Talk:Revolution 60/Archive 1

Archive 1

Just pointing something out

I won't probably participate on this a lot since since my actions could be seen as part of the GamerGate controversy, but really for one second let's think straight here, how the hell is this game notable? Even more, how can it be so long, its development section is longer than some triple AAA games. The main author seems to have a personal relationship with the developer, it's a truly Single-purpose account, and the article reads like an advertisement, it even cites Brianna Wu's own Tumblr for god's sake. Half the sources are to "iMore" and a podcast noone ever heard of, Gamesauce isn't RS, neither is "GameBreaker.tv", then you got another podcast called "Devchat.tv"? Noone hasn't even heard of these sites, so far the only sources that could stand are Kotaku and Eurogamer (which barely mentions the game). The Guardian mentions it as part of the GamerGate controversy, but the difference with Zoe Quinn's game is that her game was previously mentioned separate from the controversy. I'll propose its deletion soon, I'm really trying to be neutral, but this article is laughable Loganmac (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of things less notable than this that have Wikipedia pages. Especially given the coverage, it's likely that people will look for objective information on what the game is and is about, just like any other topic mentioned in the news for which people come to Wikipedia to get information.71.227.233.117 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE GameLegend (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The game meets WP:GNG pretty easily, especially now. We do have an NFCC issue with the article, though. Unless the studio is willing to release some of those images under an acceptable license (I presume Bran might be able to handle that request), there's going to have be a culling of the images. Specifically, the e-book cover, the script image, and at least one of the mesh render images, are gonna have to be deleted under NFCC. The screenshot of the grid-based combat system is fine given there is significant discussion of that gameplay mechanic in various reviews and the top image is naturally acceptable. Article could definitely use some better sourcing and general improvement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've emailed the studio and they're releasing all the images under Creative Commons. Once I get the specific CC license details I'll update the images accordingly. Branmacmuffin (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Branmacmuffin: Just a note, I removed some of the images from the page. I think even under a free license there are a few which seem superfluous to me (e.g. the picture of the script, the cover of the ebook, etc.). Protonk (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Totally cool about that. I had sourced an abundance of information (visual and written) and put it all down. A more experienced editor knows when less is more. Branmacmuffin (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

“how the hell is this game notable?” – Lots of media coverage, several highly favorable reviews (including Macworld, which is not solely game-focussed, but serves a much wider audience).

“its development section is longer than some triple AAA games” – The major game studios don’t usually talk in as much detail about the development process, do they? So there’s simply more material, which is a good thing. (I can see how some details may be considered beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, but I don’t think the length is a problem per se.)

“"iMore" and a podcast noone ever heard of” – Debug is a podcast by iMore (Rene Ritchie, to be precise), which is a rather important website in the area of Apple Inc. and related technology ecosystems. There’s no shame in not knowing about it, but saying that “noone ever heard of [it]” is simply not true.

Gamesauce and devchat.tv — In both cases, the article refers not to content created by the writers of those web sites, but to content created by the R60 developers, which is not ideal but acceptable according to WP:RS.

gamebreaker.tv – I’m not sure how well-known this web site is. If it is not an acceptable source, it might be appropriate to delete the line about this site’s R60 review.

Cheers, NacowY (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

On the validity of research during times of controversy

Whether or not Revolution 60 was wildly popular before the "GamerGate" controversy began a few months ago, it is perfectly true that game's lead developer Brianna Wu has been a very visible figure in the gaming universe for the last few months. She has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, Polygon, Kotaku, Gamasuta, VentureBeat, and more. She has visited the White House, and she has set up a legal defense fund in the name of protecting women in her industry. It is perfectly reasonable that people (both inside and outside) the gaming world might be interested in researching her, her company, and her company's accomplishments. This is the purpose of Wikipedia--to help regular people access the research information that they need, and to create a more informed public conversation. I don't know how anyone who has any knowledge of current events in video games can even question that this page deserves to exist.

