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
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Archival and Administrative update
Recent edits have been factual, on point and have been true to the Wikipedia spirit, this pleases me greatly, and means I don't have to keep coming back to check this article more than once every few months. Keep it up! I've tidied up the discussions as they've all fizzled out and there's been no ongoing discussion for the last few months now, if there's any questions or disputes, feel free to drop me a line on this thread, but so far it all looks pretty good. As long as the edits remain clean and tidy, we may be able to improve this from C to B grade in due course. LostPackets (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the whole thing about removal of the 'offline mode' should be separated out into a self contained 'Controversy' section for clarity, and because of the growing hubbub over the whole thing now that the game has actually launched.User:Splodger999
There seems to be a group of people that deliberately want to sabotage the game by blowing this offline thing out of proportion. It was a backer-requested feature that didn't fit with the design and it's now history, but isn't ruled out for the future. There is no need for a special section.HyperspaceCloud (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands I think it probably could go into a single paragraph in "Development", minus the "unknown but significant legal action" paragraph unless we can find better sources. But we had some useful sources and context added today and I see no reason for you to throw that out. --McGeddon (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:HyperspaceCloud has again deleted the separate section concerning the controversial removal of the game's 'offline mode' citing 'consensus' reasons. There does not appear to be any consensus as such on the matter, and I feel the subject really deserves to be split out of development (for clarity purposes if nothing else), particularly as it's tied in closely with the matter of refunds (or not) being issued by the developers and considering that the game is now post-launch. --Splodger999 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with User:Splodger999 here, User:HyperspaceCloud claims "consensus" and "agreement" on the merging of the offline mode section and yet all I see is User:HyperspaceCloud (alone) continually reverting edits made by others. It'd be really great if User:HyperspaceCloud could give their argument for the merge and then accept the results when others disagree rather than just spouting conspiracy theories and blaming some group of shadowy saboteurs who apparently want to ruin the game by recording a factual (there seem to be enough citations to support this) part of the game's story on Wikipedia. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your argument for merging the two sections then? Some group of unhappy people is "slander[ing]" Frontier Developments online? I fail to see how this constitutes a good enough reason to merge a paragraph discussing the unhappy reactions of a group of backers/purchasers into a section detailing the development of the game. The two sections should remain separate due to the fact the focus is on two entirely different groups with completely different (and obviously opposing viewpoints). Realistically the "Development" section should make mention of the Frontier Development announcement and then the "Controversy" section should fill in the details of the very public reaction of the group of unhappy backers/purchasers. This is a really simple situation and I fail to see why you feel the need to muddy it with the wild conspiracy claims. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I actually 'backed' this game just after the Kickstarter, and as a reasonably casual but happy user/player have no desire to 'sabotage' the game whatsoever - far from it! Splodger999 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The offline mode was requested by backers during Kickstarter, it was never the original plan. The game was pitched from the start as an online game with developer injected events and newsfeeds and that's the way it was meant to be played. Offline was always gonna be a tacked on afterthought and the fuss about it is mostly forgotten, so it should stay in development section. I supplied accusation evidence, but it was redacted. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How the offline mode came to be added to the Kickstarter project is irrelevant to the reporting of the post-"no-offline" announcement situation. The simple fact is that on the final day of the Kickstarter (the day when money was actually taken from backers) Frontier Development had added offline mode to the promises they made to the project backers. They continued to announce and reinforce the promised offline mode in multiple different forms (including direct interviews, Reddit AMA and on their own forum). Then, at the 11th Hour the offline mode was very quietly dropped. A lot of people appear to be unhappy about that simple fact; they paid Frontier Developments for a game which included an offline mode and now it's not included. HyperspaceCloud seems to be unable to actually come up with a clear argument for merging the offline issue into "Development". Earlier it was because of a sub-Reddit and Metacritic reviews, now it's because "the fuss about it is mostly forgotten" (a patently ridiculous argument to make when HyperspaceCloud has only a few comments up this page claimed that there is some sort of ongoing concerted conspiratorial effort). I have already made my case for the two sections to be kept separate "...the focus [of each section] is on two entirely different groups with completely different (and obviously opposing viewpoints).". Unless a good argument can be made for the merger (and WP:DOX does not count) I think, whoever it is that does such things, should keep the sections separated. Here's two more reasons supporting the separation;
"Define:Controversy" - It's prolonged insofar as it's still going on and it's public insofar as it's mentioned on a lot of public sources (including this one).
Another thing to note is that kickstarter backers of the game should have been aware of the development risk and challenges that were clearly stated on the Elite: Dangerous kickstarter page. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Offline mode being dropped is a Development issue, the resultant public backlash is not. You still haven't provided a decent reason for the merger. Also, as I (and others) have already said WP:DOX another user does not count as a reason for merging the two sections. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also counter your claim than "A new reader of the article has no use for an offline section...", I would argue that a new user who has done some research and found the many promises of offline mode by Frontier Development would definitely be interested to find a definitive source explaining what has happened. All that aside, WP is not a shopping centre or product guide it's an encyclopaedia and as such it reports the facts of the situation for everyone (not just some person looking to buy the game).Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave plenty of other reasons for why it should be merged and stop focusing on that dox thing, which wasn't really a dox, I only supplied that as evidence for the accusations I made, not for the arguments of merging. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already stated, your reasons for merging so far appear to be; 1. "...the countless of comments in Elite: Dangerous media article comments from members of that subreddit and wikipedia who are going on a concerted effort to slander Frontier..." and 2. "...the fuss about it is mostly forgotten...". Is there anything I've missed? If so, go ahead and list your reasons as those two are a bit flimsy! Once you've done that maybe they can be assessed by the other editors and a proper consensus can be reached (rather than just you saying one has been reached and making changes yourself). As for your WP:DOX, I don't make the rules but I do at least take the time to read them and it's quite clear what you did. Stop trying to throw the discussion off topic (argumentum ad hominem) and just state your play so everyone knows what your supporting reasons are. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons I gave are valid insofar as the topics being reported are both distinct and separate matters. One relates to the development decision to drop offline mode while the second matter relates to the fallout and public reaction/backlash to the decision by Frontier Development to drop the offline mode. If you feel the reasons are not valid then please explain why. A single line; "Those aren't valid reasons..." is a really difficult argument to counter as there is no substance for me to work with! Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the 'offline/refund saga' seems to be building. Article dated 22nd December 2014 at 'The Register'. Wild theories aside, it would seem that reliably reported actual things are more relevant in a wiki article, rather than the pet theories of an individual editor, and whatever they consider to be 'fair'? --Splodger999 (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In line with my arguments above (and considering there has been no reasonable counter-arguments forwarded by other editors) I would suggest that it is now time to review and rework this section with a view to separating out; 1. the "Development" side of the material (i.e.: details about the decision by the Devs to drop the offline mode and their justification for doing so) so that it may be placed in an appropriate location within the "Development" section. and 2. the separate "Controversy" section being worked up and focused more on the public fallout/backlash along with the refund situation as reported in the associated media. Does anybody have any ideas/suggestions on how to proceed? Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for forgetting to include an edit summary on my last revert, I committed the page from the wrong window. I was going to include "WP:ELMINOFFICIAL only applies to external wikipedia links" as my edit summary for the revert. In addition, I'd like to throw in my opinion that the removal of offline mode absolutely belongs in the development section and also that I don't see why the public response to the issue carries this much weight in an article that is primarily to inform about the game. Offline mode was added in Kickstarter and as such is allowed to be reneged on by Frontier, just the same as if it was any other developer. Stargazer71 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Stargazer71 This is a fairly extraordinary claim, and again comes across as quite apologetic on behalf of the developers. For a start 'fully offline' was an early commitment (see this AMA from Dec 2012 - comments from Michael Brookes and Braben specifically promise fully offline mode). A commitment also made to many purchasers who bought in AFTER the KS finished via Frontier's UK based web store. UK law applies fully, and I suspect m'learned friends might have a different opinion on broken promises. Finally, your interpretation of KS 'rules' hold no weight, and in any case, KS themselves stipulate that projects are supposed to fulfil their promises: "When a project is successfully funded, the creator is responsible for completing the project and fulfilling each reward. Their fundamental obligation to backers is to finish all the work that was promised. Once a creator has done so, they’ve fulfilled their obligation to their backers." --Splodger999 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of it being a promise on their part, no one is denying that. I feel for those that were genuinely affected by the removal of offline mode. However, the fact remains that promises made on Kickstarter are not required to be present in the final game. Just because someone (myself included) bought into the game after the Kickstarter doesn't mean that my purchase specifically had better contain that feature, far from it. Your interpretation of the "rules" of Kickstarter hold even less weight as nowhere does it say on Kickstarter that action will be taken if a project fails to deliver on a promise. The backer rewards were fulfilled and the project was completed, it's as simple as that. The unfortunate thing about this is that the ones trying to slander the game on Wikipedia are the same ones that moderate the subreddit /r/elitedangerousrefunds. A section of Reddit dedicated to trying to make Elite: Dangerous look bad. Funnily enough, the article from the Controversy section that I reverted was authored by a moderator of that subreddit, interesting. No offense, but it wouldn't surprise me if you were a part of that group. Stargazer71 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Stargazer71 First, while I understand WP:ELMINOFFICIAL relates to "official" links I think we can all agree we should be taking a similar approach with all inline links and avoiding just spamming the article with multiple redundant links already present. As such I have undone your revert in order to keep the article "neat". Second, the "public response" to the issue carries weight insofar as it is a part of the full story we are telling by creating this article. I'm sure you're not suggesting that only a "clean" and "sanitised" version of the game be published here? If we are to just ignore that facet of the history of the game then we shouldn't be mentioning Ian Bell anywhere either, or maybe we should just ignore all the news articles that specifically relate to the public response? Why stop there, shouldn't go edit some of the really controversial pages on WP to get rid of all the stuff we don't like? I would think that, in order to offer an appropriately well rounded article, we should include all aspects we can including the WP:GCONT ones. Finally, your comment, "...the ones trying to slander the game on Wikipedia are the same ones that moderate the subreddit /r/elitedangerousrefunds." and further, "...the article from the Controversy section that I reverted was authored by a moderator of that subreddit..." are irrelevant to this discussion as they bring nothing of substance. In fact the only thing statements claiming some kind of shadowy internet conspiracy exists to destroy Frontier Developments does is lower the value of your contribution in the eyes of other editors. In addition this type of comment is rather uncomfortably close to WP:DOX for my liking and I would ask you to cease such commenting immediately. We have already had one such matter in relation to this article so lets just try and be civil. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that User:Stargazer71 does not actually appear to dispute the verifiable facts here, but is simply annoyed that they are being included in the WP entry. Perhaps a little more objectivity and a little less in the way of wild accusations should be considered? --Splodger999 (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lack of 'perspective' going on here. The first I'd like to address is the 'considerable' number of complaints. The references presented to not site actual number of people 'complaining', merely that a number of complaints were made. Further to this the Reddit page created by the complainants has 3-4 regular contributors and any post RARELY makes it into double figure responses. When the complainants created a 'Put Offline Back into the Game' petition - it garnered a MASSIVE 82 supporters. The primary refunds thread on the Frontier forum is fueled along by 4-5 regular posters and that is generally filled with vitriol and legal threats. Considerable is simply not accurate or factual. In fact the numbers account for less than 0.05% of the total backers and players. [1]Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the actual 'huge' thread that is referenced - there are approximately 1000 individual posters in it. Of those, 190-200 were contributing posters (and I've been overly generous on this also with counting anyone that made 10 or more posts). The vast bulk of those posts were accounted for by 50 odd posters. Again NOT a considerable number in fact barely 0.1% of the members on the forums, once you account for the gamers that have bought the game and haven't signed up on the forums (you'd have to ask Frontier about that number) I would put money on that 'considerable' number of complainants being an even smaller representation. Facts are sadly missing here ″[1]Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Logical fallacy "Burden of proof", there's plenty of reliable cited sources (BBC, Eurogamer) which have pointed to the nature and controversy of Frontier removing the offline mode, the articles have been referenced and well founded. Is there really a need to retread this specific line of discussion? LostPackets (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Logical fallacy? One is conjecture and broad reporting that states in one way or another that 'complaints have been made'. At no point does it state numbers, relative percentages or actual FACTUAL quantification of the actual size of the 'controversy'. What I have given you are solid numbers that are a true representation of the scale of the issue. Therefore a 'considerable' number of complaints is patently untrue. Where the logical fallacy indeed lies is in those making the claim - that a number of complainants does indeed equal a 'considerable' number. This is baseless and speculative hyperbole and therefore should be correctly represented in statement of fact. And yes - if a 'statement' of 'fact' is indeed not factual then it should be re-addressed. Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read citations 53 through 55, and improve upon them with more accurate and better sourced information if you are able to find some. Using statistics garnered from a forum is not considered a reliable source of evidence for citation purposes. If we're to generate consensus and a better article, and if facts are your guiding goal, then please find some from reputable sources, I would be more than happy to add them in for you myself. They must however satisfy the citation guidelines. LostPackets (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so you're telling me that the actual numbers garnered directly from the source that are 100% able to be proven and replicated are less reliable than news articles that NEVER state numbers and only ever say 'a number of complaints'. Please by all means tell me why the original site is not a reliable source for statistics (and with all due respect - you saying that the forum is not a reliable source does not make this fact). Where else could those statistics be obtained? Shall we just go back to hearsay and approximation? Wishful thinking maybe? Neither 53 nor 55 present any statistics AT ALL!Spotlesssunshine (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Spotlesssunshine The Slashdot ref, states "A complaints thread on the official Elite forums has swelled to 450+ pages in only three days, while refunds are being lodged in the thousands." Other refs make it clear that there is a large problem - 'firestorm' as one article puts it. You need to check WP policy as to why the forum is not considered an ideal source (if it were, then I suspect that the article would look much LESS favourable than it currently does). --Splodger999 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Spotlesssunshine I'm afraid I don't think counting names on the forum activity page is going to cut it if you're going to argue there's only a "small" number of complainants. The most obvious problem with your, "...actual numbers garnered directly from the source that are 100% able to be proven and replicated..." is the likely disparity between the activity of people on those pages (i.e.: the people claiming they're assisting others with advice will likely show far greater activity than those with issues) and those with complaints. There is also the additional problem (which is going to be present in your other examples like the online petition) that we should not be trying to judge at what point the activity is enough to be actually counted, that's why (I think) the use of the other sources is a better indicator - also, those sources are unlikely to have any particular bias for/against Frontier). Finally, forums are poor sources as already pointed out by Splodger999 - They are really WP:PRIMARY and there are other WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources already cited that present the number as being considerable (both links referred to by Splodger999 show this). That is why I am comfortable with the numbers being referred to as "considerable". Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Wtf4photography - Indeed, it appears that the complaints were (as widely reported by the BBC, Slashdot, etc.) of sufficient quantity, to warrant the (neutral, and a pretty safe bet) word 'large' in discussing actual complainant numbers - actual figures being unlikely to be forthcoming from the developers. I completely fail to see a valid reason to downplay any customer reaction. --Splodger999 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Wtf4photography and @Splodger999, thank you for clarifying the situation as regards sources and why the news reports are probably our best indicator for where we derive our wordings from. That does seem to be the best way to build consensus as for how to generate the most neutral and correct tone for the information provided, does it not? LostPackets (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's all supposition at this point as as such neither small or large are accurately quantifiable - therefore the ONLY factual statement can be 'a number'. We can't prove one way or another what those numbers are - unless one of us is willing to troll through a 400 odd page forum and note down individual references... and I'm not. Therefore the actual refund request numbers will remain in the hands of Frontier as will whether the reasoning is fair and reasonable. I'm happy with the most recent edit if you guys are?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets @Splodger999 @Spotlesssunshine I'm not suggesting it be used as a source but, in light of this thread of conversation, I thought it would be relevant to note. Yes, it's WP:PRIMARY as it comes from the FD Community Manager on their forum but it does appear to confirm they are working their way through a lot of refunds. [1]
