Talk:Pyst

This article was nominated for deletion on January 7, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

A fact from Pyst appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 September 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Sunday Mirror recommended that players stumped by video game Myst should get Pyst?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pyst.

Wikipedia

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Notable enough

I had heard of this game in the 90's, so it has some degree of reputation. Perhaps the bulk of the content should be Merged with Myst? Dangerdan97 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned in the Parodies and fan games section of the Myst article - I really don't think there's any need for detail any greater than that already given. Regardless, this article really isn't notable, and so in my opinion can certainly be deleted. _TheIslander 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There're some very notable sources for this.. so.. I dunno. :P Rehevkor (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now - there weren't when I made the comment above :P. I'm still not entirely convinced that this article is notable enough not to just be included in Myst, but meh - I'm happy enough for it to stay now. _Talk Islander 12:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merger discussion

oppose

this article was pre-emptively mergered one day after the merge tag was added.

that is not proper procedure.

the article survived deletion debate with overwhelming keep.

the "merge" consisted of blanking the page & adding nothing @ Myst (series).

not proper procedure either.

the fair use cover shot has also been deleted...

Lx 121 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was redirect several months after the AfD. During those months, it underwent no improvement or expansion. The article wholly fails to establish the game's notability; it's (limited) coverage at Myst is entirely appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um, no; the article was voted keep overwhelmingly Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pyst (6 keep vs 2 delete, including the nominator as 1 of the 2). simply because the article did not develop much in the next few months is not criteria for unilateral deletion, or "fake" merges. the vote to keep was not conditional on changes to the article. i'm sorry, but you're trying to redact the facts to justify your personal preferences. there is plenty of evidence to establish notability, much of it was covered in the deletion debate. i've also added a plurality of additional references, including several from major publications. pyst easily meets established notability criteria for published commercial video games; this is just an attempt to try & re-write those criteria de-facto, while nobody is looking, & without regard for proper WP. you also completely failed to address the improper procedure used in forcing the merge Lx 121 (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you also used the wrong "it(')s" (posessive = "its") & the wrong tense in your opening sentence. i normally wouldn't point this out, but you've previously expressed (negative) opinions in regard to my grammar, style, & punctuation. Lx 121 (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference in how much time I spend copyediting what I put in article space (which I've criticized you for) and I what I hurriedly type on a talk page (its/it's). That you are so insecure about your ability to deal with the former that you dwell on the latter is pathetic.

Anyhow, plenty of articles that survive AfD are later redirected, merged or outright deleted later for continuing to fail basic policies. That was an appropriate action with this article. The "improvements" you continue to harp about on my talk page, to this and other software from this company, are negligible. --EEMIV (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're still not addressing the violation of WP, or the fact that the "merge" was actually a deletion with redirect; you're merely rationalizing your actions & the results you desire for this article. the article survived a deletion debate, on its merits. i've improved the writing & organization, corrected details of the info, added information, & added 8 references; at least 4 of which demonstrate coverage of the topic @ major media/information outlets. you simply don't want to concede the point. the topic meets notability criteria, it already did a year and 1/2 ago during the deletion debate. if you have nothing more substantial to add to the arguement, i see no further need to respond to your comments. your personal criteria for inclusion, deletion, and/or (fake) merger are not wikipedia policies, no matter how much you might wish them to be. & i see no need to comment further on your talk page at this time, or for further "conversation"; attempts at person to person wp:afg/friendly communication seem to have more than run their course. if you ever engage in deliberately disruptive editing/edit conflicting of my work again, as you (clearly) did with these three articles, i'm simply going to file the appropriate complaints, in the appropriate places. Lx 121 (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just for good measure:

here are 2 key wp articles on the subject of "merging" wp articles

Wikipedia:Merging

Help:Merge

the "merge" supported by EEMIV consisted of blanking & redirecting the Pyst article page & article talk page, one day after the merge proposal tag had been added, & with no discussion of the proposal.

No Material from the Pyst article was added to the "merge to" target page.

the "merge to" target page was (& is) the article for the [Myst (series)]; already lengthy & focused on "official" Myst subjects.

the coverage of "Pyst" in the Myst series article consists of 2 sentences, not particularly well written, buried deep in the lower-mid-section of a long page.

the merge also fails the test for wp: merging on at least 2 of 3 key points: "Merging should be not be considered if:

The resulting article is too long or "clunky" The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short"

3. the topics: Myst (series) & Pyst are discreet, & Pyst does meet the notability criteria to merit an article, "even though it may be short"

2. Pyst as a longer article? possible, but more source material is needed

1. any real merge would make the already long Myst series article longer & pretty much by definition "klunky". Pyst is a separate topic, it doesn't "fit" into the Myst series article's coverage as anything more than an afterthought.

the game Pyst is a parody of Myst (I); it was produced & released by a completely separate game company, with no ties to cyan; it was a commercial game with a large-scale release; it sold enough copies to be considered a "successful" product (& to foster a sequel project) even if its reviews were mixed; the game received wide coverage at the time of its release; & the project involved at least 2 notable persons (goodman & bergman), one of them a "celebrity".

wp doesn't merge wierd al yankovic as a subsection of michael jackson; the parody & the parodied merit separate pages in this case as well

Lx 121 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pyst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041028235721/http://www.dpwr.net/illustrated/humor.php to http://www.dpwr.net/illustrated/humor.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Wow, not even close to the earliest parody game

Just off the top of my head, Ultimuh predates this by a few years, and that is without even doing research. I realize the article does not claim this is truly the first parody game, but seriously, that is quite the ridiculous claim. I bet it had been at least a decade since the first, if not longer. 216.81.81.80 (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]