I don't know who made all of the contributions to the Revolution 60 page. Maybe the page should indeed be updated by someone who doesn't have any connection to Brianna. I do know that it deserves to exist. Even if Brianna Wu and Giant Spacekat isn't reason enough, look at how the game itself has ranked. It won a GOTY! How is that not enough? --Scoraie (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The same way the editor has links with the developers, the staff of that site have it too, even if it deserved to stay, all the images have to go since we don't know their license, they're not particularly notable aspects of the game. And you have to trim the article A LOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I’m not aware of any link between the iMore staff and the R60 developers. (If you are referring to Brianna Wu’s appearance as an interview guest on the Debug podcast, then I strongly disagree: An interview is just part of normal journalistic work and generally does not create any “link” between interviewer and interviewee.) w/r/t trimming, please see my comments above. Cheers, NacowY (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A +1 to NacowY. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems gators do not care what you have to say about an actual lack of link between the two considering this IP's insistence on the fact. Also they keep pointing out a screen cap to me that I've only known about for like 2 hours. Regardless of what these people might say, I have had zero contact with any parties responsible for this video game. Mrs. Wu has not contacted me at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And if anything I've done it was to fix Branmacmuffin's formatting and stop a troll from perpetuating the conspiracy theory that iMore and Wu have some sort of undisclosed whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The developer's recent plea (http://i.imgur.com/KSkV0Pn.jpg and http://i.imgur.com/bBBKWQ5.jpg) for a wikipedia editor sympathetic to "the cause", and the sudden appearance of Ryulong is suspicious to say the least. 193.130.130.97 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, no one on the dev team contacted me. That image has been on reddit for hours before I was even aware of its existence or the alleged issues with this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It just seems to be a very odd coincidence that there was a plea for help on the developers facebook page - specifically recommending you by name - and then lo and behold you appear and begin to edit the page hours later. From the outside looking in, that does appear suspicions. 193.130.130.97 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's because every single gamergater on Twitter began including my name amongst the complaints that there was an attempt to contact me and the first second that someone I have not blocked got into my notifications I saw the original screen cap and that there were possibly problems on this page. So blame the Twitter echo chamber for summoning me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean Brianna Wu gifting t-shirts and various swag (in this context, it means physical stuff) to the iMore staff? 85.48.38.84 (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What evidence is there of this? And also, remember that Wikipedia is not where you report on things like possible ethics violations. Right now, all we have is the information that they gave the award. Anything else is original research.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I misinterpreted the tweet. Where to report ethics violations? 85.48.38.84 (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to Conflict of Interest accusation

I was asked in a public forum by Brianna W, the lead developer of the game if I could do improve this page as she could not due to a conflict of interest https://mobile.twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/529632613682909185. As a fan of the game I did so. My edits have been fair to the point of including negative reviews, and I have provided what I believe are sufficient citations from verifiable sources. I have no connection to the game developers other than 'follows' on Twitter and expect no compensation in any form from those affected for editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branmacmuffin (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Wu, the developer of the game, explicitly asked you to edit the page makes it seem like you have had a prior relationship with her, and as such it is still a CoI. Regardless of how "fair" you think you have been, it is important to realize that editing for Wu is almost identical to her editing by proxy. She even told you some good sites to get quotes. If absolutely nothing else, you and Wu should distance yourself from this page to prevent even the notion of a conflict of interest. PatrickKorte (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd: "it is important to realize that editing for Wu is almost identical to her editing by proxy". How is a fan of a game contacting its maker for a clarification on a point substantively different from a maker pointing out an inaccuracy/need for improvement and putting out a call for fans to fix it? If the page is inaccurate/needs improvement, there shouldn't be an issue with a game's dev pointing that out and asking fans to fix it as long as they're not actually dictating what the fans write.

By your reasoning, any fan of a game shouldn't edit its Wikipedia page, because they're not objective. People from a particular country shouldn't edit the Wikipedia page about that country, because they're not objective. Fans of a particular sports team shouldn't edit the team's page, because they're not objective.

