Talk:Metagame

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments with no heading[edit]

There is a new game studies paper which investigates the emic usages of the term metagame. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2282338.2282346&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE. Perhaps worth involving. 128.250.26.20 (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Just thought i'd let you guys know that edited away two cases of "Hydro is a homosexual", on the odd chance that it was not spam after all (permission to delete this message granted, being my first ever wiki edit, it's probably formatted wrong anyway)213.35.175.182 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification:

It seems like wild misuse of the term 'metagame' has led to the creation of this wiki article. Metagame should describe something specific that isn't already defined. The primary definition listed is the definition of 'strategy.' Metagame should be about OUTSIDE elements... not simply gameplay.

Example (proper): A runner in a race gets a full night's sleep and eats a healthy meal before a race. This helps him place better in the race. The runner is using a STRATEGY that falls ENTIRELY OUTSIDE of the race itself.

Example (improper): While participating in a race, a runner tricks the other runners into taking a longer route. This helps him place better in the race. The runner is using a STRATEGY that falls ENTIRELY WITHIN the race itself.

Assuming no one has any contention with this usage, someone should change the article. The sooner, the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justins21 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something about RPS, add it. I cleaned up the section about Magic the Gathering. The section on meta-gaming versus metagaming was both pointless and false (the term meta comes from metagame) and I removed the notion about making plays that are objectively inferior since it's also untrue. 32.97.110.64 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can this article not mention anything about Rock_Paper_Scissors? RPS is the quintessential metagame; the only way to win is if you have an idea of what your opponent will do next. --99.141.89.235 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think this article is kinda metarded. If you dunno what I mean, maybe I should write an opaque and awkward article for "metarded." Lemme know. --Nick 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This _really_ could do with a simpler definition for people. At the moment, its just very difficult to comprehend, and could do with being explained better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CalPaterson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. While the history behind the term is fascinating, it is unclear. Some dates might clear it up. Also it lacks a concise definition like "playing with the rules instead of playing the game." I'd take a whack at it, but from the existing entry it looks like this is a deeper topic than I was aware of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.249.186 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

"Playing with the rules instead of playing the game" is NOT metagaming. A "rules lawyer" (someone who obsesses about the rules or tries to exploit loopholes) is still playing the game. Metagaming is about doing something *beyond* the rules as written. The andf (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some additional information to the general explanation, though I don't have the historical knowledge to add any dates. I also added a definition for "metagaming" as it's used in CCG/CMG tournaments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parakkum (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hm...I was under the impression that in competitive gaming, "metagame" can also refer to the highest level at which the game is currently played? For example, let's say in a fighting game, there are two characters, A and B. A is easier to learn, but B has more potential. So for beginners, A is better than B, but in the metagame, B is better than A.

In response to the above edit -- yes, that is true. Its a definition commonly used in reference to SSBM. -- The M.P. 03:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a really simplistic definition of metagame since that seems to be largely part of the primary game mechanics. It's often the case in fighting games that there are easier to use characters and harder to use characters with more potential. How is that considered beyond the normal gameplay mechanic?

64.233.51.146 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. -- Kjkolb 05:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on RM, the parenthesised section in title is unnecessary and against WP:MOS. Move Percy Snoodle 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

contradiction[edit]

This article begins by defining metagaming as things done outside of the intended rules of the game, but several of the examples and much of the body text in the article define metagaming as simply advanced strategy within the intended rules of a game. Ideally, someone should find a reliable source on what metagaming is, cite it, and rewrite the article to match it. In the worst case, this article should be nominated for deletion as original research until someone can find a clear definition. Luvcraft 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, with terms like these, they are simply terms emerged into (relatively) common usage by the gaming community. There will be no "official source" with a definition save for one maybe discussed here and reach a common consensus of. Nor will there be one single definition for this term, as it is too broadly used for various different situations. The issue here is not finding one definition, rather, it's to rewrite a more general introduction and break down each individual common usages. Allan Lee 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is very much a postmodernist idea (come to think, anything with the word "meta-" in it is bound to have some element of postmodernism in it, unless it's referring to metastasis). It's very difficult, as a result, to define it without getting it wrong or something.Brokenwit 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the contradictions: what are they explicitly ? --195.137.93.171 02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few clairifications??[edit]

Definations and opinions I am adding are more to the RP and RPG sphere of the defination, I do hope it aids to in clairifying at least part of the contradiction. It is based strictly on administrative works and ovservations within various enviroments.

