Vote to keep important stuff on wikipedia! Some guy has been going around marking lots of amateur adventures for deletion. Support AGS games by adding references and otherwise improving the quality of the articles.
Stuff he has marked as non-notable include:
The Shivah
Apprentice
Ben Jordan
O_o
Please, however, don't make personal attacks on anyone.
Can I make personal attacks here?
Because here is the guy's website, and here is the guy doing some of the worst open-mic stand up comedy ever.
Edit: the guy also wrote a scathing review of Barbie Super Model for the SNES.
I seriously can't understand why this guy advertises some of these things on his webpage. It's just too easy. You at least have to search a little (a little) to find the dumb things I've done in the past.
[Mod edit: Links removed to anonymize the person in question]
QuoteI am an administrator (meaning I can block users and delete pages)
I love how telling this is.
Does he have any wiki articles? Fight fire with fire!!! So what if he's admin or something there!
His stand up is more like sit down and shut the f*ck up, please!
He seems really full of himself.
His argument "700 hits is very few" Oh yeah, sure mr 400-odd views for his lame stand up act! Also people, don't watch his stand up act actually, we dont want to give him hits now do we? (Wished I knew it would be counting so i didn't)
EDIT: Excerpt from his barbie review: "if you gave the cartridge away for free nobody would want it. Actually, someone might, but only for use as a doorstop, or perhaps a paperweight."
Ooooooh that's so original! A paperweight! Oh how DID you come up with that one? (Note sarcasm)
Ok, yeah, sorry I started that. We should actually be taking the fight to Wikipedia. Fighting FOR the articles SSH mentioned, not AGAINST the guy. Even if he makes it really easy.... ::)
He's just an admin that saw a page about some freeware games without any sources and marked it for deletion... he's not the antichrist! SSH's modifications will probably save it, the articles probably meet the notability requirements now.
Daft [Redacted]!
If things go into turmoil my fingers are ready to abuse him! :P
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 11/12/2006 12:19:30
Ok, yeah, sorry I started that.
Nope, i was ready to rip him before I read your comment!
what a nerd
Lost in the Nightmare...
It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:
No reliable source for notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE.
For explanantion see here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOFTWARE)
People really have nothing better to do?
EDIT: Cirque de Zale hasn't been targeted yet, I can't find any others. All of Yahtzee's games, and the entry for Ben Croshaw himself, have deletion warnings. RON also has one. This is not on >:(
Perhaps these games aren't notable, as defined by wikipedia.
It doesn't stop me enjoying them.
Yeah, I'd let a few wikipedians work it out if these are worth keeping. If we're the ones keeping them there then it's not a lot better than a vanity page, we know a lot of the authors personally... but it's good that SSH has added more information to the pages, that will help them decide.
Actually I am annoyed that he would prefer to see, say, FIFA 2007 have it's own wiki page than Grundislav's homegrown efforts.
Wikipedia isn't a repository of obscure underground knowledge, and inclusion isn't a judgment on the quality of things. Just because your mum's apple pie is better than Delia Smith's doesn't mean she should take precedence over Delia on wikipedia, because she's not as culturally significant. The wiki admins have to deal with a lot of pages made by people that think that is how it should be though... pages about their new webcomics, sites, bands or even about themselves. I think BJ is worth inclusion in a large encyclopedia, but only just.
I am an administrator too (meaning I can block users too and delete pages too)! :)
No, that doesn't mean I have veto power or anything, but I'll keep an eye out for these. The rewrite by SSH should do the trick; the thing that matters is if the game has an outside review (e.g. on JustAdventure or such). Without outside review, any n00b can pimp their game and that's simply not what an encyclopedia is for; outside review proves you're famous enough. Don't bother voting if you're not already a member, because it doesn't count. But if some nasty admin kicks you out, drop me a line and I can probably help.
I see that some of the game screenshots have already been removed because they were copyrighted. Wikipedia has to be very careful with copyright since they don't want to get sued; this is mostly the fault of America's triggerhappy system of law. If you want a screenshot of your game on Wikipedia, the best you can do is upload it there yourself, and clearly state "I made this game, and I put this screenshot in public domain" or something like that. Then it won't be deleted.
