Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most effective tactics available

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that this is substantially a WP:CFORK of metagame, and that this particular description or definition of the concept is difficult to verify. Sandstein 07:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most effective tactics available[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Most effective tactics available" is not what "meta" stands for, but metagame. It seems like a backronym of some kind. See [1]. That makes this article something of a hoax at best. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a backronym. Meta just refers to strategies about strategy: the "meta" of the game, as opposed to the base mechanics. It's possible that an article on video game meta may be notable enough for an article without mention to "Most effective tactics available", but it still seems like Wiktionary would be a better place than here. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge or weak keep. Not a hoax. Emerging niche esport concept that is sometimes confused with more estabilished "metagame" (even in the third source cited in the article...), yes, but not a hoax per first source cited (also used in some, but just a few dozen at best, academic works like [2] and GS results). It has some emerging presence, but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV treatment - that said, I did not read most of those works; but the term is not used in their titles, and many are conference paper or student thesis. I don't think delete is the best coursse, but this is a stub that could be merged to Glossary of video game terms where it even has an entry. Alternatively, I am open to seeing this kept if someone can demonstrate SIGCOV is met with reliable sources.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, backronym does not meet GNG. There is nothing reasonable to merge here. The only source in the article that supports this backronym is a student publication and probably not reliable. A quick WP:BEFORE suggests there's nothing better elsewhere either. Not a hoax, more of a troll/flame-bait, but absolutely not something that we can write an NPOV article about right now. —siro χ o 06:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ref 1 is a school newspaper. Refs 2 and 3 do not mention the term at all. This is not a real thing. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced; to the extent that the general topic needs to be covered, it can be done at metagame, though there's no salvageable content here to merge. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Metagame already exists. Even if this is a different concept from metagame, the article has weak standing on its own to differentiate itself.Uelly (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—prevalence of the distinct concept of meta as "current top videogame strategy" is supported by sources 1,2,3, four scholarly articles, and a new in-depth source I found:

Source 1:

In essence, a "meta" in gaming terminology is a generally agreed upon strategy by the community.

Source 2:

The Representation of Meta in Gaming Today

Meta in gaming is used to describe the latest strategic methods and trends among those who play a particular game.

Source 3:

The meta, or the metagame, is a huge part of competitive gaming that refers to a number of things depending on the game that you play.

The term has become more commonplace in esports, with casters and developers using it to describe what is powerful, or overpowered, in matches.

Another source with in-depth coverage I encountered:

https://www.ekfluidgaming.com/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-meta-gaming/

(contains the expression "most effective tactics available")

The sources (ex. #2, #3) clearly say that the word "metagame" has taken on two unrelated meanings over time. The first is "finding alternate ways to play a game" (what the metagame page mostly talks about, barring synth/coatrack content about the second concept). The second concept, more commonly under the abbreviation "meta" is about the "current top strategy". Another source:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/meta-meaning

In the world of gaming, meta is used in two ways. Meta can be used as an acronym for “most effective tactics available,” and calling something “meta” means that it’s an effective way to achieve the goal of the game, whether it’s to beat other players or beat the game itself. Meta can also be short for metagame, which is using information about the game, derived from the world beyond the game or its rules, to influence the outcome of the game or gain a competitive edge.

The first definition corroborates well with other sources. The second definition here, while a bit misinformed, is still about the "metagame" as finding ways to play a game beyond the rules. It refers more to Metagaming (role-playing games) than metagame.

There is also a plethora of scholarly articles treating "most effective tactics available" (and not the other definition of the word metagame):

http://e-journal.sastra-unes.com/index.php/JILP/article/view/497

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naomi-Nicola/publication/369170039_The_Dynamics_of_Gambling_Behavior_Among_Genshin_Impact_Players_in_Indonesia/links/640cb4cba1b72772e4ee4994/The-Dynamics-of-Gambling-Behavior-Among-Genshin-Impact-Players-in-Indonesia.pdf

https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/53330/1/978-3-030-82767-0.pdf#page=43

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3410404.3414243

(all contain the expression "most effective tactics available")

In view of all the above, think the best solution, that would also solve synthesis problems in the metagame article, is:

Merge all contents relating to "the current top strategy" here.
Leave out "playing the game differently" content to other articles.
Use the dedicated DAB page for "metagame", and/or page headers to point out the multiple meanings of the word.

Clearly, those are two different concepts with the same word. Deleting this article or merging would exacerbate the synthesis problems on the metagame article, make it much harder to maintain quality due to its bimodal scope. Lastly, WP:NOTDICT#Good_definitions explicitly discourages writing articles about words which have multiple definitions.

For convenience, here are also links to the two other articles about "metagame":

Metagaming (role-playing games)

Metagame Kate the mochii (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I appreciate your work and desire to improve things and hope you are able to here. Regarding the sources, of the two papers I'm able to see, one (researchgate.net) seems to be a publication by 4 bachelors students, nobody with a degree credited. The other (oapen.org) does not use the backronym in question at all. "Ekfluidgaming" is marketing copy on a store page, not reliable, grammarly seems to be WP:UGC on a product website, not reliable.