In the RP enviroments there are many factors that would constitue "meta-gaming". In its most basic form it would be "the useage of information, knowledge or skills that would not be normally known to the character in question to gain advantage over another character, situation/scenaro." This does include willingly useing information. Say, planning to meet up with a foe to give other players a show of a battle, useing biographies to know a players past AS a player and so forth.

This would extend into spotting an in game exploit or farming areas for items of experience in the eyes of many. To me these are different factors that I address from a different angle as an administrator and not metagaming per-say.

The part of the article covering this sphere seems to be pretty close to the mark.

Korbin Deathstalker 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a comparison to cheating would be helpful? It seems like the word "cheat" should at least show up in the article once. (After all, isn't that what metagaming is? "Transcending the rules" That's a heck of a rationalization! ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebyrob (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy[edit]

In my opinion, this article is confusing to many people because it co-incides with their definition of "strategy". Aren't most strategies a form of metagaming? Also, in any game that does not force the rules upon you (as a computer game would), but requires you to know the rules (for example, a card game), you are "metagaming" when you play, no? [edited for clarity]

69.65.232.61 (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Metagame refers to the use of outside knowledge to create your strategy. For example, if you know someone always uses rock in RPS and therefore you always use paper,you are making use of the meta game. But you can also form a strategy w/o such outside knowledge. Rules of the game are within the game too obviously.[reply]

The key in understanding metagaming is the contrast between the set of rules inclusive to the game and any set of rules exclusive of the game. If you are the #2 chess player in the world and cannot seem to win any matches against the #1 chess player in the world but you know the #1 chess player is diabetic - you might slip sugar into his coffee or tea. If the sugar causes some kind of less than optimal play state in the #1 chess player to the point of where the #1 player resigns or looses then the #2 chess player can be said to have won through metagaming. The #2 player did not win through ANY strategy relating to chess but through a strategy related to blood sugar and his opponents pancreatic disability. The set of rules in this example that are exclusive of the game of chess are something like Diabetics must carefully monitor their intake of sugar and offset that with healthy eating and/or medicine OR loose mental focus, etc.

Misuse of Auxillary Game Mechanics[edit]

How would one reference the use of in-game elements such as pop-up chat boxes or other mechanics, that are still in-game, but would alter the outcome of a play? I will cite two examples from the MMO EVE Online.

  • 1.) One could normally not shoot another neutral player in "empire" space without having his ship destroyed by "CONCORD" as a penalty. However, if the player (typically a griefer) were to invite the victim to a fleet and the request is accepted, the griefer could attack without penalty. This would be (is) considered "abuse of a game mechanic."
  • 2.) While engaging in one-on-one PvP, Player A repeatedly sends chat requests to Player B, resulting in numerous chat request pop-ups appearing on Player B's screen. This poses a significant distraction to Player B, and gives Player A an unfair advantage.

I think these instances would fall under the category of metagaming because it involves the use of an in-game function outside the scope of the given game world.

Stovetopcookies (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements and Trophies[edit]

XBOX 360 and Playstation 3 have an achievement system and a trophy system respectively. This introduces a meta element to the game play as in addtion to the completion of the game being played users compete in the meta game which is to get as many gamer points as possible across all games.