All of which ignores how much of the heavy lifting of creating Wikipedia content gets done -- fans of particular pieces of entertainment are also usually the subject matter experts best equipped to create that content. As far as objectivity, well, that's why anyone can edit the page and/or point out issues with it, and there are admins to make those calls. 71.227.233.117 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a potential issue whenever someone offers to edit a page for a party with a conflict of interest, even if no compensation is expected. Being a fan isn't inherently the problem. That said, any evaluation should be based on the edits being made rather than the person making the edits.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that any page where a person with a conflict of interest says "please edit this page," is tainted by that conflict of interest? You've got a lot of tagging to do. Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think we're largely in agreement that the evaluation should be made based on the edits themselves, but I think perhaps you didn't read what I said. My point is that a creator putting out a call for people to improve a page doesn't entail that people who respond to that call are necessarily any more biased than if those people took the initiative on their own. I see zero issue with the owner of a company or maker of a game saying, "Hey, our Wikipedia page is pretty spotty/inaccurate -- fans, can you improve it?" as long as they're not saying, "Can you add this particular text to the page?" or "Can you replace all the negative commentary with positive commentary?" or otherwise actually dictating a response. It shouldn't matter if someone *requested* improvement as long as the edits themselves are good, as objective as possible, and well-sourced. 207.115.69.194 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the issue is more the direct conversation with Wu that is cited above, rather than simply responding to a call. It creates the appearance of a conflict of interest even if there is not one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there an actual COI here? I removed the tag but was reverted by No... i am amazing. Protonk (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

… a user account which was very recently created and has been trolling ever since. Better just ignore that revert. NacowY (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I didn't dig through the history to see who added it originally. If I don't see a good reason to keep the tag here within the next day or so I'll remove it. I'm also not opposed to someone removing it earlier than that provided they can offer a good reason to not have it. Protonk (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. A conflict of interest is a conflict which "is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." There is no evidence presented that there is such here. Is there even an allegation that someone editing is "family, friends or employ[ed]," by the developer? Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There is an allegation. As cited up at the top of thread, Wu specifically and explicitly asked BranmacMuffin to edit the page. This suggests a prior relationship -- friend or colleague. PatrickKorte (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What's an "interactive video game"?

The opening sentence says that Revolution 60 is "interactive video game". Aren't all video games interactive? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• It means it's not a real game but a sequence of quicktime movies (featuring a cross between a barbie doll and a rodent). If you wonder why such garbage receives so much praise and a wiki page that reads like an advertisement, well that's the kind of corruption GamerGate is fighting against.212.130.116.215 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of us are trying to improve the article. People have different sidings to GamerGate but I don't think it should matter as long as the article gets improved for the better. GamerPro64 23:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Update - I believe I labeled the video game correctly as an Adventure game. GamerPro64 03:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it means Interactive fiction?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to be a sub-genre of Adventure games so it works on both ends. GamerPro64 06:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding a comment about the long overdue port?

In the Development section, paragraph 4, I think adding a sentence about the estimated delivery time (Aug 2014) and that the port has yet to be released would be a worthwhile expansion of said paragraph. It adds important information about the status of the ports and needs no new references since the info is taken from the same source as the original statement.

I propose something along the lines of changing the current

In July 2013, the company ran a Kickstarter campaign, asking for $5,000 to port the game to PC and Mac, in addition to iOS. The fundraiser brought in $12,728.

to

In July 2013, the company ran a Kickstarter campaign to port the game to PC and Mac, in addition to iOS, which brought in $12,728, exceeding the $5,000 goal. The fundraiser had estimated delivery of the ports by August 2014, but no release has yet been done.

When the ports are actually released, it's just a simple matter of rewriting it to

In July 2013, the company ran a Kickstarter campaign to port the game to PC and Mac, in addition to iOS, which brought in $12,728, exceeding the $5,000 goal. The fundraiser had estimated delivery of the ports by August 2014 and was delivered on [DATE].

