Talk:Limited Run Games

Catalogue on a different page?

The list of games released is quite large and is going to be growing in the future. Should it be split to a separate page to keep this article more readable? The business model section already lists some examples to give an idea of what LRG does. --Hamuko (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Release Dates

Are the Switch game release dates listed by when the preorders started or when they ended? GamerFromJump (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Firing of community manager

The content relating to the firing of the community manager has been added and removed three times now (removal 1, removal 2, removal 3). Each time it has been added, it has had various issues, see the edit summary for each removal for reasons why. I'm starting this section to see if there is a consensus for adding some form of this, and what reliable sources exist that could support some form of this.

From where I'm sitting right now though, I'm still having trouble finding a significant number of reliable sources discussing it, which is leading me to think this is undue. The closest to any major source covering this is a rather unbalanced two paragraphs in The Times. When looking for reliable video game sources covering this I can't seem to find any.

If there are any sources I've missed, and that haven't already been provided in the three prior attempts at adding this content, could these please be shared now so that we can properly assess this potential content? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Note, I've notified the talk pages of all of the editors who have either added or removed this content about this discussion. ([1], [2], [3], [4]) Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is simple. This isn't something that they want to discuss in the mainstream, so it's not being discussed. It is something that clearly happened and is still impacting the company to this day. (Their social media is still on lockdown.) Not including the information does a disservice to Wikipedia and only reinforces the view that Wikipedia is biased. The Times felt the story was legitimate enough to mention, so it seems a bit odd (though, sadly, not surprising) that Wikipedia is resisting its inclusion.128.151.71.7 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is something that reliable sources are not discussing, then it's almost certainly undue, and covered by WP:NOTNEWS. If reliable sources are not covering this, then per the NPOV and V policies we won't either. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Times is a reliable source, but you took it upon yourself to decide that the paragraphs in question were "rather unbalanced". So, which is it? Do you allow your personal bias to decide whether to include a source or let reliable sources stand? 128.151.71.7 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

By rather unbalanced I mean that The Times is only covering one side of the story. They've got a comment from Lynne about why she thinks she was fired, attributed to the National Review. There's no counter statement from Limited Run Games about what their reasons for firing Lynne were, nor is there a note that they approached LRG for a comment but that they refused to give one. They don't even link or mention LRG's 6 January tweet about the firing. There is Lynne's side of the story, and that's it.

You're right that The Times is a reliable source, but they are also (like most newsorgs) a biased source. They have taken a particular editorial stance with regards to transgender content. With regards to the content we write on Wikipedia, we have to be careful to ensure that our content is written neutrally. This means that we need to account for the bias of the sources when determining how to cover a given subject, to ensure that our content fairly represents the subject. To that end, we weigh all reliably sourced coverage of a subject before writing content on it, with a particular focus on how prevalent the given subject is across all reliable sources about it. In order to do that, we need to read all reliable sources about a subject or event.

At present we only have a single reliable source; The Times. As you have already remarked, this does not seem to be something that mainstream or specialised sources are covering. This suggests that the content is not due for inclusion, as when the majority of sources write about this company, they seemingly do not focus on or draw attention to the firing of a community manager in January 2023. In the greater scope of the company as a whole, this is not noteworthy. Therefore to include that content would be in violation of our neutral point-of-view policy, because we would be drawing attention to an event that either the majority or a significant minority of sources do not care about. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The section that was included in the article previously was way too extensive and clearly biased. Maybe if the situation winds up hurting the company in the longrun there can be a small notice about it but doesn't seem appropriate at the moment. Spanneraol (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

To not add a section about this would amount to censorship and would greatly devalue Wikipedia. I agree that 1 sentence only is required, but I think that is needed. The sources given are as valid as anyother in the article. 18:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I have added 2 sentences. They are references and are as notable as the legal case above. Op47 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not censorship to not include everything that social media talks about... and the added sentence makes unsourced claims.. "she was fired because of who she followed"?? They never said that... also "significant backlash from the gaming community"?? Really? Most of the supposed "twitter backlash" was likely not from people who were part of the community. Regardless it does NOT need it's own section. If you could actually write something unbiased MAYBE it can be included in a "controversies" section with the legal case, which in my opinion is also getting too much coverage on this page. Spanneraol (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I would direct you Op47 to WP:VNOT, which plainly states that While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. and which is the circumstances we currently find ourselves in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