Technically, NO (or at least very few) non-commercial games would meet the criteria mentioned here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28computer_and_video_games%29#_note-industry)
It's not worth getting into a knot about, though.
I think many games would meet the criterion "The game has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game: This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media reprints or rewrites of press releases, advertising for the game, published walkthroughs/guides for the game, brief magazine mentions, brief television mentions, brief mentions for change in release date mentions, etc."
So, reviews, in other words....
Well, I guess if look you at it that way. Non-Trivial is an interesting term, though. How is that defined?
Actually, I think I'd agree that most of these games aren't really notable. Ben Jordan is notable to us, but you don't really see many non-affiliated publications talking about it. Same with RoN and a lot of the other AGS games up there. Doesn't mean they're not good, enjoyable games.
The Shivah could probably pass, since Dave Gilbert made a presentation at that independent gaming convention, his game has been mentioned at Manifesto Games and in PC Gamer, and especially if he's able to be commercially successful with his games.
I'd agree with Maniac that FIFA 2007 probably doesn't deserve an entry. The FIFA series maybe, but I don't think each title needs its own entry. Who's gonna be the first to go slap a "this should be deleted" banner on it? :)
This guy being a jerk is a different matter. Of course, whenever I try to be funny, the first thing I always turn to is Nazi Germany. Those silly Nazis always get big laughs for me.
Hmm, I'd have to agree that I don't think amateur and non-commercial games deserve wikipedia entries unless they have drawn public eye for doing something innovative or otherwise important. We have our own wiki for such things, anyway!
Yes, I am also not convinced that these games are actually notable by Wikipedia standards (probably with the exception of The Shivah, because of that indie gamers conference and general press).
Also, I think it's considered bad form, and may be against Wikipedia policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets), to call on an outside community for backup in an AFD vote.
"It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support."
While many of us may already be Wikipedians, and wouldn't have to register accounts to join the debate, we are present here on this forum as a group with relatively predictable views and biases. So the paragraph seems to apply somewhat.
I know SSH didn't mean to do anything underhanded. I'm just warning everyone about a relatively obscure Wikipedia rule, so that we don't inadvertently get our fingers burned. As long as we're open and honest about it, we can probably even participate in the debate.
The solution to this is pretty simple.
Andre the Nerd is complaining about "No reliable source to support notability". Simple, just find reliable sources that support notability of the subjects and add them as references. Links to evidence of the AGS Awards might be a good place to start. Plus any game review websites would help too. Perhaps links to any page scans from gaming magazine articles on indie adventures. Everyone help out SSH as much as they can.
Just because the articles don't have any references to support notability, doesn't mean they should be deleted. It just means the articles need a fix-up. According to Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, we're allowed to do this. It says "please improve the article if possible" on every flagged article. Let's improve them.
I urge everyone to do what they can -- find as many professional sources they can and add references to them in the articles.
P.S. His comedy is the worst I've seen from an open mic comedian. And I've seen a lot of open mic comedians. "hey here's something about chocolate chip cookies and people with OCD" blah blah blah next time he should try adding something new to his routine like, oh I don't know... jokes?
[Mod edit: Name removed for anonymization]
One option would be to use the AGS wiki article and post noteworthy games as sub-articles below it, such as ags award winners and such. That would eliminate any problems I think. The sub-articles can contain all the important info from the current entries, couldn't they?
I've edited the first post to simply ask for improvements to articles. I actually had a PM from someone asking how to vote and my reply was "If you don't know how to vote, you probably shouldn't at my behest"
He has his website/company mentioned on Wikipedia, what makes it noteable? Just one single online New York times article. If that makes it eligible surely these games that have been reviewed at online websites are way more noteable. Yes, these articles may not fall strictly into the Wikipedia guidelines but it's not like the information in these articles is untrue or innacurate.
Anyway, I'm just interested to see what happens. As it's been mentioned, we do have the AGS wikipedia at the end of the day.
[Mod edit: Name removed for anonymization]
Not to play the devil's advocate, but while I think some of these articles deserve to be on wikipedia, I do find some to be kinda redundants. All of Yahtzee's games entries could easily be put in one single article about Yahtzee. Same for Dave Gilbert's games which could easily be both in his entry. There are some that do deserve to be deleted since it's simply nothing but pimping or because it's simply not notable enough in the amateur adventure game community, thus don't have their place on wikipedia.