I have frequently heard achievment whoring (which involves purchasing a game with the sole purpose of getting the maximum achievements out of it) referred to as metagaming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.144.200 (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah its because Bungie called the 'halo metagame' which was the campaign scoring feature. see http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12828 and http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link=h3campaign

also for further usage, http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/214260/designing-the-meta-game/

its all RE: this sense of a linkage between instances of gameplay rather than a higher strategy (which encompasses gamer profiles on xbox, steam, origin ect)

tbh this should feature on the page as it represents emic usage of the term. I'd argue its probably false usage, but whatever, not our place

Could use some pruning[edit]

This article contains many examples and illustrations of metagaming, but not much discussion of them. It also suffers from the very broad range of activity covered by metagaming: from picking a DOTA team; through optimising a role-playing character build; to researching the habits of future chess opponents; and even politics! I wonder if, rather than a long list of examples, it might be better to have sections for computer, role-playing and conventional games and move selected examples to the discussion of each? Servalo (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added Kate the mochii (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

whoever wrote this is wrong[edit]

Note: whoever wrote this is wrong. Metagaming does not “transcend beyond the boundaries” it uses the most optimal and efficient methods within the boundaries of the game.

Etymology ???[edit]

Etymology (/ˌɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/)[1] is the study of the history of words.[1] By extension, the etymology of a word means its origin and development throughout history.

So there is section named Etymology but it's not pointing to the greek word 'meta' ? I suggest two changes:

1. Rename the section since its content is rather something else. 2. Include the pointer to 'meta' anyway for completeness and to carry the explanation.

But whatever - calling the section 'Etymology' and not providing any ... well. JB. --92.193.233.158 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added Kate the mochii (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Metagaming (role-playing games) into Metagame#Role-playing games[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Charcoal feather (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is largely WP:OR. What little is sourced can easily be merged to the broader article without compromising it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The recent AFD shone a light on this whole area, and it needs a good cleaning. If it grows big enough we can split again. The history will be preserved in a merge/redirect. —siroχo 09:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only Metagaming (role-playing games)#Concept is sourced; the examples section appears to be entirely OR. While Metagame itself needs work, merging the sourced role-playing info would help that article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Upon reviewing the 3 sources more closely (see #Source analysis below), my view is that we have 1 strong source (Raiding the Temple of Wisdom), 1 source which narrowly discusses it (Forum-Based Role Playing Games) & 1 source which is just a passing mention (Edwards on The Forge). Per Siroxo below, it may nor may not meet WP:GNG; I think that depends on if we view forum-based role playing games as a subset of TTRPGs or its own standalone thing. I still think it is a WP:REDUNDANT article (1 sourced paragraph in the article) & that there isn't enough content for it to be forked from the larger Metagaming article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock comments Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: Kate the mochii was blocked in July 2023 for abusing multiple accounts. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petit Bébé Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — https://www.dungeonsolvers.com/what-is-metagaming-and-how-do-you-avoid-it/ https://tabletopbuilds.com/metagaming/ https://rollforfantasy.com/guides/meta-gaming.php
This is more than enough to presume the notability of the topic "metagaming in tabletop RPGs" and more than enough to write an article on the subject.
Relevant essay: WP:BEFORE.
— Kate the mochii (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am skeptical that a Wikipedia article can be constructed based on those three WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources. I see what looks like 2 reliable sources in that article, and another self-published source. While based on the two good sources (I would need to investigate them) we may technically meet WP:GNG, I think it serves the encyclopedia better to employ a bit of WP:TNT and write up a good article here, which can be split as necessary in the future. —siroχo 03:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Siroxo that these 3 sources above appear to be self-published blogs (Dungeon Solvers at least has an "about" section but can't find anything about Tabletop Builds & Roll for Fantasy appears to be mostly randomized tables & other tools for running games).
While I added 2 secondary sources to the article in 2021, I don't recall much about either. I assume I used google book previews to access them and saw something about metagaming when looking for something else (if I notice something could be useful from a source, I tend to try to update multiple articles at once). I don't have access to these books right now so I can't tell you how detailed either source was on the topic. The third source in the article is by Ron Edwards (game designer) & was originally published on The Forge (roleplaying game website) which was an influential gaming website in its time (so it may meet WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert..."). I would appreciate another editor reviewing those 3 sources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources about "metagaming in TTRPGs" are readily available on Google Scholar. Kate the mochii (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kate the mochii: It would be awesome if you could provide three of those sources (see also WP:BURDEN). Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah Kate the mochii (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C35&q=Metagaming+ttrpg&btnG= Kate the mochii (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE instructs you to look at all the sources (yes even those not in the article) before participating in a discussion like this. Kate the mochii (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph of WP:V also Kate the mochii (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically suggested keeping the section I added secondary sources to in 2021 by merging it. Additionally, I did a quick review of the 3 sources you provided above which are all WP:SELFPUBLISHED. And I flagged that the secondary sources I added could use a review to determine whether or not metagaming was simply a passing mention or something examined in depth as I don't have access right now. Also, this discussion really falls under WP:MERGEREASON because it isn't an AfD.
WP:BURDEN states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If you say "sources exist", it is up to you to provide them. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "sources exist", it is up to you to provide them.