And I have removed them again, because of the same problems as with the last time it was added. Two of the sources (National Review, Washington Examiner) are considered unreliable. The Times' coverage is highly biased. The lack of other secondary reliable sources on this strongly suggests that this content is undue.

I'll also add, it is a sad fact of life that people get fired from companies all the time. There doesn't seem to be any current negative effects to the company from this firing. Their Twitter posts have not been locked just over the last week and responder activity looks normal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

While National Review and Washington Examiner have no consensus in regards to reliability according to WP:RSP, the guideline does state that special care should be taken for "exceptional" claims, which this most likely falls under. Since Lynne appeared on national television, the topic has been covered in some detail by GameRevolution, a more traditional VG-reliable source. The article appears rather balanced. TechRaptor has an article as well, and a short news piece is found at Blue's News. With these sources, I suppose a short mention in the history section could be possible, but the length at which it has been covered previously feels like undue weight to me as well. Unrelated, but I feel the same way about the "Legal case" section; it is one quarrel with one publisher currently held up by one source, so it could easily be inlined as well. If the firing leads to a significant effect on the company's operations (beyond TrustPilot ratings), this could be added accordingly. IceWelder [✉] 19:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the legal case section, I wouldn't have any problem with removing it outright. From a quick search I can see one or two other sources on the filing of the suit, but only the gameindustry.biz source for the resolution of it. It does seem rather undue to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The suit around Axiom Verge is probably noteworthy enough to give it an extremely brief mention; WP:VG/SE returns at least half a dozen sources on the matter. The article generally needs some reworking, but I won't really have time for that until March. IceWelder [✉] 20:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

When will Wikipedia adjust its rules to be able to actually report on factual happenings? As it stands, as long as the left-wing media ignores it than it can be omitted from Wikipedia, which isn't how this is supposed to work. 70.114.165.151 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blog... it is an encyclopedia... we don't just list every event that happens... it has to be something notable and not every social media dustup is notable. Spanneraol (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Except this is notable, but the left won't report on it to keep it out of their entry. The fact that there's so much discussion on it and so many attempts to mitigate or hide it is pretty damning for anyone trying to use Wikipedia rules to justify not putting it here, yourself included.70.114.165.151 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's notable, then multiple reliable sources will have reported on it. That those sources haven't reported on it suggests that it is not notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