@Spotlesssunshine You removed the descriptor unilaterally, again, please refrain from this until consensus is reached. I've replaced with "significant" as this seems the best fit under the circumstances (that and I couldn't undo automatically), and that I think will be the point upon which we settle the needle - "A significant number" LostPackets (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets Which I will not repeat - again apologies. However - what is the factual reference to back this up? How are you getting to 'a significant number'? 54 and 55 have NO reference to numbers at all - this is not a factual statement in any way shape or form. You're not making a fact based point at all, only an opinion based one. You keep demanding factual reference from me however you are making the statement so the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders. The fact that these references are posted on the BBC and Games.on.net do in no way factually prove a significant number. Please provide the proof to the statement. "as it comes from the FD Community Manager on their forum but it does appear to confirm they are working their way through a lot of refunds" This is not a factual source either (as I've been repeatedly told that Reddit and the Forum are not vaid citation sources then neither can this. At this stage the ONLY valid and accurate statement of quantity is 'a number'. 'Significant is just outright hyperbole until proved otherwise by Citation.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've selected 'significant' as opposed to 'large' or similar as it feels a good compromise between your selection which would have unduly downplayed the tone of the article and the initial description which in your eyes unduly overstated the article. Compromise being the best way to reach consensus under the circumstances, and most definitely supported by the WP:SECONDARY sources that have already been listed within the article. That feels to me to be the best way to settle the issue to the satisfaction to all parties concerned, no? LostPackets (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets I'm afraid not - until 'significant' is accurately cited in a factual manner it's still just supposition. The WP:SECONDARY do not support the supposition in any way shape or form. Significant in relation to what? I just can't see anything that in any way shape or form represents a quantity beyond drawing a correlation between citation source and an assumption of importance. i.e. it's on the BBC so it must be important? The aim here is not to downplay the tone of the argument at all. The aim is to factually represent the situation given the facts at hand. If I'm wrong and I'm missing something in the articles that actually demonstrate numbers or a quantifiable relationship between those that are asking for refunds and those that aren't our only honest and factual representation is 'a number'. If there is to be a representation of genuine ire from 'a number' of players I believe that presenting the FACT that there was a social media storm, that 'a number' of reputable news sources published reference to the situation and that Frontier were ostensibly forced into addressing the issue due to both social media and player requests. These things can be referenced through the cited sources. Numbers cannot. Spotlesssunshine (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Spotlesssunshine & User:LostPackets 'Significant' seems to be an apt adjectival compromise, as opposed to say 'large'. Consider the fact that the complaints generated reached the BBC and other reporting sites would rather indicate that there were a 'significant' as opposed to an 'insignificant' number. --Splodger999 (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Splodger999 @LostPackets Very well - if that's the current consensus then I'll leave it be - but drawing a citation source as a indicator of importance doesn't sit well with me. It errs away from an attempt at factual representation and more toward hyperbol to overstate a point. News sources have some freedom in the manner of delivering their news, transferring that 'freedom' into a factual representation of the situation is a risky endeavor. Keep in mind that news sources often get things wrong because their own sources are not well researched or cited - making the same mistake here by eschewing facts (or the obvious lack of) for a news source is not in the spirit of creating a factual reference (something that Wikipedia aims to do). My aim is not to misrepresent or deliver on hearsay, but to retain factual representation. In my own opinion, this is clearly failing to do so in the spirit of compromise.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Controversy v it's own header: To have such a minor issue outlined on its own is not factual and not representative of the actual scale of the issue. And really? Refund quest? - the game is not factual and is purely an 'opinion piece' if you can even be that generous. At worst it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and entirely indicative of the nature of the people in the Reddit thread. By all means go and read the content there - it's abusive toward Frontier staff, vitriolic and embittered. If this is the kind of thing that should be represented on Wikipedia then perhaps I have the wrong impression of it. From a personal point of view I'd be doing some soul searching to see if the actions are a reasonable and measured response to the issue at hand.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source referenced was The Register in relation to RQ, The Register is a legitimate press outlet with a strong background. If they have decided that this story and anything related to it has merit, then their articles are at least WP:TERTIARY or WP:SECONDARY by nature. Reddit generally can be disregarded with the possible exception of verified AMA's such as ones coming directly from say, David Braben, which would be WP:PRIMARY as being from the Developer himself, that's as direct as one gets. LostPackets (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was an opinion piece and in no way representative of fact. Just because it exists on the Register lends it no more creedance than if it were a direct link to the 'game'. My point is this - on Wikipedia the aim is to represent facts in an accurate and free from emotive language manner. This is simply not being done here. Nor is this specific issue significant enough that it should have it's own header, it is disingenuous to the factual representation and is clearly based on an attempt to bolster the case. i.e. if it's on Wikipedia then it must be fact! Unfortunately when you have those representing their own case and manufacturing the reference material then it is no longer a factual presentation is it? Far more people than have claimed refunds have been having issues with the client starting, with ingame crash to desktops, with ingame balance issues and glitches however these have not been represented here at all. Again I cite the FACT that the complainants represent less than 0.05% of the total backers/gamers involved in Elite Dangerous. In your opinion, is this really worthy of its own section? I would most definitely say not. If it needs to be presented at all then it should be under a generic heading following a long recognised format on Wikipedia - it is in no way deserving of breaking the trending layout.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Spotlesssunshine Regarding the separate "Controversy" section, we've had the discussion ongoing for a while now and nobody has yet been able to really present any good verifiable reasons for merging the section with "Development" (or in fact for losing the section altogether). I have already made my views known on the matter above; There are two distinct matters to be addressed: 1. The dropping of the offline mode is a fact, but it is also a purely "Development" issue and there is enough credible sources available to be able to merge the information specifically about that decision back into "Development" (e.g.: when it happened, why they say it happened, how they went about announcing it etc). 2. The public/backer reaction to the announcement is also a fact, but it is not a "Development" matter. It has nothing to do with that section and as such should not be in that section but rather in its own section. However, there has been a reaction and it is considered to be a large (see my comments earlier about "considerable") and vocal/active one. The reaction has been reported by multiple good quality sources and that by itself should make the matter worthy of reporting on this page. Unless you can find some reason to dispute these things then I don't think you're going to have much luck with either merging or dropping this information. I would suggest that the best way forward is for you to post a draft of what you think the "Controversy" section, or whatever it ends up being named, (not forgetting the extra text about dropping offline mode for the "Development" section) should look like and then we can actually move forward rather than going around in circles. