Talk:OpenRCT2

Untitled June 28, 2017

Mentioned by Shaddim in RCT2 (talk), there are some secondary sources that could be added to the article:

• http://www.pcgamer.com/how-one-player-spent-a-decade-creating-a-rollercoaster-tycoon-megapark/
• https://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/09/you-can-get-rollercoaster-tycoon-2-for-basically-nothing/
• https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/05/player-spends-a-decade-polishing-epic-theme-park-inrollercoaster-tycoon-2/

More:

• https://particlebit.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/go-back-and-play-5-tips-for-rollercoaster-tycoon-2/

--TheCoffeeCoder (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wordpress is not reliable. As for the other two, that doesn't substantiate an article of this length. Everything must be verifiable to reliable secondary sources if challenged. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

this is not correct. uncontroversial, non-personal, trivial facts can supported carefully and defensive formulated with primary sources. See the "sky is blue" etc. Shaddim (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If material is challenged, you need to have a reliable source. Primary sources are almost categorically unreliable. And even so, if all you've got are three sources, you're probably not over the WP:GNG-line to boot. --Izno (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

this is not correct. Primary sources ARE reliable for own statements. If an project states "we did this... for that reason..." this is a very reliable source on the intent (but not facts) . Secondary and tertiary sources are required for stronger statements which address gloabal impact and relevancy and truth. Additionally can we back trivial facts like " licensed as gpl" by directly linking to github licenses etc. that you "challenge" big parts, which were well backed and formulated is quite destructive and not intended in this form . Shaddim (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Justification for article

@Izno:

The following citations are primary sources that are purely used for definition (no mis-use) together with reliable secondary sources. Other secondary sources exist, but those used are ones which cover the specific text being referenced. There is, of course, room for improvement over time as more secondary sources appear.

• Source 1,2,3,6, 11, 13, 14: Primary and official - used for basic definition and information (no opinions or reviews), allowed as stated in [[1]]
• Source 9, 22: community
• Source 4: unofficial extended community
• Source 7, 15: YouTube, official developer podcast hosted by third party (which stated by Wikipedia:VGRS is an allowed exception)
• Source 8, 10, 24: Secondary news website
• Source 19, 20: Secondary, public conferences
• Source 21: Secondary, academic paper
• Source 12, 25: Official announcements made on social media (by verified users)
• Source 16, 17, 18: Proof of OS distribution

By deleting the page, you are preventing anyone and everyone improving the article. There is already a warning at the top about the number of primary sources being high - surely this is sufficient.

You are not allowing the issue to even be discussed or for other editors to provide their input. If you are querying the factual accuracy or standard of submission, please highlight specific areas that need improving rather than reverting the whole page to a pointless redirection that tells people nothing about the topic.

TheCoffeeCoder (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I care about whether we have an article weighted appropriately to verifiable, reliable, secondary sources, both policies. If we cannot produce those sources, then this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be merged or deleted as a result. --Izno (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think most of the sources above are reliable, particularly the conference and academic sources. How can you delete them based on your own judgement alone? --TheCoffeeCoder (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

After looking at similar pages, e.g. OpenTTD, Freeciv and Bootstrap, they also rely heavily on primary sources yet are left intact. --TheCoffeeCoder (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the information because the article does not meet Wikipedia's policy and guideline. None of the sources, besides a handful of the news sources, are reliable for establishing the appropriate weight of the article's content. Renumbering your bullets for ease of reference: bullets 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 are primary (their relation to the game makers are what make them primary and thus bad for judging appropriate WEIGHT and the GNG); bullets 2, 3, and 4 are unreliable. The interview and the conference/academic papers might reasonably be added to provide support to the three 'news' sources, but that still leaves you sitting there with not a lot of "good" article. Always ask yourself whether you would submit anything that remotely looks like that article to WP:FA or WP:GA (if you must, feel free just to caveat that question to "would these sources suffice at WP:FA or WP:GA?"). Would you? I certainly wouldn't. It would be a quick fail for both of those processes. Meanwhile, if we think there is some value in what is usefully remaining (bullet 5, and possibly the interview/conference/paper), this can or should be merged elsewhere and this article subsequently redirected. --Izno (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