Now, even if we were able to establish notability of the backronym, which we have not, I would still strongly suggest a merge to the metagame until we have a strong demonstrated need to split. My suggestion is not theoretical here. Take a look at the Metagaming (role-playing games) article: it currently has WP:OR problems and massive under-referencing problems. As an avid tabletop roleplayer I can personally confirm some of it to match my understanding, but I also disagree with some of it as well, and ultimately that's why we rely on references to support statements in articles, and not our own knowledge as individuals.

There is no real fear of WP:SYNTH here. Existing sources in metagame explain the underlying concept of the "game about the game", and cover the concept of competitive video game "metas" in tandem with other aspects (like designed metagames in roguelite games, etc). Perhaps the only exception being the woefully undereferenced tabletop rpg side, which I might look to improve sometime after this reply. I think if editors are truly interested in improving coverage of this concept or any aspect thereof, improving this article seems to be the most effective tactic available.

Right now, the encyclopedia is best served by removing the page under question. If we find any reliable source that defines "Most effective tactics available" as a backronym (ideally a bit of a description or analysis, rather than just a mention in passing, lest Wikipedia propagate the slang), then I suggest a redirect, and citing that source on metagame, and only splitting once we have a demonstrated need. —siro χ o 20:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this additional in-depth source which I forgot to mention:

https://www.cbr.com/league-of-legends-best-off-meta-picks/ Kate the mochii (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, that site was sold to Valnet in 2016 so reliability is iffy: discussion about CBR from a year ago, and it's a passing mention. I promise I'm not trying to be difficult, and it's quite reasonable that a redirect and note could be created based on a source we just haven't found yet. But even in my cursory examination of social media (eg [3][4][5]), there's a lot of argument about whether the backronym is meaningful or valid. I personally don't trust a passing reference in CBR to have been based on a reasonable evaluation to act as a reliable secondary source that can verify the use of the term in the gaming community. In fact, CBR making this claim without even mentioning "backronym" "debate" or even merely weaseling and saying "according to some" casts further doubt on reliability of this particular piece. Keep in mind this is indeed a neutral point of view issue. If some of the gaming community is adamant this is not true, and some if it is adamant it is true, we need to rely on a reliable secondary source to evaluate, or we're not remaining neutral. —siro χ o 21:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your linked discussion, I think CBR is reliable for this purpose. The sources do not seem to debate about or argue about anything, so I am not sure about your second statement. Kate the mochii (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also another issue which I forgot to point out but I will mention here is that M.E.T.A. is usually called meta and almost never metagame. Kate the mochii (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that seems to be well documented in at least one seemingly reliable source you provided (the oapen.org one maybe?), and a sentence noting that "meta" is the common term with citation would be a valuable addition to the relevant section of the metagame article! I see that it's mentioned elsewhere in the article, unreferenced, definitely needs improvement. —siro χ o 21:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant essay would be Wikipedia:Coatrack Kate the mochii (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a distinct concept from metagame. This title is an incorrect backronym not in wide use, so I think we're better off without the redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to metagame. All three of Metagame, Metagaming (role-playing games), and Most effective tactics available are discussing the same concept (an approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.) in different contexts. I don't think that the idea of using the best strategies is distinct enough from metagaming in general to warrant its own article, and the sourcing on the term "Most effective tactics available" is dubious, but there might be enough to include a sentence or two about it in the etymology section. At the very least all three articles need some cleanup to define their scope. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the sourcing on the term "Most effective tactics available" is dubious

https://www.cbr.com/league-of-legends-best-off-meta-picks/

http://e-journal.sastra-unes.com/index.php/JILP/article/view/497

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naomi-Nicola/publication/369170039_The_Dynamics_of_Gambling_Behavior_Among_Genshin_Impact_Players_in_Indonesia/links/640cb4cba1b72772e4ee4994/The-Dynamics-of-Gambling-Behavior-Among-Genshin-Impact-Players-in-Indonesia.pdf

https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/53330/1/978-3-030-82767-0.pdf#page=43

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3410404.3414243

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/meta-meaning

https://www.ekfluidgaming.com/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-meta-gaming/

All of the above define "most effective tactics available" and they are wp:independent of each other. Kate the mochii (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All three of Metagame, Metagaming (role-playing games), and Most effective tactics available are discussing the same concept

I would also like to note that an approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game is very different from the best way to play a game (definition of meta). Operating outside of the rules is the direct opposite to being the best at a game. In fact, people engage in "metagaming" due to being bored with trying to play the "meta". Kate the mochii (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, the talk page over at metagame has been mentioning this exact same issue since 2007:

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.

Splitting the metagame article into this one solves the scope issue. Kate the mochii (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.