Talk:Ultimate Team

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

Madden?[edit]

Madden NFL also has an Ultimate Team mode. This article should cover that too. – PeeJay 11:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's already a link to Madden in the hatnote. Last I heard, Madden removed Ultimate Team, and the Madden version was never of the cultural popularity of FIFA's. Kingsif (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) - I stand corrected, Madden still has Ultimate Team, though it seems significantly different on more than just feature names (EA). Perhaps it's so different because Madden fans never really liked it. Either way, being so different as a game mode and culturally, as well as pertaining to a different game series, while Wikipedia may need better coverage of Madden's Ultimate Team, it doesn't belong here. Shares a name and coming from EA, but not much else. Kingsif (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since @Jusgtr: recently added some unsourced information here on the Madden Ultimate Team, and I removed it with a link pointing to this section, I figured I should outline my perspective in terms of Wikipedia content policy and guidelines for why it's not just unnecessary, but inappropriate, to include such information.
    First, it has to be said, I played Madden a lot in college and never touched the UT mode - it's something that as far as I can tell has never been very popular even within its own franchise, let alone within gaming and sports at large. And this feeds into the major issue: WP:GNG.
    It would be theoretically possible to either restructure this article to be about Ultimate Team as a concept and subsection everything that's there into a FIFA/FC section, or to write a base concept article as standalone and change the title of this one to specify FIFA/FC.
    But since that game concept is just "custom all star team in playable (EA) videogame format", and there are few sources about the basic game concept itself beyond WP:Passing mentions or that wouldn't be flagged as WP:Indiscriminate, such an article would probably be swiftly deleted with a recommendation to have a simple paragraph mentioning the existence of the feature at the relevant video game article(s)/at all star as a media example.
    Simply, the existence of a video game mode by itself is not enough for an article - and adding more about the in-game play to lengthen such an article is indiscriminate, which would not help. This is the kind of content Jusgtr's edits added - the usual advice is to put it on a fan Wikia. In this case, Jusgtr, if you have any sources for your Power-Up paragraph, I would suggest improving the prose and putting it at the MUT section of the Madden article.
    What makes FIFA/FC Ultimate Team pass GNG and have this article, then, is ample sources on the real-world response: popularity of the mode in the franchise, reviewers comparing features, the virtual market having a dedicated life of its own, and especially the concerns with gambling and gaming addiction. In this way, what makes FIFA/FC Ultimate Team a topic notable enough for a Wikipedia article, is also its major difference compared to Madden Ultimate Team. I'd suggest moving the article to "Football Ultimate Team" to prevent future confusion, but the use of "Ultimate Team" in sources always being about FIFA/FC very easily establishes it as WP:Primary topic and not a candidate for in-title disambiguation (when simply Ultimate Team is now the proper name).
    I'll also use this opportunity to address the technical editing issues of Jusgtr's edits: lack of sources is bad; the narrative tone like gently instructing the reader is discouraged; the excessive detail about how it works (Wikipedia is not a gaming guide) contrasted with unexplained argot about cards and colours is inappropriate and inaccessible to a non-specialist reader; not re-structuring the article when the additions were made, also made it likely to confuse - saying that Ultimate Team is in FIFA/FC and Madden makes a reader assume that all of the features and problems described in the article, applies to UT in both franchises, when they don't. Also, this edit changed sourced information to something that is not in the source, and which is straight up untrue in terms of FIFA/FC.
    The best way would be to simply see if there are any sources discussing Madden Ultimate Team in real-world terms (i.e. not just narrating how to play it), and adding some of that to the Madden article, which is already linked and the relationship explained at the top of this article. Kingsif (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 00:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ultimate Team; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • New enough, moved from draft 2-15. Long enough.
  • Hook is sourced in article, but needs one here. I went ahead and added it for you. Also, your sources throughout the article aren't consistent; I suggest that you go and format them correctly.
  • Your hook is a little unclear, especially to us non-gamers, which is why I hesitate suggesting a new one. If you prefer ALT0, I'm fine with keeping it. ALT1: ... that the popular video game mode Ultimate Team has been criticized for its reliance on loot box packs, considered a controversial form of gambling?
  • Proper QPQ.
  • My only real problem with this article is the source formatting; once you take care of that, we should be good to go. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement for sources in DYK noms, nor for consistency in reference formatting within articles nominated for DYK. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs someone to review alt1 as proposed by previous reviewer. Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean that there needed to be a source for the hook, but I added it to demonstrate how it's done. One of the requirements is the following: "...that each boldlinked article is well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, and copyvio-free." It can be argued that inconsistent formatting of sources fails the well-sourced requirement. If there's disagreement about that interpretation, I'm okay with withdrawing the request for this DYK, although it's a good idea for the nominator to do it, anyway. I was making a suggestion for another possible hook; if the nominator likes it, yes another reviewer needs to approve it. If the nominator didn't like it, I'm willing to withdraw my suggestion and approve ALT0. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 is short enough, cited, and interesting; would probably yeet 'popular' for concision, but I'll leave that to the prepbuilder. I see nowhere in WP:DYKCITE that requires anything other than clothed URLs, so let's roll.--Launchballer 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. Good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ultimate_Team&oldid=1225688485"