It's good to see that while the guy seems to be full of himself on his website, he is at least consistent to vote "Delete" on his own wikipedia article.
What does it mean when it says "citation needed"?
Wikipedia's terms & conditions all feature far too bigger words for my little brain to understand, and looking them up on dictionary.com returns even bigger words for explanations...
I think it's if you quote someone or something, you need to link, or at least note, where the quote came from.
I think. :-\
When you claim while editing an entry, you need to cite a source, so people can verify the claims added to article. This especially holds for things few people know.
Thanks Chris, that makes sense. The two on Yahtzee's page are
QuoteSome players have argued that because 1213 was developed using AGS, its controls are not fluid or intuitive enough for an action title.
and
QuoteUp until Trilby's Notes, Croshaw relied upon RPG Maker's included MIDI files for musical accompaniment. Some argued that these fantasy-inspired songs didn't mesh well with horror or science fiction games. In response, Croshaw enlisted outside help for the music in Trilby's Notes. That game's soundtrack, composed by a well-known member of the AGS community, was received warmly by players
So I was just trying to work out what it was they needed. It appears the deletion note has gone from his page too.
If the claims are mentioned in reviews of the game, that would be a good reference. Other possibilities include interviews with Yahtzee, or his own statements on his website or in the games' commentaries.
If there are are no sources like that, you're essentially left with the option of linking to forum threads. Wikipedia generally doesn't consider those to be reliable or noteable sources. The statements may be removed as unverifiable. If there isn't any verifiable material in the article, it may be deleted.
I'm pretty sure these statements can all be referenced.
I'm in the process of getting 7 Days a Skeptic reinstated. I will suggest that the Days series of games gets merged, actually. Looks like some of the votes have been won by "keep". I also have already reinstated The Adventures of Fatman...
I didn't make any effort for Masters of Sound, though.... :=
If you want the series merged, just start a new section on the 5DAS page and add it there. If you need any of the information that was on the now-deleted 7DAS page, please drop me a PM.
Personally, I don't really care that much if these games are deleted. Mainly because we have our own wiki http://americangirlscouts.org/agswiki/index.php/Main_Page that we don't update nearly enough. This could definitely be fleshed out a lot more that it has, and I'd rather see more content here, because anyone who's truly interested in AGS games will eventually stumble upon this site, and we don't have to worry about notoriety, or, hopefully, copyright infringment.
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: Radiant on Thu 14/12/2006 13:39:14
If you want the series merged, just start a new section on the 5DAS page and add it there. If you need any of the information that was on the now-deleted 7DAS page, please drop me a PM.
You mean like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amaccormack/7_Days_a_Skeptic ;)
I've been talking to the admin who deleted it on his talk page and he gave me the contents, which I have improved. I'm just waiting for his go-ahead before I reinstate the page.
I hope they see CNN website as a reliable source :)
Edit: And probably; an article, I wrote about freeware adventure game developing with tools like AGS and WME, will be published in Level, one of the most famous game magazines in Turkey (and aslo Czech Republic and Romania) for the October issue. Maybe also it can be considered as a reliable source, too; when it is published?
I'd just like to cross-reference the discussion/flamewar at http://www.chefelf.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5894 in case anyone's interested.
Heh, I only recognized "Andrevan" after I read the link you posted to.
I have to say that all I know from this situation is what I've read in this thread and in the thread Andrevan just linked to. What I see is mostly a misunderstanding, which in the previously linked thread was blown WAAAAY out of proportion - I feel so good knowing something like that won't happen here. :) At any rate, when faced with so many insults, legitimate questions and godknowswhat, it seems to me Andrevan answered them all in the best way possible, and I really can't see the person who wrote those replies as being the horrible person you'd think after reading some posts.
I just discovered that the wikipedia entries for Nelly Cootalot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelly_Cootalot:_Spoonbeaks_Ahoy!) and the Adventures of Fatman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Fatman) have been marked for deletion and are due to be deleted on the 12th of October!
