Talk:Walkthrough

"GameFAQs is one of the most popular websites for walkthroughs" Where is the reference or source for that claim? advertise indeed.MK Emaster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply ]

Video Walkthrough section sounds like an advertisement. Remedy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.15.120 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Meh. I'll take it out. It's doing nothing for the article and, if anything, should be incorporated into the 'Use in videogames' section.

A question of interest, possibly for future inclusion in the article: Are start-to-finish gameplay "Let's Play" videos legal? I personally watch quite a few, and on YouTube at least I've seen a number that are taken down due to copyright claims. It strikes me as though they could be in violation of copyright in the same fashion that posting a whole movie to YouTube would make RIAA freak out. Schwinghammer (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Not likely, as videogames, unlike movies, rely almost exclusively on the player's ability to control the direction and flow of the gameplay in order to tell a compelling story. Any lawsuit that comes up may have a hard time tackling the idea that each game is unique to the player, meaning Let's Plays simply equate to a video anecdote. It would be nice to get a real lawyer's opinion.

StrikerShot21 07:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

I've rewritten the article according to the Wiki MOS, and done a copy edit to remove the verbose language. As a whole, the article was a collection of special interest groups (or companies) writing about themselves, usually OR without citation. The additions were apparently made without reading the whole article, so some information also duplicated or contradicted. With proper references, several of the sections would be quite interesting at several times their lengths (for example software walkthroughs and theater walkthroughs). However what is not needed is editors writing off-the-cuff Original Research from the perspective of their own limited experience. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

Because I found the encyclopedia on www.baidu.com, the chinese words 跟单 which is Walkthrough in English, but the Wikipedia page walkthrough does not include a business context.183.65.17.53 (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

As there are only two terms on the page that contain the term "walkthrough", one of which is listed as a "See also" option, I propose that this page be moved to Walkthrough (disambiguation) and that the current title be redirected to Software walkthrough as the primary meaning with a hatnote on that page directed to the relocated disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

I dunno. It is a common word and I would not regard the software sense as the primary topic. Personally, I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be best, but short of that, a disambiguation page seems appropriate. older ≠ wiser 16:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

A soft redirect to wiktionary would be reasonable. The term fails WP:DABCONCEPT because the meanings offered are not terms containing "walkthrough" but synonyms for the concept of an process of instruction or review involving going through the steps of how something is to be done. bd2412 T 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

Strategy guides are also commonly referred to as walkthroughs. Though it's not mentioned in the title, it is quite plausible that someone would search walkthrough when looking for that. I do think we could cut Tutoring, Rehearsal, Audit, Virtual tour though. In the AFD I don't think Salvidrim was actually suggesting those pages be listed on a disambiguation page, and no one else mentioned them as redirect destinations or items to put on a disambiguation page. List of gaming topics should also be cut, and Classroom walkthrough and Cognitive walkthrough should be moved up alongside Software walktrough and Strategy guide, dropping the See also section as a result. Reach Out to the Truth 14:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC) [reply ]