All "acceptable" sources are left-wing media outlets who refuse to cover it. The only sources who are covering it are centrist or right-wing, and Wikipedia pretends those are fake news despite all of their favorite sources claiming Russiagate for 3 years.70.114.165.151 (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think that those sources who are covering this are reliable, then you could open a discussion at WP:RSN on them. Please note though that you will be asked to provide evidence of the reliability of those sources, so that the community consensus can be re-evaluated on them. Otherwise there's not much else you can do here, as a local consensus cannot override a community consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A useless endeavor, the political mouthpieces in high positions with Wikipedia simply won't allow it. The FACT that some of the "reliable sources" spent all day spreading fake news for three years with ZERO impact on their credibility in the eyes of Wikipedia. 70.114.165.151 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll deign not to comment on the merits, but an essential link not yet applied to this discussion is WP:BLP. The OP demonstrates some editors would like Wikipedia to cover the firing of a community manager, a living person. Those edits (all by new or unregistered contributors and some quite disruptive) have been repeatedly reverted as WP:UNDUE. When Wikipedia covers living people, we are required to do so cautiously and to utilize a higher standard of sourcing for any such coverage. Editors are encouraged to immediately delete controversial material which is not adequately sourced. This standard has been violated many times since the incident under discussion. Since this behavior seems mildly coordinated and persistent, I will now place the page under semi-protection for an extended period. As an aside, outrage may be valuable in the certain media bubbles but doesn't play particularly well on Wikipedia. Complaining Wikipedia has a left-wing bias is just a lame tactic, outside the scope of this discussion, and at best demonstrates to other editors an unwillingness to actually engage on the merits of the original post. BusterD (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Then you'll just need to lock the article, because people will continue to come in and attempt to edit the page to reflect LRG's largest scandal to date. Oh, but don't cover it here because the right people haven't talked about it, yet, right? 70.114.165.151 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  The article is essentially locked now. No (even mildly) experienced editor has yet attempted or is likely to insert this contentious material against consensus. And based on my cursory reading of potential sources (I performed my own BEFORE), the only sources outraged about this internal corporate employee action are the "right" people. IP contributors are welcome to move on to other current objects of outrage. BusterD (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Pathetic 70.114.165.151 (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I've chosen to block IP editor 70.114.165.151 for continuing to make forum-like comments immediately after their previous block has expired. If their only contributions to Wikipedia are going to be disruptive, they don't need to continue expressing them here on this talk page. BusterD (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Although some of you note an apparent lack of reliable sources, I did previously mention this GameRevolution article, which seemingly satisfies WP:100WORDS. As the source is reliable per WP:VG/RS and the article is written in a balanced manner, a brief, neutral mention of the event seems possible. Based solely on this piece, we could mention it in the History section, for example as follows:

In January 2023, Limited Run Games fired the community manager Kara Lynne after an older post and accounts she followed on Twitter were branded as transphobic. She claimed that the company had not taken issue with her Twitter activity and fired her as a result of the negative publicity.

Two short sentences should steer clear of WP:UNDUE. We could cut the name if so desired, and the wording leaves room to add long-term implications should they occur. Thoughts appreciated. IceWelder [✉] 23:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's still in my opinion WP:UNDUE. 100WORDS is an essay on the general notability guideline, not the NPOV policy and whether something is or is not DUE is an argument on the NPOV policy. It's the lack of widespread coverage of this by multiple reliable sources that make this firing undue. One article by GameRevolution, and one heavily biased article by The Times (linked above) does not demonstrate dueness on this specific event being notable when we are writing an article on the company as a whole. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th Your opinion is noted to be trash. 70.114.165.151 (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, there's evidence from her former coworkers that the whole thing is outrage bait, that she was fired for a long history of cause, and the purple tinker thing was just some rando doing rando shit with coincidental timing that she seized on as a convenient excuse to sell her story to rightwing media.

Which, I mean, just from a common sense perspective makes way more sense than "an unpopular twitter poster convinced a company to fire a star employee for relatively innocuous tweets she made years before working there by means of a single tweet that got no traction."

It's not ironclad proof, sure, but I hope it at least convinces some people why believing the first thing you see on twitter and then shouting about a conspiracy when you encounter doubt is a bad idea, and why wikipedia insists on the BLP and reliability policies.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Limited Run Games E3 2023

In July 12, 2023, Limited Run Games released a E3 which announce many games, mostly classic. I had been checking on the article but nobody had added it there :( NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is unfit to list all games the company releases due to their sheer volume and since the vast majority of them are merely re-releases. There is List of Limited Run Games releases, which you can feel free to expand. IceWelder [✉] 14:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@IceWelder I am not talking about the games, I only talking about the E3 like when it was first showed and who the host but not the games that were announced there. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I had a brief search for sources on the event, and while there are some reliable gaming sources that covered the announcements (Siliconera, Pure Xbox, Gematsu, Eurogamer), the focus was almost entirely on the trailers that were shown. I'm not sure there's enough content that we can verify through sources to even include a brief mention of it here, should such a mention be due which seems unlikely, and I'm certainly not seeing any mention of who the host was or any of the fluff content from the presentation that was placed between trailers.

Adding the games to the list that IceWelder linked though is a good idea. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)