How can an article ever mature to the quality of a featured article if you keep deleting its content without giving it time to be improved and correctly cited? How can others be motivated to contribute and add more if there is nothing there to build on? The content about the research for example is good content, but it has no chance of staying because you don't think the other content of the article is good enough. TheCoffeeCoder (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It will never mature to that quality unless the reliable, secondary, sources appear to mature it so. Everything starts from that basic principle -- that we need to trust someone who has the editorial quality and review to write about whatever subjects they please, and then we in-turn can consume their writing to turn into article content. Currently? Those three news sources are the only sources that exist. Two are short blurbs (i.e., does not cover the article topic in detail/depth, meaning we cannot write a summary about the work [we are a tertiary source, after all]) and the last is practically an interview--which can be good for development but doesn't help us understand how this impacts the real world. --Izno (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are made up of both primary and secondary sources, you seem to completely disregard the former. The project has large influence over social media, the sources (you call unreliable) should as an exception be used as this is, after all, a community project with many self-published sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCoffeeCoder (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

An appeal to your definition of a tertiary source and an appeal to WP:IAR won't get you far on Wikipedia. I am always happy to submit this discussion to community review by inviting users from WT:VG or via the WP:RFC process, or by going so far as to submit this article to WP:AFD, if you think that will benefit you. --Izno (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

First, Izno, your aggressive actions without involving other editors (discussion page etc) are highly unappreciated -> I'm still not sure if I will revert your actions overall. Second, you seems to mix up intentional in this discussion multiple things: 1.) notability of an article which indeed requires ONLY good secondary and tertiary sources and 2.) general sourcing of statements. For both vastly different practices and requirements apply. For first case, there were several good enough reliable sources found. For second case, unlike what you argue, primary sources can be (carefully used) indeed used for several kinds of information. Also, both cases require different challenges .Shaddim (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I think it's good to invoke everything that is wrong with the previous article. Since you disagree so strongly, I will be requesting editors from WT:VG to join us. --Izno (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note - For the record, while you're free to disagree with Izno's stance, but you guys need to stop with all the "Izno isn't playing nice" complaining. What he's doing is perfectly acceptable - he's free to challenge these things, and his ideas are in-line with Wikipedia policy. I havent looked into it enough to see whether or not there's enough to warrant an article, but in general, discussion is going to go more smoothly if you lessen your discussion on editors here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73: I believe they were referring to the edit war that was going on. That said, takes two (or more) to tango. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  No, in fact I believe such brutal eradication and deletion of material is not a proper "challenge". I beleive expereienced editors can and should do better than wreaking havoc on an article just in progress. Shaddim (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• There was more written about OpenRCT2 on the actual RCT2 page than it is here. GitHub isn't really a source, as any software developer can use that to justify creating articles about their own projects by using it. Not sure if gamer.nl is a reliable source, and the other two simply mention OpenRCT2 as a tool used to complete their goal, it doesn't give it independent notability in my opinion. If you remove those, then the article is sourceless and clearly can't stand on its own. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • the project's page on github is a primary source which can be used to back trivial facts. Again, we CAN use primary sources. Shaddim (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • That just gives the justification for any software developer to cite their own GitHub as a source. This is exactly why Wikipedia prefers third-party sources. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. I'm not seeing what sourcing is supposed to justify a separate article on this topic. All of the subject's mentions are in relation to the Legacy of RCT2 and what its fans have done with its engine. The appropriate place to cover this would be in RCT2's Legacy section if not the series article, on balance with the coverage it has received in reliable sources. czar 17:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• The material supported by primary sources is too great. It's one thing to supplement a couple unambiguous and undisputable unchangable facts with precedent for including such facts (like a version number or gameplay description), but it's a whole another story to use primary sources to cite lots of content, history, developer intentions and plans, tangential information, etc, regardless how "official" it is. Basically, if secondary sources have not covered the material, we shouldn't attempt to use primary sources in their place. We are not proving things to be true, we are providing reliable, verifiable material. Certain things are okay to be sourced with primary sources, but mainly for supplementing secondary sourcing. The policies and guidelines Izno cites are inline with what we might expect from a verifiable article. Regarding "aggressive actions", the WP:BURDEN for verifiability is with whoever adds or restores content. Challenging primary sources for their undue weight (and from the history check, what looks like a lot of OR/SYNTH) sounds very reasonable to me. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  I agree with your position. While primary source can be used, an article can't be built on primary sources alone (which is semi-encoded via the notability policy). But this position is far away from "full and easy eradication in 5s of all what seems to be a primary source and even sometimes a reliable secondary source" of Izno. 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Merge - per Czar. Yes, primary sources are usable, but in a sparing matter for some basic facts, not for writing a majority of an article around, which is what the long version of this article is guilty of. It's far too heavily dependent on primary sourcing, with very minimal third party sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  the article was well written, well structured, quite NPOV and backed by sources (while primary). I see not reason for a strong need for strong secondary sources for the content provided. Way around, I see great harm in the rejection of this content of this new author. I doubt that he will contribute again after this harsh and unneeded rejection. Great harm for zero benefit. Shaddim (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if you personally "see the need" for secondary sourcing" - Wikipedia requires it. WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:PRIMARY are say that secondary sourcing is necessary and that primary sourcing is to be used minimally in occasionally verifying minor facts. The rest of your argument fails WP:NOHARM. I don't wish to scare anyone from the project, but that isn't a valid reason for keeping an article either. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• But this is what the established authors with overall bureaucratic application of polcies without balance are doing. This contribution of the new author was great: well formated, sourced and NPOV. To eradicate this contribution for excessive formalistic reasons without real benefit for the main goal of WP is a shame. With that approach we will continue to dwindle into irrelevancy. Shaddim (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I know its easy to fall back on the "this is why Wikipedia is failing" card when an argument isn't going your way, but let's keep focus here. There was little to no third party referencing (a requirement), and the editor hasn't made an edit this month. We don't keep articles just for editor retention, but even if we did, he's gone anyways. Unless there's any further input, it looks like there's a consensus for a merge here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Point is, the author removed in 5 minutes "work" the work of hours WHICH WAS BACKED by reliable sources'. Which he removed without caring or noticing. Either way you want to look at it, this was really bad work, negative impact for no benefit. Shaddim (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Those sources were not reliable. If editors cannot be bothered to read our core policy before editing, then they should not be surprised if their additions are reverted. It's literally the second link when you click edit. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, not any way you look at it. It was very poorly sourced in a multitude of ways already discussed above by any of those in favor of a merge above. I'm sorry if his feelings were hurt, but this is what happens when people jump right in without knowing what they're doing, make mistakes, and get caught doing so. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, he did as best as he could: well formated, sourced and NPOV! What can we expect more from a newbie? Worth maybe more than 5 min of the time of the reviewing editor... who mentors him instead of shredding his work into pieces or even worse eradicating it. This is not how WP should work and authors should interact. Shaddim (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well personally, I wouldn't (and didn't) create articles before I understood the requirements for a subject having an article, so that I guess? But again, we're getting off-topic. There is a consensus to merge. Would you prefer to do it? You seem to feel more strongly about it, and may do a better job. Otherwise, I'll do it. Let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Justification for Article in 2021