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Spotlesssunshine Regarding your comments, "Again I cite the FACT that the complainants represent less than 0.05% of the total backers/gamers involved in Elite Dangerous." and "If it needs to be presented at all then it should be under a generic heading following a long recognised format on Wikipedia - it is in no way deserving of breaking the trending layout." - Could you provide more information/sources for these as I'd like to read them? Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Spotlesssunshine"Far more people than have claimed refunds have been having issues with the client starting, with ingame crash to desktops, with ingame balance issues and glitches however these have not been represented here at all." - If users experiencing other technical problems with the game after release is as big an issue as you are suggesting (sources?) then I fully support your suggestion for a section specifically addressing that. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew at WTF4Photography Whilst I would also support such a section, I have not yet managed to find any citable sources to back up either of User:Spotlesssunshine's claims, until such information is provided I would suggest no revisions are made based on the information that user presents. At least until citable information comes to light? Then perhaps make edits to improve factual basis and improve evidence as we go along? LostPackets (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you all misunderstand my point. As the game proceeds there are likely to be other controversies cropping up, such as when the first paid for upgrade appears - are people going to be asking for a refund on that? What about when they experience their first major server outage or are hacked etc etc - I'm not suggesting it be gone by any lengths but creating a broader and more sensible section in line with a standard Wiki layout. i.e. the overriding section for subject overview, then the subject matter itself. This game is going to be around for a while, why not get the formatting right now rather than shuffling it around as information presents itself? If there is question at to whether it's development or of a more 'political' nature then refer to it in the development section, then cross reference to the Controversy x.1 section for fleshing it out and representing the historical facts.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spotlesssunshine Can we wait for these supposed controversies you're expecting to actually happen before we commit to any major changes in that regard? Again, you're arguing based on theory and not on citable fact. There's no sources or evidence to back up what you're saying as far as I can work out, and we have to work with what we *have*, not what we *might have* say six or twelve months down the line. LostPackets (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with User:Spotlesssunshine and the others that, if as suggested by SS there are that many technical problems/bugs plaguing the game at launch, then that would also seem worthy of inclusion under its own section. I had a quick look at the official forums again, and it does certainly seem to be the case. Of course, we'll need decent citable sources to include. --Splodger999 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no problem with adjusting to a format in line with what those other pages have. So, I guess, it'll be "Development" (2nd) with any associated sections like "Offline Mode" (3rd) and whatever else that section could be formalised into. While "Reception" (2nd) with "Offline Controversy" (3rd) and (pending good sources of course) "Early Server Problems" (3rd) and anything else that crops up? As long as it's ok with others, I'm good with something like that. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until we've actual proof and citable sources for these controversies it seems like a lot of chair shuffling for no apparent benefit. I'm not in agreement until there's some actual press coverage that supports an actual need for nesting controversy into subheadings. Right now the data concerning the game is sketchy and at best limited, with a lot of the information concerning the technical problems being WP:PRIMARY and therefore a little difficult to use correctly. Particularly as it's game forums (and we've already been over the merits and lack thereof of using those). At this point the offline mode issue is the only one that generated enough press notoriety to merit it's own mention, ergo, it's own space in the article. LostPackets (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made the structural changes as agreed in these conversations. The content is pretty much as it was, I just rejigged it a little to fit the new structure. However, please check the content to ensure I haven't changed the just of the text by moving stuff around. I figure this change should finish up the conversations we've had in this part of the Talk:Elite: Dangerous and any further conversations about sections should be held under the specific section titles from now on to avoid confusion. Cheers all. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How was the time-line order out? The "Development" section has the removal of offline in the correct order and now the "Reception" section has the public reaction to that removal as per agreements in this Talk. If you have a problem with the content then adjust that accordingly, don't just revert the entire structure. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appear to be confused, or blind. At least at first glance if one skims over the article then it looks like removal of the offline mode is now only featured in the reception area? LostPackets (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it now, and the headers do now feel a little confusing (as we've now got material concerning the removal in two places, and one of those places isn't entirely relevant, by the time the game hit reviewers, the mess with the offline mode was more about people dealing with refunds or legal tangles around that), now I'm honestly starting to wonder if breaking up the information and putting it in two different places is actually an improvement. LostPackets (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets I see your point but the two sections are there to separate two distinct subjects; the development decision to drop offline and the public reaction to that decision. So the reason for the separation is still valid. I think if the "Development" section were to undergo a bit of tidying and have some sub-headers added for developmental milestones then it would look a lot better. I just didn't want to be the one to get into that hornets nest. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone is able to come up with a really -good- reason to the contrary, I'm going to move that all the "removal of offline mode" information is moved under the subheading 2.1 / Development so it correctly timelines and reads in a logical manner. Right now the information has been salami-sliced and doesn't appear at first glance to make logical sense (the removal being in reception has no logical bearing to when it was decided upon when it -was- removed, it was a developmental decision after all). Placing all the associated information (the decision, reaction to the decision, and anything salient to it) in one area under the subheading within development will make it much easier for the layperson to find it, as well as being correct from a chronological perspective as regards the article overall, and will make it easier for us to maintain and update the information if newer, more accurate sources are unearthed. Whilst I have no argument with the move to structure the overall article as per the template, I do feel that breaking up the information and moving it around has damaged the logical sense and flow of the overall article, as well as the chronological ordering that is normally present in such articles. LostPackets (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is based on an assumption that the entire article must follow some "rule" about being chronological... Which it does not. The text in each section deals with a different matter and therefore should be kept separate (as I've already argued). The current structure was chosen because it was deemed to be closer to that being used by many other game entires on Wikipedia. Unless there is support from the other editors on the change then I don't see why it should happen... If you feel the text does not read well then you could always re-write it to flow better. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being away, had other things to deal with real life side. My argument covers a few points. Chronological ordering is one of them, yes. Another is that the information as is, is broken up and therefore "salami sliced" into smaller chunks, and therefore loses readability and coherence, in the original version all the information as regards offline mode was concentrated into a single location, which made it easier for reference, and readability purposes. Now it's scattered which makes it harder to reference and means the reader has to jump about points in the article. Additionally I feel divorcing the decision from the consequences -of- the decision means that both elements lose a lot of their context and therefore you end up reading both of them without getting a proper understanding of what the other element actually meant (e.g. you'd see the development decision made in one place but not see the consequence, and in another place you'd see the consequence but not the decision which led to it). My argument for the revert is based on these three grounds. I may not be as responsive over the next week or so due to real life issues, but I'll try to keep an eye on things. LostPackets (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is "frustration to this refund policy reached such levels that one customer went so far as to make... a joke!" the best note to end this section on? It's just a Twine game with a few pages. Is that really the strongest customer response that's been documented? --McGeddon (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it's unlikely a formal news site will disclose details of any individual's experiences (that's if anybody would even be happy to open up to the degree anyway) I don't think it's likely that there is going to be a lot of suitable references available outlining actual customer responses (beyond stuff like the joke game, the official forums and of course the sub-Reddit). As I'm not well versed in WP formalities, what would be a suitable source to cite customer responses from and what format would such an entry best be inserted into the page? Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS defines what a reliable source is. We don't want small-scale newspaper-style "customer Eric Pode, 57, said that he was 'really very annoyed about this'" stuff in the article, but if there was anything in the apparently unsourced rumours about buyers turning to "payment providers" and "legal avenues" then it'd be worth bringing that back with a source. --McGeddon (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with this section is down to the nature of the 'game' in question and the motivation toward the representation - factual it is not - emotive, potentially slanderous and poorly representative of the issue at hand it is. To represent an issue and a controversy with a (and I'm being generous here) tongue in cheek simple game is not only disingenuous to those with genuine grievances but also grandstanding. The issue exists but to represent it in this manner is in my opinion stepping away from factual content and erring toward juvenile use of a reference site.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A more constructive representation would be avoiding misrepresentation. The game has as much relevance to the issue as baking a spaceship shaped cake and then smashing it stating that this is representative of my emotional state in relation to the absence of off line. Facts not emotive trolling nor slanderous misrepresentation of the vendor would be a great place to start. This whole thing pivots on the idea that Frontier have been deceitful and purposeful in their delivery of the game, a case that can be neither proven nor dis-proven. Until it is no longer conjecture it has no place in a factual presentation.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the sentence on the page, I do not see any bias or slander placed within the wikipedia article. If you have a problem with the citation source being The Register, then I would suggest you improve it by finding a better source that offers a more in depth and factual analysis of the situation (it would need to offer sources from both sides of the story, not just the vendors, to avoid any issues of bias - as this does seem to be a somewhat conflicted matter). Unless there is some error of judgment on my part? LostPackets (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you not agree that placing the game in as a reference at all which targets a 'random developer' and then follows through a number of biased actions is not an honest representation of the situation. Moreover the 'game' is now entirely non specific so therefore should not be in there at all as it doesn't reference Elite Dangerous, or Frontier. It bears no relevance to the situation so if you agree - I think we should redact the reference as it's now entirely irrelevant.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[1][reply]
Aren't you just a dupe of hyperspacecloud that picked up a ban. You seem to only have started after that. Why are you trying so hard to protect elite? They screwed up badly with how they handled refunds compared to how they claimed to be handling them. The actions in the game seem representative of what I've seenever of the frontier forums, even if there are elements of parody to certain outcomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.71.51 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-checked the game and I now have to agree with Spotlesssunshine comment, "Moreover the 'game' is now entirely non specific so therefore should not be in there at all as it doesn't reference Elite Dangerous, or Frontier.". As all reference (that I can see, correct me if I missed it) to Elite and Frontier Developments has disappeared (most likely as a legal protection, probably a good thing for the creator), unless suddenly there's an interview with the creator or some other good source where they discuss the link with Elite/Frontier, then I think the mention of the game should be removed. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Verified cite source 60's connection to cite source 59, the two are intrinsically linked and therefore the existence of both sources and their relevance to the wiki article seem justified. Cite source 59 satisfies criteria for WP:RS, this looks pretty solid if you take everything as a whole. LostPackets (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more important question is - What does it lend to the FACTUAL discussion? Absolutely nothing other than one persons ire at Frontier - is that reasonable to have it represented in a Wiki article? (Apologies BTW for removing it again - I'll put it back until we reach a consensus.) Also, IF the reference to Frontier and ED has been removed for legal reasons... perhaps the reference via The Register and elsewhere might also need to be redacted as it is still wholly incriminating and if 'secondary source' is a valid reason to represent fact then it's equally as damning as the actual game itself having the 'potentially' slanderous content. Again, is this reasonable and relevant to the factual presentation of the situation at hand? Why is there any reference to a single persons issue with FD and Elite Dangerous?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been reached, please refrain from unilateral edits and read the talk section before making such edits in future. As for the reference, until such time as The Register's source is changed or redacted it stands as a citable WP:SECONDARY from a WP:RS. That makes it reasonable and relevant in terms of it's validity, it is given as much space as it legitimately deserves within the wikipedia article (one line, fairly dry, very neutral), and the links are provided as citation references. You're the one claiming slander, which is a very serious claim to make, do you have evidence and sources to validate such a claim with? Not being difficult here but if we're to reach objective consensus then you need to put something more to the claims you make than just theory. LostPackets (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my use of 'potentially' - Matthew at WTF4Photography suggested that it might be for legal reasons. I have made no claim to the fact of slander at all. My question is this - what does it lend to the discussion? What point does it serve to make? What fact does it represent? That one person was angered enough to make a game which directly referenced FD and subsequently had to redact all reference from it (unknown as to whether it was forced or by choice). As you say I will refrain from unilateral edits. But I do urge you to examine the relevance of the reference with a regard to the larger picture. Standing on its own, does it lend any factual information to the reference page? Is it anything other than a single persons representative ire, and if so, should it be there at all?
Actually further to this - perhaps it would be pertinent to refer to the previous incarnation of the game having reference to FD but then having all reference expunged - just to keep it factual.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're attempting to divorce Cite Source 60 from 59. Please stop doing that. You have to look at the two taken together to understand the context and meaning thereof. That's why it remains, that's why the two are intrinsically linked and why 60 has relevance to the overall article. Yes, 60 on it's own, divorced of any other related evidence would support your line of argument, but it's not on it's own, it's in context of cite source 59, which means you have to consider the evidence holistically. Please consider sources and their relevant context in the whole rather than trying to split them apart simply because doing so supports a specific point of view. Cite source 59 is relevant to the wikipedia article for the reasons I've already mentioned in my earlier talk points and I'm not going to keep reiterating them ad infinitum. LostPackets (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - what I'm trying to do is understand the relevance of the reference and what it lends to the article. Moreover the article on The Reg is factually incorrect - it states: less-than-pleasing response to fans miffed that Elite:Dangerous doesn't feature a single-player mode" - it does indeed feature a single player mode, just not a permanently offline mode. Further to this it finishes off on supposition and suggestions that the complainants "Any second now social media and customer service “experts”" are going to be posting vitriol to social media "will be tweeting and posting utterly obvious critiques of Frontier Developments' behaviour.". In your own opinion, is this a factual article, does it lend to the discussion and if so is it valid citation? I don't understand your rational on this point. Source 59's only claim to being a valid citation is that it's on the Register, apparently the content is irrelevant?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion or lack of a single-player mode is not what is being discussed, and the rest of the article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as is the norm for The Register. That does not diminish their validity as a citable source. It lends credence to the concept that people are frustrated to a greater or lesser extent with customer services at Frontier Developments and that those frustrations are manifesting themselves. If they are manifesting themselves in more serious ways we've not seen them in citable sources yet or they are not being disclosed (presumably for legal reasons). This isn't a news site, so current information is unlikely to appear within the article, bear this in mind. LostPackets (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets But you can't see that as a whole, the relation between a tongue in cheek article, a game created by a single person that has been effectively nullified in relevance is not fair or honest representation of the facts? My I suggest a revision to the statement to make it more factually correct. "Allegedly frustration over the perceived reluctance of Frontier Developments to willingly issue refunds led to a single person creating an online text game Refund Quest,[59][60] in parody of the company's refund process although the game itself contains no reference to Frontier or Elite Dangerous."
