you call a hodge-podge distortion of your own invention a "paraphrase" (the original sentence of which is, intelligently of you, literally visible just right above your misrepresentation). A paraphrase must attempt to preserve the essential meaning of the material being paraphrased. Thus, the (intentional or otherwise) reinterpretation of a source to infer a meaning that is not explicitly evident in the source itself qualifies as "original research" and not as paraphrase. What I actually wrote (as is evident above for all eyes to see), without you butchering my words, was simply: "I think the article was sketchy, and the article had nothing to do with furthering the cause of feminism or even documenting it in a meaningful way.". When not tampered with by a person out to settle some kind of emotional score, it obviously looks very different. Here's a free lesson for life: this is why parsimony and the assumption of good faith are the pillars of reconstruction and evaluation in argumentative logic. I've assumed good faith on your part this whole time (the same charity towards you which you, in turn, accused of being cognitive dissonance). That means that the operative part of my criticism of this article was that it was not furthering the cause of feminism and that it was not even documenting the cause of feminism or its furtherance in a meaningful way. And since feminism is clearly meningful to document (regardless of any given stance on its furtherance), a purported article on feminism that is furthering something very vague in the name of feminism while also failing to document actual feminism and also providing a misrepresentation of feminism, makes out an outstanding problem. Not only was the article factually incorrect, it was also utilizing an umbrella term to do something objectively poorly thought through. To get what I actually said to mean anything close to what your invented, so-called paraphrase means takes a lot of angst. I also said "armchair third wave feminism" in your next paraphrase distorted quote mine from me. Meaning that the armchair version of something is not the official, factually correct or generally accepted version of something. The armchair version of [X] is always implied to be bad because it is a dilletante fanfic of the actual or established [X]. It does not criticize [X], it simply warns against homebrew versions of [X] that are aimed from the hip. I don't accept your dank conclusion whatsoever, and for the record - I don't mean to propel you deeper into the shame-reaction spiral that has already managed to stoop you to near-creationist levels of angst. And regarding your strategy of accusing the deletion vote of amounting to a fallacious argumentum ad populum - anyone with a dime store logic book sees through that like grandma's underpants. The reasons given for the vote coming to pass, the reasons given for people voting as they did and the reason given for the subsequent deletion to take place were - not one of them - ad populum. Nobody here raised a reason that even alluded to ad populum - again, to be read in original form and not in paraphrased butchered form above. The act of voting is a process of tallying capita for different propositions, but that is not the same as casting the actual votes based on what the majority or populum would do. Just bite the sour apple bro, take ten, and enjoy your smile. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I apologize if I misrepresented your views, though the use of "or even [...] in a meaningful way" in combination with explicitly stated things further in the post made it seem to me that's what you were implying. And now you're misrepresenting me, because my charge of ad populum only relates to Doxys saying my view was probably wrong because the majority of people had voted to delete. In reference to the vote, I've pointed out problems with several specific deletion reasons given. I haven't raised any ad populum allegations in that regard. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Thank you. Again, I call for you to get creative with essays that may in time get people to agree or take interest. And you are correct - you did validly argue for ad populum there. So my apologies, in return. As it stands, however - and this is not said in suggestion that you've implied this - the simple fact is that you lost the vote. The vote wasn't at fault. Just putting that out there in case that would appear to be the problem. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For the record, @142․124․55․236, "Cruft magnet" is not synonymous with "I don't want us to treat this subject." I encourage you to read it more like "listicles with vague inclusion criteria tend to become bloated with trivia." This subject has other places to roost comfortably on RW, and I'm entirely OK with that. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the basic idea of any (bulleted) list (on a wiki) that it's a collection of trivia? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Nope. The adjective form of the word "trivia" is "trivial", as "trivia" is meant to denote facts of little importance, often easily accessible and in tidbit format. If all lists were trivia, then that would mean they're all of little importance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a bulleted list, on a wiki, not to be construed as a list of trivia. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Any argument based on the projection of the meaning of one word onto another word, founded on the trait that the words are related in some manner, is deeply flawed. A list consisting of a collection of trivia does not entail that the list as a whole is trivial (in the meaning of "unimportant"). And Alec, the fact that you had to go to a recipe-wiki to find a counterexample might indicate that it's probably a pretty rare exception to the rule. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

That was just the first example (list of ingredients) that popped into mind. If you want to go all no true Scotsman about it, be my guest. Other examples would include a bill of materials for some project, or a list of registered voters. That last one would have applied before you narrowed the scope to bulleted lists on a wiki, but here is one that fits, even after that goalpost shifting. Lists of trivia do happen, but that is whataboutery, not a reason to have kept this one. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one being difficult? The rule doesn't need to be absolute for my point to stand, but I'll gladly add "almost" to it if you're gonna be so pedantic. And my point isn't whataboutery. With this wiki featuring many lists of trivia, the mere fact that something constitutes a list of trivia cannot be a proper reason for deletion. That requires for an additional negative element. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:37, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

You asked if the basic idea of any (bulleted) list (on a wiki) is that it's a collection of trivia. I think the definition of the term speaks for itself in this case. Regarding "on a wiki", there are also fairly solid reasons as to why trivia lists are discouraged against, unlike actual lists that do not collect trivia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So now lists of trivia aren't even actual lists anymore? >.> Say, I'm curious, what would you call this? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:41, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

How about "worthwhile" lists, then? Anyone can go through category:lists and see for themselves which ones consist of trivia, and which ones don't. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Once more you've reconstructed my argument completely backwards. Please take the time to actually read what I write next time. The full sentence read: "Regarding "on a wiki", there are also fairly solid reasons as to why trivia lists are discouraged against, unlike actual lists that do not collect trivia.". If you read that without taking an impromptu bathroom break halfway through it, and instead make sure to maintain the context of the actual words being written, it's very clear that I'm communicating that - in the context of a wiki - there are fairly solid reasons as to why trivia lists are discouraged against. This is in contrast to actual lists, actual - again, in the wikicontext - signifying allowed, proper or as designated - lists that do not collect trivia. I'm not saying other lists aren't lists. The word actual emphasises lists that are not being discouraged against, per formatting rules relatable as actual lists. That's why I didn't write "actual lists that do not collect trivia.", which is what I suspect you read that as. I specifically imply (if we reverse the italicization as a pedagogical example) "actual lists that do not list trivia". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, all this drama over a little quip about what seems like a strange use of the word "actual". Either way, I've stated how and to what extent the presence and prevalence of trivia-lists is relevant to my argument; I'll gladly reply to comments that actually address my point. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:13, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

There's no drama. I see this as educational. It's not so much about a word, never mind allegations regarding its application, as it is about the basics of argumentative evaluation. There's a difference between meaning and meaning. You ask, so I reply. I'm on the clear with what I'm trying to say. Save for mistakes any human can make, I'm not bothered in any way by safeguarding my points from confusion. And it's not that I'm against trivia lists. I can enjoy more than the typical wiki policy allows. We, however, fell into a few steps of needing to actually reiterate the definition of words used and asked for. No biggie. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)