The topic has moved on a bit since the above debate- which it seems stemmed around the limited secondary sources. There are a good deal more available today; this is just from a quick google search limiting myself to 2018 or later (after the above debate about the lack of secondary sources):

• Vice, 2018
• Vice again, 2018
• Kotaku, 2019
• PC GamesN, 2019
• PC Gamer, 2020 <-- this one in particular is a detailed look at the features of OpenRCT2
• Vice, 2021

Does this now merit GNG? There's certainly more grounds for it I think.--ERAGON (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the users from the above debate are still watching this, and it looks like Shaddim is inactive now; I will go ahead and make a page with the new citations that are available and we can go from there. --ERAGON (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

PC Gamer is good. All the other sources are not in-depth. Vice talks about a specific rollercoaster build. Other Vice talks about in-game calculator build. Kotaku is Switch announcement. PCGamesN talk about a specific rollercoaster build. And final Vice talks about a specific maze build. None of these are really about the game, these are all about some specific aspect of it. They have passing mentions of the game itself, but it's extremely brief. "Significant coverage" should be at least several paragraphs of WP:WAF-compatible content -- a review, basically. I don't remember anymore if there was any other GNG-passing source before. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a Dutch language source as well, which was available before. It looks like before the past deletion, the article was cut down to a stub based only on reliable sources- so I basically took that and expanded it with the material which is now available.--ERAGON (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)