This is irrelevant since I provided a Google link which lists way more than three.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C35&q=Metagaming+ttrpg&btnG=
"Challenging" a topic when hordes of sources are available on Google forces other editors to trememdously waste their own time. It gives an ultimatum to avoid the "merge" (deletion) of an article that they might potentially contribute in the future. I am not saying this for me or this article in particular.

Kate the mochii (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE, which you mentioned at the top of this thread, applies solely to Articles for Deletion nominations, not merge discussions. Articles that have reliable sources can still be merged if there is a sufficient WP:OVERLAP, which can be argued in this instance since the merge target is a broad concept article and this is a smaller facet of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE, which you mentioned at the top of this thread, applies solely to Articles for Deletion nominations, not merge discussions. Articles that have reliable sources can still be merged if there is a sufficient WP:OVERLAP, which can be argued in this instance since the merge target is a broad concept article and this is a smaller facet of it.

There is no justification for "overlap". Plenty of the sources above like The Forge talk about "metagaming in TTRPGs" specifically, and not about "metagaming" in general with a paragraph on TTRPGs
— Kate the mochii (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that as a new editor you could reframe the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy on providing sources (ie. WP:BURDEN/WP:PROVEIT link to the Verifiability section on "Responsibility for providing citations") not as "an ultimatum" but instead as an essential part of creating, maintaining & expanding articles. Part of what the WP:THREE essay is highlighting is one way to meet the Verifiability burden is to provide the three best sources out of a list for other editors to review (or in this case, out of all of google scholar). If you want to add or keep a challenged piece of information on Wikipedia, then it is up to you to provide the sources.
I'm not a deletionist & have been part of many AfDs where the only way to save an article was to quickly find sources and improve it; saying "sources exist" was not enough - we had to actually do the research & prove it. Finding sources for TTRPGs & games in general can be hard and there was a real push at deleting/merging articles that no longer meet current Wiki standards (the D&D Wiki project has a whole essay on "Where did the articles go?"). I believe that merging is the best case for this topic (per Zxcvbnm on WP:OVERLAP) as we have a single sourced paragraph (where 4 sentences are sourced) which should replace the unsourced Metagame#In tabletop games section. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that as a new editor you could reframe the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy on providing sources (ie. WP:BURDEN/WP:PROVEIT link to the Verifiability section on "Responsibility for providing citations") not as "an ultimatum" but instead as an essential part of creating, maintaining & expanding articles.

WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE are both Wikipedia:Policies.
It is reasonable to say that two back-to-back (pseudo-)deletion nominations — [without having searched for sources beforehand] — is playing the words of WP:BURDEN against the principle of WP:PRESERVE. Kate the mochii (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith with other editors. We're all working together to create an encyclopedia. —siroχo 23:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Siroxo on assuming good faith. I wasn't involved in the aforementioned AfD - I only saw the merge discussion because Metagaming (role-playing games) has been on my watchlist since I added the only 2 RS it has in 2021. It is not uncommon for an AfD to highlight other articles that have issues; similarly, an editor may be reviewing all articles within a topic or category so might propose several AfD/merges/cleanups in a row. This isn't targeted behavior. While it can be annoying to have to WP:PROVEIT a bunch if someone is sweeping a topic you edit, an article should only remain if the sources can withstand being challenged (see above D&D project article after it went through a bunch of AfDs).
A merge discussion also isn't a pseudo-deletion. WP:PRESERVE specfically outlines that "instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider [...] merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article". The sourced material would be retained but moved into the larger topic article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis[edit]

Just to keep track of comments on individual sources, I'm starting an analysis on the three sources from Metagaming (role-playing games). Feel free to chime in with your thoughts on any individual source or to add new sources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom book[1]
    • The book is a collection of essays from various academics (here's a review from an academic journal & here's a review from an RPG publisher) and is part of the Popular Culture and Philosophy Series. While I'm limited to a google book preview, two chapters discuss metagaming. Chapter 20: The Gunpowder Crisis by Jason Rose goes in depth on the topic (starting on page 267 with the heading "From Gaming to Metagaming"; other headings include "Metagaming for Players", "Metagaming for DMs", and "Group Metagaming" on pages 271-273). While not every page (265-278) of this chapter was available, I would say from what I could review the entire chapter seems to examine the various facets of metagaming. Chapter 21: To Know My Character Better than He Knows Himself (pages 279-292) by David Aldridge opens by looking at how metagaming is defined in the D&D 3.5 & 4E DMGs before it goes on to talk about how the term "is used in RPG literature and discussion boards". From what I could review, Aldridge goes in depth on the philosophy of character knowledge so metagaming comes up in that context. With these two chapters, I would say the source provides significant coverage on the topic. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forum-Based Role Playing Games as Digital Storytelling book[2]
    • This book is part of McFarland's Studies in Gaming series which states it is a peer-reviewed series; I couldn't find any reviews on this book specfically. It has a section ("Regulating Language and Narrative Through Player Behavior") which starts to outline metagaming behavior on page 66. It goes on to compare metagaming & bleed before discussing how forum moderators can enforce rules on player behavior. This quote from the section conclusion on page 72 is a good example of how the section is approaching metagaming: All three heavily discourage behaviors I discussed earlier—godmodding, powerplay, and metagaming—have a direct effect on the enjoyment of play, as well as on the narratives that emerge from it. Rules that regulate these behaviors are in place to maintain the consistency of the stories [...]. Rules against metagaming ensure that IC and OOC emotions and interactions remain separate from each other. The book itself is narrowly examining fourm role-playing games and not all TTRPGs so metagaming is approached from that POV making it less expansive than the above Raiding the Temple of Wisdom. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory Chapter Three: Stance on on The Forge (roleplaying game website)[3]
    • While this source is by Ron Edwards (game designer) (so self-published by an expert), metagaming is passing mention in the chapter: "A Narrativist approach to Stances usually involves keeping Actor Stance confined to limited instances, such that Author and Director Stances may generate a lot of metagame impact on the storyline." So no significant coverage from this source. This source is only used once for a single sentence and is one of three sources for the idea that narrativist games support metagaming. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SIGCOV: However, the show's most interesting innovation is an easy-to-implement house rule that could help any campaign combat an age-old problem in the tabletop-RPG space: metagaming. and throughout. RELIABLE: No consensus on reliability, thereby leaving discretion to use it to write the section and/or article.
Kate the mochii (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom. Jon Cogburn, Mark Silcox. Chicago: Open Court Pub. 2012. pp. 271–283. ISBN 978-0-8126-9803-9. OCLC 811563646.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  2. ^ Zalka, Csenge Virág (2019). Forum-Based Role Playing Games as Digital Storytelling. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Incorporated Publishers. pp. 66–78. ISBN 978-1-4766-3526-2. OCLC 1090499786.
  3. ^ Edwards, Ron (2001). "Chapter Three: Stance". GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory. The Forge. Retrieved 2006-06-27.
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.