It reminded me of this thread so I thought I'd revive it. I don't really use Wikipedia and I suppose I can't claim Nelly is all that notable, but the article is far better referenced than some of the other pages marked for deletion.
If any of you chaps/chapettes feel that this is a little harsh, maybe you could let me know if and how it could be appropriately challenged.
There are so many references, why would they do it? My only advice is link to JPEG's of these games reviews in magazines (if they exist). But still, Wiki mods are part of the twat revolution and sadly unstoppable.
Ho hum!
I noticed that it seems to have been marked for deletion by the same moderator who took a dislike to freeware adventures back in '06, and was so roundly mocked in these threads.
My worry is I don't really know if Nelly deserves to have a Wikipedia page. It seems to me that the value of an internet encyclopedia is that it can contain information on a broad range of topics, including cult and minority interest subjects. But I really don't know if that's the remit of Wikipedia.
I don't get them either. I was bored and 2 days before Jacko's funeral put in one of the boxes of events that his funeral would be held at wherever that place was, all accurate info, just 2 days in advance, and they deleted it. Nelly is on mobygames, right? Well, that's the best place for it to be I'd say, whatever Wiki's decision, at least Mobygames will recognise it as a real game that real people played, even if Wiki think it's false info/not worthy. IMO I think the write up for Nelly and Fatman, and the Chzo games are all just and good information.
Who is the mod? The same guy that perhaps wasn't pleased about my entry back in October 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lovegrove)? Oh please let it be a beautiful co-incidence that it IS the same guy - though for legal reasons I better not say why ;)
When first launched Wikipedia became famous because of the accessibility to anything you possibly wanted to know about. If they didn't have it, feel free to add it!
Today Wikipedia has turned into something completely different. It's no longer just about the information. It's about what the individual elitists known as Wikipedians (not everyone with an account, but those who visit every single day and edit every page they find) like or dislike.
Understandably certain rules must be enforced such as reliability and for organization and streamlining purposes formatting. But notoriety?
Even if laced with images throughout, a single textual article does not take up that much space in the terms of data. Not to mention that data storage is one of the cheapest resources on the planet (to own; though not necessarily if it's being leased).
If you can cross-reference it, properly format it, verify your facts, prevent biased opinions, etc. then who cares if one person or even a million don't like what the article is about? As long as the other requirements have been met, and as long as one single person cares about the subject of the article enough to maintain said article to aforementioned quality standards, then IMO it has every right to have an article.
Wikipedia has become a very elitist, close-minded community. And that honestly makes me sad to say.
I reverted his edits and left a friendly note at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Deletion_spree .
I'm not pessimistic; his nomination of 'Aveyond series' has been met with a shower of Keep votes for instance. One man isn't going to rule the roost, admin or not.
This is the problem with Wikipedia, the hideous, cave-dwelling morons behind the scenes who think they're important. I can tell I don't like this guy just because he describes himself as an ENTP.
[Mod edit: Name removed for anonymization]
I don't know, I've never thought Wikipedia was an ideal place for ags games (at least non-commercial ones). We have our very own and very nice AGS Wikipedia (http://www.americangirlscouts.org/agswiki/Main_Page) for freeware games already and no snotty admins to tell you that your ags game is not allowed.
I'd like to suggest that archive.org would perhaps be useful as a historical archive for our games. Their goal seems to be a repository of all human knowledge for all time.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sun 11/10/2009 08:19:22
I don't know, I've never thought Wikipedia was an ideal place for ags games (at least non-commercial ones).
Agreed. Honestly, non-commercial games in general are really not that notable in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. The ones that meet the guidelines are very few.
Part of what made me post on the talk page I linked to is that 8 people out of 8 voted 'Keep' in the nomination of the article 'Aveyond series'. When 100% of the voters say 'Keep', you just know the case is unambiguous and the article shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. And as far as I can tell none of the voters are AGS users so it's not some sort of bias.
Anyway, I do believe Nelly Cootaloot and Fatman are notable, since they've been reviewed by several professional critics and printed magazines. They are clearly not as notable as Monkey Island or Halo, but not all notable articles have to be as notable as them to be...well, notable.