Discussion MediaNotes / ElectronicEntertainmentExpo

I have to agree. We can move the E3 2021 stuff to the 2010s subpage and then cutlist the 2020s one. Any presentation that isn't legally or commercially tied to E3 is talking about something else altogether.

I will say that the ESA has not officially cancelled E3 for 2024/2025 (yet), but this is a good idea if they do.

Problem is, it's going to be a very long time for them to either confirm the demise or E3 or debunk it, as the next two years are already confirmed to lack an event. And during that time, the 2020s subpage will be of no use whatsoever, except to tempt tropers to add information regarding gaming events that are not associated with E3 or ESA. Only the information regarding the 2021 edition is worth having, so it can simply be taken to the 2010s subpage.

I would opt to only make a general mention of those alternative presentations and calling it a day. If anything that shows up in E3 2021 (which we hope WILL happen) is related to the stuff shown this year in those substitute events and mention of it is necessary to provide full context, then it can be mentioned in the 2021 section proper.

makes sense. We should wait until we're in something like late July or mid August and just mention who presented, since there's not much of a centralized list yet and things are still in flux.

My vote's for short. A lot of the "detail" feels like unnecessary Padding that doesn't actually say a whole lot.

Why not compromise? Games that have been seen before can get simple mentions, and new ones can get short descriptions, in separate sections.

Better, but I'm still worried about how many separate sections that would amount to. I'm also thinking that some of the description content, like the game's genre and setting, might be better left for the works page.

Ultimately, I want to get closer to the style of earlier years' entries. If you read through the folders, 2015 is where I feel things started to balloon out of control, with each conference getting around a half-dozen subbullets each; many of which only describe a single game.

Long - why would want to remove someones contributions when they are factually correct and not politically controversial?

It's less that I want to remove what's there and more that I want it to take less space. I've thought about it some more, and I think that if we start condensing things into an unofficial limit of three or four subbullets per entry, that'd be pretty close to what I would consider ideal. I'd rather have a few decent-sized blocks of text than numerous single lines with a bunch of empty space around them.

No idea, I don't see the connection either. And I really hate the idea of using the informatio about the E3 tribute to the fallen ones as a backup to add something purely tangential. I'd have it removed if it was up to me, since all that matters is that the conference showed solidarity on the affected ones. But since Dragon Ranger already triggered an Edit War over this, I'll see if I can bring the issue to Ask The Tropers first.

I added the original entry on shootings/violence, along with the bit about women in games.

I put it in because I saw a few articles on various websites talking about how violent games as an overall medium are, and several took a critical look at that, especially in light of the Orlando shootings. I noted it because the timing of the shootings prompted the discussion to resurge on video games and using violence as a problem-solving tool.

I have no opinion on whether or not it stays in there, but I figured giving my original reasoning might be helpful. It wasn't about censorship, because no one's talking about censorship, nor was it complaining about what people create. I put in the Fem Freq link to give a source for the numbers linked but didn't want to draw conclusions - I figured just putting the numbers there and saying "this was talked about" was enough.

That entry as a whole seems entirely unnecessary.

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause trouble. I didn't feel my one reversion constituted an edit war yet, but clearly I need to revise my definition of "not yet".

Overall, I'm on the fence about referencing the shooting. On the one hand, it did have an effect on the show and its coverage, but on the other the effects were pretty minor. That's related to the reason I made my edit - the other version of that entry only mentioned the shows of solidarity, and if we're going to reference the event then I wanted to put the focus more on how it affected the discussion around the games, which I feel is much more relevant than just people wearing ribbons.

Overall, I agree with Dark in that I see the reasoning for possibly keeping it, but also don't have a problem with removing it.

Given that it was brought up specifically in at least one conference, and nearly everyone was wearing ribbons, mentioning it doesn't seem "unnecessary." These events don't happen in a vacuum, and it set part of the climate for E3 by just being in such close proximity.

I guess expanding the other 'controversy' entries doesn't have to happen, but given that this is the second (if not third) year in a row the issue of women in games has been brought up, and the second year in a row violence in games has been brought up, these aren't exactly small, meaningless issues - they keep cropping up at E3 time, because that's when they become relevant again.

Contrary to my previous message, I'm in favor of mentioning these issues and the discussions surrounding them, because they're relevant to E3. As for what to say about Orlando, as long as something is said, I think that's good. I'm against not mentioning it at all.

Let me put it this way: What do these issues have to do with TV Tropes?

We're not a video game news outlet. We try to avoid controversy whenever possible. We're a site for documenting tropes in fiction. Useful Notes pages exist to help that mission.

How does documenting controversy do anything other than potentially take a side and import drama?

I'm going to take it to Ask The Tropers.

"How does documenting controversy do anything other than potentially take a side and import drama?"

Especially when you're trying to cite Feminist Frequency (itself a very touchy and controversial website on its own) as a source.

The E3 page is about the history of the event and what software, hardware and tech presentations and events took place year by year. Whether said content is subject to debate on gender portrayal or vide game violence is not relevant to this page, and overall only has a very small notability to the event itself in an incidential sense; it's not something the hosts and developers come to the event to talk about.

I would simply leave the whole solidarity part, as that was the only thing mentioned before it was repurposed as a backup for the whole "analysis" thing (and, worse, later demoted to a mere "side note" to give greater focus on that "analysis" thing). But I wouldn't be against removing everything including that just for the sake of eliminating the problem from the root, since it's apparently too hard to resist the urge to bring controversial themes to a page that isn't intended to expand upon them.

We clearly have different ideas about what is and isn't relevant to the page, so, okay. I still think mentioning Orlando, even if just to provide context, is needed.

It's not what they come to talk about, but that doesn't make it not relevant. It still happens. An event this size in gaming culture has a huge impact, and that these controversies crop up because of what happens at the event makes them relevant. They're not intended, but they're quite relevant in the context of the event.

If you don't want it down on the bottom section, that's fair. I don't agree, but wikis work on majority opinion. That in mind, can I stick a bit in the top section about how E3 time tends to stir up controversies, especially in the modern years, due to the massive intersection of various parts of gaming culture? I think that completely not mentioning how E3 can relight these fires or expose new ones would be, well, off base because it has and does.

I can see both sides. My understanding was that it wasn't off-topic to note general trends in addition to just having a laundry list of the conferences that took place, but MyFinalEdits has a good point on how that can start hitting up against Trope Decay and the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment.

Regarding Orlando specifically, it wasn't something I would have added myself but if we are to talk about some of the trends and discussions around the show then keeping it has some merit. I don't think the solidarity part is worth mentioning on its own, though, as it was ultimately a footnote. If we're already talking about Orlando, by all means include it; but the fact that everyone wore ribbons didn't really have any affect on how they presented their games.

Thing is, ATFR is neither for in-universe examples nor to be linked outside Sugar Wiki. It's been decided to be that way since some time ago. So please don't link it here.

I don't think it's a matter of who put the idea out "first", but rather who can do it more efficiently.