@LostPackets actually I retract that suggestion for an edit - I still think that the game and the reference viewed in conjunction are a pointless and spurious addition to the Wikipedia page. They lend less than nothing to the discussion are are representative of a single persons perspective on the situation. The refunds sections should 100% remain, it should be fleshed out to reflect the input of social media in affecting change in FDs refund process but that reference to that game should be gone. It's an utterly pointless addition to the page even when viewed in relation to citation. You know that as well as I do.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a more constructive approach, but again, be mindful that you'll need citable sources and evidence in order to make such changes stick. There's no point putting edits in just to support a point of view or an opinion, make sure you've got the information to hand to back up what you'd like to see altered and I'm sure consensus will come quickly. LostPackets (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets What citable sources are you supposed to use to counter what is already just an opinion? There's currently a large issue where people are unable to dock in the open play section... perhaps I should make a game where it's just a picture of the space station and a button under it saying please let me dock followed by a response of 'Sorry you can't dock' - email the Register guy that appears to revel in 'tongue in cheek' reporting and wait for him to write another wonderful example of investigative journalism, then post it back in here citing the register as a reputable source and therefore it's relevant material for the Wiki page? The point of the above edit is to bring the information into factual line and pull it away from opinion. The game plus the source simply do not add up to fact. What is the aim for this wikipedia page? Is it to present factual information that is verifiable using reputable and factually correct sources or is it to be used as a vehicle for representing a view? Big picture view here LostPackets - are we setting a precedent for citing opinion as fact or are we going to make this page a model version of what an encyclopedia should look like? Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spotlesssunshine Please refrain from assuming poor faith of other wikipedia editors (see WP:FAITH) and keep commentary constructive and with a view to building consensus. We're trying to work towards the page getting built. This is not helpful nor conducive to such a process. I'm merely suggesting what the constructive approach is and how best to facilitate what you're asking for, please do not bite the outstretched hand. Thank you. LostPackets (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets Excuse me? Where have I accused you of poor faith? I have asked you to provide factual citation above and beyond what is clearly and demonstrably ONLY opinion. "59 and 60" These are clearly one opinion being used to back up another opinion and relying on the source reputation (The Register) to give creedance to it because it is entirely unable to stand up a critical eye on its own. I'm not accusing you of poor faith, I'm pointing out that the entire representation of Refund Quest and the tongue in cheek article is flawed and without factual basis and as such cannot be viewed as lending any possible constructive information to what is an otherwise well constructed article. Please, by all means supply the factual citation that represents this otherwise it should be removed. @Matthew at WTF4Photography @Splodger999 please weigh in on this as I fail to see either factual representation or relevance.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets @Matthew at WTF4Photography @Splodger999 I have subsequently discovered that there is intent for this particular point of contention to fuel an agenda of a refund requester (not pointing fingers). I am concerned that the placement of this section is potentially evidence of (ironically) bad faith toward the factual representation of the article and as such I would like to refer it and the references to Wikipedia arbitration. It appears that the members of this Reddit page are responsible for some of the input and as such the neutral representation is in question. https://www.reddit.com/r/elitedangerousrefunds/comments/2q6ndc/removal_of_offline_mode_has_made_it_to_wikipedia/ If you guys have a difference of opinion please voice it as so far this seems to be an addition to the page that lends little or no information or relevance to the subject at hand but is representative of a single persons vendetta against Frontier. With the further investigation into the creator of the game and the dispute between her and Frontier (which is still apparently ongoing) I'm not sure that it is neither productive or absent of emotion enough to be considered factual. I'm sure that non of us are interested in using Wikipedia to 'win a battle' between individuals and the developers.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spotlesssunshine we've been over the concept of using people's commentary on reddit as a means of inferring bad faith or not, it's what got another user temp banned from making edits on this page as it was later deemed to be in violation of WP:DOX, unless you have concrete proof of bad faith and by this I am going to request something far stronger than a comment in reddit, this discussion terminates here and now. Attempting to push this matter further will result in me referring it up for dispute resolution. If you wish to improve the accuracy of the section in question you are welcome to find more accurate citable sources and higher quality evidentiary locations from respected news sites that satisfy WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. But if all you can bring is speculation and a comment in a corner of reddit, it's not going to fly. That is all. LostPackets (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets I'm happy for it to be referred if you are. Let me be very clear - I'm not accusing you or anyone else on here of bad faith. What I am saying is that I don't believe that either the game itself nor the reference used to support it are valid as reference material and as such shouldn't be included. If I may make an alternative suggestion as a middle ground. The content of the section be relegated to a Controversy section, that section be fleshed out with the events unfolding around social media and the eventual shift of FD to refunding and that Refund Quest was part of that social media campaign created by one person as representation of their personal experience. Following my own edits (which I subsequently redacted in accordance to not unilaterally removing edits) I was subject to abuse from an unnamed editor ( 11:05, 28 December 2014 82.8.70.139 (talk) . . (29,211 bytes) (-602) . . (Just because SpotlessSunshine is butthurt about people complaining about Elite and refunds aren't happening doesn't mean the source isn't valid.) (undo)) and "Aren't you just a dupe of hyperspacecloud that picked up a ban. You seem to only have started after that. Why are you trying so hard to protect elite? They screwed up badly with how they handled refunds compared to how they claimed to be handling them. The actions in the game seem representative of what I've seenever of the frontier forums, even if there are elements of parody to certain outcomes" (again posted anonymously and accusing me of being dishonest in my intentions) and as such I believe that this is further proof of an 'agenda'. I will more than happily accept the result of dispute resolution.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spotlesssunshine Referring to dispute resolution on two different grounds. Firstly to validate that The Register constitutes WP:RS and that therefore the line as is within the article does not pose any undue influence in either direction within the article as it stands. Secondly to refer you on the basis of generating conspiracy theories about other editors as a means of disrupting and preventing consensus with a view to infringing WP:DOX by implying that editors are acting on an agenda as per your link (this also violates WP:FAITH). Regardless of what you claim, that is the fact of the matter, it is one thing to say "I am not accusing anyone of" but then to say the opposite within your implications and suggestions and your theories as you go into detail with as evidenced within the last few talk entries. No further discussion will be entered into until I have a more senior voice able to advise me on the best course of action. Thank you for your time. LostPackets (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets Again, in the spirit of clarity - I have accused no-one here of a hidden agenda. The anonymous poster on the other hand has been very clear in their intentions and have clearly violated WP:DOX. Regarding the Register as a source - I have no dispute with the Register as a viable source, however the content of the supporting article I do as do I the validity and relevance of the game Refund Quest. The supplied citation is clearly hearsay as evidenced here "It's obvious the game is about Elite: Dangerous, as the game mirrors the saga of the trading game because it explains the non-appearance of offline mode and, once you're deep inside, offers a chance to log a support ticket with unpleasant results:". This is not factual evidence. There is a fundamental difference in my opinion. Any implication of an external agenda has been clearly evidenced by the previous post. I await the outcome of a more senior voice. Spotlesssunshine (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets @McGeddon @Matthew at WTF4Photography @Splodger999 Guys, in the spirit of not having this spiral into an endless argument I would like for you all to weigh in on this subject and let the end result of it be the end of the discussion. You can read my above contention, primary of which is that the game is just not relevant when placed in context with "Removal of the Offline Mode". We have a well reported and cited case of there being a 'significant number' of complaints from customers. We have a brief synopsis of the refund process which could well do with some more fleshing out including the fact that people are now receiving refunds albeit at a slow pace. Then we have Refund Quest, a game created by a single person about a single experience which does not refer to Elite Dangerous, or Frontier Developments and relies on a single citation that states "The game's a choose-your-own-adventure affair that leads you into a dungeon of despair on “A journey to get a refund from a random developer.” It's obvious the game is about Elite: Dangerous, as the game mirrors the saga of the trading game because it explains the non-appearance of offline mode and, once you're deep inside, offers a chance to log a support ticket with unpleasant results" which is clearly hearsay. Why is a single persons experience given more weight than any others? If I may bring your attention to: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:RSCONTEXT . To quote "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Further to this "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." also "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." WP:NEWSORG We're currently relying on "The secondary source we're using clearly links it to Dangerous', where in actual fact it is just the opinion of the writer that it's related to Elite Dangerous and FD. He supplies no evidence to back this up and the creator of the game is clearly not interested in having it associated with FD or Elite. . I await your input.