Removing backronym not found in reliable sources[edit]

I am removing the description of the backronym "most effective tactics available" from the article, currently sourced with a citation to marketing copy from an online PC retailer [1]. The recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most effective tactics available resulted in deletion of that article and a consensus that that the term is currently difficult to verify.

The marketing piece currently used in the article is not usable as source at all. The best source found in the AFD was this CBR piece, which explains: From professional players to Twitch streamers to casual gamers, League of Legends is engaging, competitive, strategic and, at many times, a strange mix of fun and frustration. Because of this, players have created a system called the Most Effective Tactics Available (META) so gamers, coaches, strategists, viewers and analysts can see which strategies are the most popular or successful.

As we see, this piece identifies the term as a "system" created for the game League of Legends. Note also that CBR itself is not generally considered a reliable source post-2016 (outside of a narrow few authors not including the author of this piece). I believe representing the term as more widely used constitutes WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and using the term in the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to a specific contested-reliability source covering one specific game. —siroχo 11:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted due to the acronym's use being verifiable info. Secondary sources:
https://thegamehaus.com/fortnite/fortnite-analysis-the-current-meta/2018/12/27/
https://killscreen.com/themeta/proving-grounds-geography-moba-map/
I have added those inline citations.
Other sources showing notability:
https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/meta-slang
https://gethypedsports.com/what-does-meta-mean-in-gaming/ Kate the mochii (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

consensus that that the term is currently difficult to verify

No WP:Before has been done to verify the acronym, or else, quite obviously, the sources above would've been found by the nominator and opening the AfD for this would be ludicrous.
— Kate the mochii (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamehaus appears to be owned by an online sports betting company and has no listed editorial staff. [2]
  • "The meta" source doesn't contain the term at all.
  • WP:KNOWYOURMEME entries are WP:UGC and generally unreliable
  • Get Hyped Sports has no editorial policy or listed staff[3] and the article has no attributed author.
Please read though WP:V to get an introduction to how Wikipedia sources information.
As other editors have mentioned, WP:BEFORE is a policy for deletion discussions, the nominator did note a WP:BEFORE in their nomination statement, finding evidence to the contrary. Here the policy is WP:BURDEN. And beyond policy and guidelines, I generally recommend taking a critical eye to these sources before relying on them.
Given how "controversial" this term is, we need to be extra careful in what sources we choose to use, or else we risk becoming the source we rely on (unfortunately, not at all unheard of in Wikipedia history), see a recent example where a Wikipedia article cited a blog that cited Wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Unitarian Conference.
Please, @Kate the mochii, wait for a reliable source. If you want to, search for one by all means, but we must not rely on unreliable sources.
—siroχo 12:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See sources below Kate the mochii (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Siroxo stated, the AfD closed as delete. Numerous editors checked and found nothing. Furthermore, this is feeling more and more like WP:BATTLEGROUND. You must be willing to interact with others. Lambasting other editors is not that, especially when it's basic common sense that "meta" derives from "metagame". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jirspa-2023-0013/html

In esports, “meta” is an industry term sometimes meaning “most effective tactics available”.

It refers to the generally agreed upon strategy by the gaming community that is considered