--Antalg (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any sources discussing the lack of delivery, or is it just a...well, we can't find it, kind of thing? Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ironholds, this is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Hipocrite (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Wu herself it was confirmed to be in development as late as November 6 (the latest news on any of their official outlets). But the only account of it is from the project facebook page, and I'm pretty sure that source is unacceptable.

There is also the official site showing that the game only supports iDevices (official support page), but I suppose that would be as bad a violation of WP:SYNTH as the kickstarter page?

Antalg (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

iMore source

I am concerned of the reliable sources with some of the references used in the article. I already asked if Gamesauce is reliable. But I don't know about iMore's reliability. Maybe its just from never using the sources before. GamerPro64 15:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if Gamesauce is reliable, but iMore has editors and writers from mac/tech publications that we've generally considered reliable (e.g. Macworld) and probably works. Protonk (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Please remember the main developer has links to iMore, if this wasn't tied to GamerGate the source would be gone by now Loganmac (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  Please either substantiate the links or stop making that assertion? Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  This is an utterly unacceptable violation of BLP ("the main developer has links to..."). Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  It's not a BLP violation, really, only because the accusation itself is tremendously lame. Wu knows writers at iMore, that's about it. :| Protonk (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, we normally wouldn't use the awarding company as a source. We would want the award to be covered by a secondary source. Significant awards have secondary coverage. Citing iMore for iMores "Best of" is problematic as it's both a primary source and self-published. If the award was covered in, say, PC magazine (i.e. PC magazine notes it won the iMore "Best of" award, that would be acceptable.). The award needs to be interpreted and covered by a secondary source. --DHeyward (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We can use it as a primary source because we are simply reporting the fact that they gave the award and not interpretting anything about the award itself which would require other sources. There is no requirement that we use a secondary source to report on this same thing other than it being some desire to remove the information entirely.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Without secondary coverage, there is no way to establish notability. That fails WP:UNDUE. Without secondary coverage, there is way to determine if the award is notable, like, say, a Pullitzer prize or whether it's more like Amazon.com presenting its own "Deals of the week". We wouldn't have a statement like "DeWalt drills were named Amazons best deals of the week" with the only source being Amazon. Lending Wikipedia's voice to give credibility to an award that otherwise has no notability is the very essence of WP:UNDUE - evidence of it's notability as an award needs to be first established before it can be considered. For example, it's easy to find sources that an Oscar is a notable award, it would be okay to use the primary source for winners. Without notability, an award is meaningless and fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up notability? That doesn't govern established article content. There's no rule that we can't use iMore's website to cite the fact that they gave this video game an award.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE requires it. I'm not referring to the notability policy. Remember all the arguments about coverage in mainstream secondary sources being the guide to the amount of content? If this award has never been mentioned in secondary sources in any capacity, it has zero weight and should not be mentioned. It doesn't have to mention this game, just something that says the iMore award is recognized by reliable sources as having some sort of significance. Absent that, it's just a random fact of no identifiable umportance. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Right now, that weight is zero --DHeyward (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a single sentence that an award was given. How is that WP:UNDUE?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Imagine if iMore published an R60 review which contains something like “R60 is the best iOS action game we’ve seen this year” – in that case, it would be totally fine to put a sentence like “iMore reviewed the game favorably, calling it the best iOS action game of the year” into the article, right? Since there is only a nominal difference between that hypothetical situation and the current situation, I don’t see any problem in mentioning that award. Whether this award is important enough to be mentioned in detail in the opening paragraph, is a completely different question – and I would say ‘no’ to that question. (As discussed, I consider it to be mostly equivalent to a review – and no other review is mentioned there in detail, either.) NacowY (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Per this, I pulled the award from the lead as there is no indication that the award is significant since there are no secondary sources mentioning it. I merged the body reference into other reviews. --DHeyward (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've put it back. The site's awards are inherently verifiable and your "reasoning" for omitting what iMore specifically says about the game (that it won its Action Game of the Year honor) is some of the most tortured nonsense I've ever seen on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is confusing to me why you believe that awards require secondary sources to be included in articles as awards and not merely as reviews. Could you provide examples of long-tenured wikiprojects which require that awards be sourced by institutions that are not the awarding agency to be verifiable? Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything requires secondary coverage. If "Hank the internet reviewer" self-published his own set of awards, it's meaningless. What evidence do you have that the award is significant enough an accolade to even called an award? Like in WP:UNDUE, if it's not covered by secondary sources, it probably doesn't belong. A source is not a reliable indicator that their own awards meets any type of significance. It's the Monty Burns award for "Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence." If no one else recognizes iMores awards as being significant, it simply isn't and highlighting that award is a WP:UNDUE problem. Contrast this with mainstream awards such as PC Magazine where an award gets picked up by secondary sources. I am not against leaving the award in if you can find any other mainstream, reliable source that makes it significant. Otherwise, it's promotional and doesn't belong here. Wikipedia has no way to judge the award without a secondary source. iMore is fine for reviewing as a secondary source. It is not fine as a primary source for it's conclusion that their award has significance. --DHeyward (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe setting up a Request for Comment from editors outside all of this would help with making a consensus. GamerPro64 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is rather silly to claim that a notable tech news organization's own awards are not notable enough to be mentioned when they're awarded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to set up an RFC because one person wants to keep valid information off of the article because he subscribes to a bunch of conspiracy theories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's rather silly to claim that a notable tech news organizations awards aren't covered by secondary sources. Without secondary sources, it's merely a review. Ever hear a car commercial where the car dealer claims an award by the car manufacturer? Every wonder why such awards never make it past adverts? It's simple: if iMore is a notable tech news organization, its awards would be notable and covered by secondary sources. If the awards are merely reviews, they won't get secondary coverage. WP is not in the business of lending credibility to an award that other sources have decided not to cover as an awardf. Notable awards are covered by secondary sources. It's simple really. Point to a notable award that isn't covered by solely by the primary source. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a question. Is the awards even used in other articles, whether its this year or previous years? Or the source being in general be used in other pages? I'm just saying I can see why people may have trouble with this being on here if its not used anywhere else. GamerPro64 03:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's what's linked to iMore[1]. An iOS release date as well as a external review of a single game. No mention that an "iMore Award" is significant. It is a very small link list. Compare to well-regarded and notable site[2]. Keep the iMore review, dump the idea that the "award" is a significant or noteworthy accomplishment. --DHeyward (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