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already weighed in. It stays unless The Register's article changes or is redacted. The line in the wikipedia article is as much as it deserves and offers no undue lean in either direction. There is no bias either in support or against the article and simply states that there has been an example of frustration boiling over, with a WP:RS / WP:SECONDARY source that is nicely tied together and with no loose ends. Either provide better source material or improve the accuracy of the article or stop attempting to retread old ground. That's all I've got to say on this. LostPackets (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets If you could address the nature of the article being hearsay that would also be appreciated. Also please refrain from making overriding statements as to whether content stays or goes. It is not solely up to you, it is a matter for all to reach consensus on. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles also WP:CONLEVEL Also WP:TALKEDABOUTIT Consensus can change. This is for all of us to decide on. Further more it is not for me to provide better material but for the original poster to provide better than supposition/opinion as evidence. Thank you. Spotlesssunshine (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spotlesssunshine You wanted my opinion, that *is* my opinion. Unless you can provide better sources or more up to date evidence, my opinion is that what is present is accurate and neutral as a representation as an example of customer frustration, and nothing more. As you say, we're waiting on others to present their views as well. As for the matter of heresay, no, I'm not going near that with a bargepole, The Register article satisfies both WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY and that's good enough to qualify it as being a valid source, with the RQ citation being intrinsically referenced by the article in question. I do not feel it justifies *more* space than it already gets, but I do not feel it deserves removal either, as it has relevance to the situation and to the topic at hand. Attempting to set the bar higher as far as evidence goes will put it into the realm of standards of evidence required for criminal court proceedings, which is over and above what is required for this particular article. LostPackets (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets As a compromise would making an addendum to the statement to say "According to journalist Simon Sharwood of The Register, frustration for one customer drove them to create the game Refund Quest that parallels their experience with requesting a refund from Frontier developments"? or similar be acceptable? Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spotlesssunshine Maybe. I'm somewhat wary of WP:SYN with that, but that may be a good way to proceed if we can find a good context to put it into and retain both sources as reference. I'd still like to hear opinions from the other editors first before I say much more on the topic though. LostPackets (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This Refund Quest thing is something to deliberately make make Frontier look bad made by someone who is well known to have done this over the past year in Elite article comments. Refunds are being handled on a case-by-case basis as stated elsewhere already. A damaging parody about this is out of place for a Wikipedia article and should be removed as is the whole offline section which is blown out of proportion by a select few people. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperspaceCloud Please refrain from besmirching other editors or providing commentary on their intentions - The Offline Section is rightfully there as it was/is an ongoing issue that was significant enough to be mentioned in more than one reputable news source. It could well do with some fleshing out and I believe we also need to be able to discuss reference (but only agreed upon through consensus on a case by case basis) to refunds being forthcoming. i.e. if it is agreeable to all involved here, we accept that refund requesters acknowledging that they have received or been offered refunds on the forums as being acceptable citation as it seems that the news outlets have moved on and are no longer reporting on it.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spotlesssunshine Individual cases will be *very* hard to find unless they voluntarily go to press sources such as Eurogamer and provide their story along with supporting evidence, so expect the final outcome to be something along the lines of "offered on a case-by-case basis" which has been cited I believe in a few different places and is already in the wikipedia article as it stands. Therefore there is unlikely to be any further evolution on this matter. LostPackets (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDA : "Refunds being offered on the forums" is not citable and has no workable evidentiary support, no good. Again, consider WP:RS when thinking about such matters. That's why I can't see this matter evolving much beyond where it is at this stage in time, not unless there's some major newsworthy development. LostPackets (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LostPackets Mmm I read the same section, however WP:Primary does state "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.". However I'm inclined to agree with you, perhaps the tense of the statement "Frontier Developments offered refunds to some disappointed customers - those who had pre-ordered the game without playing it,[55] and those who had already played the game during its alpha or beta testing phases, judging the latter applications on a "case-by-case" basis" can be altered to "Frontier Developments have begun to refund some disappointed customers..." citing WP:PRIMARY in addition to the already standing citations?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spotlesssunshine I can see where you're coming from, but I refer back to WP:SECONDARY and WP:SYN as my baseline. Which means that unless there's a citable source that can verify that there's refunds actually happening and successfully being processed, then the only definitive answer we have is that they are being offered. There's no mention if those offers are being accepted, if they are offers of full or partial refunds, if there are conditions attached, etcetera. Without knowing what's going on, and -how- the refunds are being obtained unless you look at the game forums (again, we end up at a very flaky WP:PRIMARY with lots of biased sources and lots of emotive language), it means that ultimately I don't think anything beyond the current text actually works. LostPackets (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Register ends by predicting "utterly obvious critiques of Frontier Developments' behaviour" from other sources - if that never happened, it seems better to say nothing at all and leave it at the last-strong-source point of "refunds were not being given out freely, but being assessed case-by-case". As I said earlier, "customers were so annoyed at this that one of them made a joke" seems like it could be a misleadingly weak note to end this section on. --McGeddon (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the two comments below, I think that's more or less where we're at with our thinking on this one. Unless the sources get redacted, what's currently stated in the wikipedia article is pretty neutral and doesn't give undue lean either way, nor does it sound either "weak" or "strong". It remains dry, references the sources correctly and leaves it to the reader to go and examine the cited sources if they so wish. That seems good enough for me. LostPackets (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a very weak conclusion to me, to go from the ominous "as of press time, refunds were possibly being denied to most Kickstarter backers" to (once the reader has clicked through like I did to realise that oh, right, this isn't a satirical, unofficial mod of the game built and played by a team of angry backers, it's just one person's five-page Twine game that took as much time to write as a forum post) "the most significant backlash to this has been for one person to make a small, snarky Twine game". --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say I'm away from home right now and keeping track of this on my phone is a nightmare. Ultimately I've already set my position on the inclusion of this game earlier and unless there is some big change in the sources I maintain that position (it should stay). That's not to say it couldn't do with a little bit of cleaning up but I can't really help for a while. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Real life takes precedence and all that. This may be why we've not heard from the other voices involved in this. That said, that means both you and I are pretty much in lockstep on this, unless there's some divergent opinion as regards policy interpretation I can't see there being any reason to alter the line as is (unless there's a change in the sources) otherwise we risk violating WP:SYN. LostPackets (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A conclusion that can be found outside of cowed for-profit review sites that needs to be reflected in this Wikipedia entry; that is summarized by the Meme "A mile wide an inch deep" This Meme represents the major criticism of this "game" and can be found and supported widely on the Internet through Google search. It seems to have been originated by PC-Space Game reviewer and player blogger Scott Manley but it can be found everywhere not only on blogs such as Reddit but also in major publications. The phrase needs to be included in this entry and there also needs to be a criticism section for this software.Lfrankblam (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism would go in the existing reception section, where every review quote is already partly underwhelmed. If "major publications" have quoted Manley, then sure, we can add that to the section - what are the publications? --McGeddon (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A meme is pervasive, the fact that this can be found ubiquitously is in fact the source... Scott Manley is a valid source in and of himself as a well known expert in space gaming and gaming reviews. A parenthetical reference can be found here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaDdVBTwJ9w
To omit something that is obviously pervasive, that provides balance against vested "commercial" reviewers, and that comes from an informed expert (Manley) does a disservice and represents one of the reasons why this venue Wikipedia is "mostly unreliable." The sourcing is valid if it is pervasiveLfrankblam (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but ubiquity of memes isn't enough by itself for Wikipedia. Memes with their own articles at List of Internet phenomena are there because there are enough reliable secondary sources writing about them, not because they became sufficiently, subjectively "ubiquitous".
