Category talk:Choice-based

Some of the language here seems unnecessarily hostile. Calling writing CYOA's "absurdly easy," the kind of elitist establishment of a definition for what constitutes a "non-trivial" CYOA (the second and third of which are pretty weird and uncommon features), and the flat-out arbitrary rejection of certain styles of game (such as those where the source code are involved) all seem childish and exclusionary. Would anyone object to this being rewritten to be more welcoming? --Aaronius 21:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote it. Aaronius 00:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite. I suppose I was a bit hostile on the day I wrote the original text for this category. I felt I needed to draw a hard line in the sand somewhere; I really don't want every CYOA in existence to be documented by IFWiki. Documenting every other IF in existence (or trying to) is quite daunting enough -- and distracting. Back in the day, I was resisting having article pages for games at all, because I felt that was the purview of Baf's Guide. I wanted IFWiki to say things about IF that Baf's Guide couldn't: the features of IF games, such as ask/tell conversation, pathfinding, compass roses, the parser, colour usage, ASCII art, etc. Every game page I have to create takes me away from even thinking about working on any of that. But I digress. Thanks again. -- David Welbourn 12:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)