iMore isn't officially considered a reliable source for video game articles so seeing it be used in one other video game article we might as well not use it at all. GamerPro64 04:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG/RS isn't a writ policy. Not to mention that iMore is focused more on App Store releases rather than general video game discussion. It's used enough as a reliable source on the project. There's no real reason not to use it here other than the extreme stretch of logic that Brianna Wu appearing in a podcast while promoting the game means that any unethical behavior has happened. We're not here to second guess sources like this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, any Official Guideline Set on Notability that sets out to create a canonical list of every possible source that could ever be reliable, ever, is immediately something any reasonable person should treat with caution. And suspicion. And possibly DDT. Ironholds (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, this isn't the first time you've cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors. There is no connection to Brianna Wu in assessing whether iMore is a significant enough of an award or whether this source is notable for game reviews. Please stop asserting that anyone that disagrees with you has a nefarious reason. Feel free to show this sources significance as a reviewer, or especially its "Award." You links page show no mention of games receiving an iMore award (or even an iMore review). Do you not objectively see a problem of asserting an award significant enough to mention here even thought a review, much less an award from them has not been mentioned before and isn' referenced in any other sources? --DHeyward (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What aspersions? Because this has been the point of contention from everyone off of the website and several editors, although not yourself, on this page. Their significance has already been established by NBSB.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)