Kate the mochii (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/meta/ While some claim this meta is an acronym for Most Effective Tactic Available (a folk etymology), it is short for metagaming, using knowledge about the game itself to beat the “game” of mastering that game. Kate the mochii (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2021/12/20/there-s-another-meta-marketers-should-be-concerned-with-their-most-effective There’s another ‘meta’ marketers should be concerned with – their ‘most effective tactic available’ Kate the mochii (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/what-is-twitchs-tv-meta-and-why-is-it-controversial-1865542/ Twitch has been host to a variety of different ‘metas’ in the past. Essentially, a ‘meta’ is a trend that’s guaranteed to get views, seemingly taken from a term popularized by MMO games that stands for “Most Effective Tactic Available.” Kate the mochii (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://gamerjournalist.com/best-new-meta-players-to-use-right-now-in-fifa-22/ There is a well-established ‘meta’ in every video game, which outlines a way of winning that has proven to be more effective than others. Some have referred to meta as an acronym that stands for “most effective tactics available.
It is used by industry professionals (https://themeta.com/our-story/) and reported by secondary reliable sources and online dictionnaries, so I removed the maintenance tag. Kate the mochii (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the source by Mark A. Rerick and Sandra Elaine Moritz from a De Gruyter journal seems to verify the term: In esports, “meta” is an industry term sometimes meaning “most effective tactics available”. I would suggest relying on this source.
I'm not sure on "Gamer Journalist" as a source, as it just hasn't been cited in wikipedia before. We're probably ok including that citation, as we generally assume sources with editorial oversight and no obious COI are relaible until consensus says otherwise.
Dexerto is not generally considered reliable [4][5], and the drum seems to be a marketing-focused publication and not a good reference for a game-related article, especially given that we have an RS. Themeta.com/our-story is a primary source (the publication describing itself) Leaving those out will strengthen referencing, imo.
Hope this source analysis helps.
—siroχo 23:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dexerto is not generally considered reliable

The latest RfC says there is consensus against deprecating it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_266#RfC%3A_Dexerto
One can use discretion to include it in the article. It would be absurd that the topic "most effective tactic available" prevents you from using it, when you in turn can see Dexerto most often used in BLP articles. Kate the mochii (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty rare to deprecate a source, the fact that there was a discussion about deprecating is a sign of how unreliable it is. I'm just suggesting that by including the Dexerto source it slightly weakens the referencing, so better to leave it out now that you have a strong RS (Rerick/Moritz) and a second ok one (Gamer Journalist). —siroχo 23:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo, Kate the mochii has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and I have deleted the backronym redirect. Please use your own judgment how to deal with the content in this article —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I might take a few days to let it cool, and see what further consensus develops. Pinging @Zxcvbnm back to this talk page as well who proposed a merge above. —siroχo 23:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blocked user really did a number on the article, as well as filling the talk page up with illogical arguments. Many of the sources they added are unreliable (i.e. "Premium Liquid Cooling Solutions") I am of half a mind to simply roll back the page to its state a week ago before they changed anything and go from there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with whatever you choose. I will almost certainly help out as we continue to improve it. I will probably just take a couple days away from the topic, but feel free to go ahead whenever you like. —siroχo 06:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead - unique contents, undue contents[edit]

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article per MOS:LEAD. This article has several entries which, while sourced, are not in the main body of the article, and may be undue to be in the lead anyway (the backronym for meta, for example).

Sourced content currently unique to the lead should be moved to the body, and the lead rewritten to summarize the article contents - this would also tend to reduce the need for sourcing in the lead. (Hohum @) 12:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

be in the lead anyway (the backronym for meta, for example).
This statement is outdated.
Given that,
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article per MOS:LEAD.
Let's review the structure of the article and the lead together:
  • Metagaming in non-competitive games — In casual games, metagaming refers to unstructured play through peripheral game elements, like u...
  • Metagaming (meta) in competitive games — In competitive gaming scenes [...] the related term meta and its backron...
  • Metagaming in TTRPG — In tabletop role-playing games, metagaming has been used specifically to describe chara...
The lead maps one to one to the outline.
Sourced content currently unique to the lead should be moved to the body,
That is a good idea and anyone can boldly do it. Kate the mochii (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary new topic heading[edit]

@Zxcvbnm Thanks for your recent work on the merge. I've taken a pass on the article. I tried to remove some of the severely unreliable sources. I also made sure the lead is more verifiable, given that the article may not be (when we get this to a better state we can move the citations out of the lead). I removed some unverifiable claims (I did not add the single RS we had with the passing mention of the backronym for now, I just removed the topic as it was UNDUE in the lead anyways. I'm not opposed to adding it back if DUE weight can be given with the RS). —siroχo 20:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metagame&oldid=1203711707"