We can quote Manley's review directly if he meets the "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" of WP:SPS. He doesn't appear to be a published videogame writer. --McGeddon (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case you have to quote the entire part, and he referred here to the early stage of the game. I do not feel that this single remark should be included, doesn't fit into the reception section. If we take his impressions, we could go on and add several others, from the other major video game testers. Maybe later. prokaryotes (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolved, sourced information will remain in the article, as per McGeddon's edits. Please refer to this discussion for future reference. LostPackets (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone think this section still belongs in the article with the current content? I thought we can either remove the section, which is basically about the Kickstarter campaign, or update it with some more Elite universe related stuff, like related to lore, or maybe more Elite community sites. Ideas? prokaryotes (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What logical basis did you have for removing sourced and factual content out of idle curiosity? I left this page on the basis I wouldn't need to come back here and start policing it for this reason. Do I have to revert this as well or are you willing to look at compromise solutions? LostPackets (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given enough time for an answer and nothing forthcoming. Reverting on the basis of removing factual and sourced content as per the April revert re: Offline mode. Please do not remove sourced and unbiased information that already *had* consensus built around it just because you've swept the original discussions under the rug. If you wish to look at a compromise solution that builds in your ideas, I'm all ears but remember the rules concerning WP:SOURCE, community sites aren't likely to feature. LostPackets (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading is as the name suggests for just that, but since the KS campaign is part of the article already i see no reason to have an extra list of additional four more further reading links which basically all tell the same stuff. Also if you want to discuss OM use the section above, where consensus is against your edits. And the Bell interview from 2007 belongs on his page or the Elite page. prokaryotes (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not following, please read up on WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV, the point of further reading is to provide completeness and detail about things like the Kickstarter campaign and any information that is salient and free of bias that can be readily provided to help improve the quality of the page by supporting and improving the accuracy of the information provided. It's not there to put lore from community blogs and the like (see WP:OR). As I said, I'm willing to discuss compromise solutions for improving the accuracy and information given on the page, but I am not going to support the removal of sourced and verified information that had, prior to your edits, been locked down. The only consensus that you had was yourself and a passer by who dropped a comment in, this stuff had been debated out at length prior and had been hashed out, agreed and finalised, then you swept the lot into an archive. So no, I do not agree on your suggestion of consensus either. I'm fine with most of the edits you've made but the two which stripped out verifiable and sourced info free of bias are going to stay, you're free to suggest a way that they can be better incorporated into the article however. LostPackets (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These further reading links have been untouched since November 2012, the week that the Kickstarter was launched. It doesn't seem useful to end an article about a finished, reviewed videogame by suggesting that the reader might like to go back and read some samey pre-Kickstarter buzz (one article being just three paragraphs). And the Ian Bell interview from 2007 seems only very tenuously relevant for his short answer to the single question "Do you think you could have created a better successor to Elite". --McGeddon (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to dispute the Ian Bell thing because I never saw the point of that being present here to begin with, but the other links are salient as they connect to the Kickstarter campaign and are informative as to how Elite Dangerous sourced funding and grew from a historical perspective. Simply because they're "older" information doesn't make them irrelevant unless you've newer information that renders them obsolete for the purpose of improving page accuracy and helping build the page in terms of informative content. That's slippery slope logic. LostPackets (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as mentioned the campaign is already part of the article. I suggest you rather add what you deem missing to the article instead of repeating at the end of the article. There is really no point in having this information under FR. prokaryotes (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to move them from FR into citeable sources in the article itself, go ahead. I stand by what I said about the lore element, it doesn't belong under FR, at most I would suggest that linking to authors who write books about the backstory would be acceptable as they're considered "official" sources of the lore as regards the game, but that's as far as I'd go. LostPackets (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What lore, we discuss the current version, and 2 editors try to explain to you that the current version is not the best solution. In my opinion mentioning is established, the current content is enough, the FR section is obsolete. However, i suggested you can add to the article what you deem missing. prokaryotes (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone think this section still belongs in the article with the current content? I thought we can either remove the section, which is basically about the Kickstarter campaign, or update it with some more Elite universe related stuff, like related to lore, or maybe more Elite community sites. Ideas? prokaryotes (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)" - That. Good grief, if you're going to write something at least have the sanity to remember what you wrote *on the same page*. Otherwise this is going to get really, really circular. LostPackets (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if the suggestions confused you, but to make it clear, we were discussing the readdition of the FR section to the article not possible replacements, which are only floating ideas so far, and can be discarded at this point. Again if you think something important is missing (not already mentioned), add it to the related parts of the article. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who brought the ideas up, so there's nothing to be confused about from my end, but yes, discarding them seems the right route, I'll go over the article and move the FR links into the article as additional cite sources where appropriate (this may take a little while, I've other matters to tend to), the Ian Bell link will get stripped once I've finished doing so. LostPackets (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and merged the further reading section into the article as references for a couple of new statements about early development. I dropped the Ian Bell interview (which says nothing about Dangerous) and the Gamasutra piece (which is two paragraphs and says nothing that the other sources don't). --McGeddon (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask politely once. Please stop doing this. It's starting to wander dangerously close to revert war territory and I don't want to have to ask an admin to intervene. Sweeping the previous discussions into archived COTs does not make them irrelevant, it merely makes them historical. It also means that the information that was built up around the page also has to be respected when you are making updates to the page, particularly when dealing with sourced and stable information that already passes quality checks (see WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV), attempting to ignore reverts that restored information to the page and then strip the information back out, or to revert claiming "no consensus" long after it had been established prior is simply claiming falsehoods and attempting to redefine things for the sake of unilateral editing of the page, potentially violating WP:COI for whatever reason.
POV problem, and a suggestion regarding the talk page.
Let me address the first last. Collapsed talk pages are obnoxious. Whoever is doing this isn't helping anyone, but merely censoring entire conversation threads by rushing them to the archive and by having them all appear collapsed by default, that's a dick move by any standard.
Secondly the NPOV of the article is a bit iffy. It reads like it's been written by sycophantic fan boys or possibly even PR agents for Frontier. Especially stuff like this;
On 14 November 2014, one month before launch, David Braben announced the removal of the game's offline single player mode, the developers having decided that they could not deliver an acceptable offline-only experience based on the original design.[34][35] The Windows version of the game was released on 16 December 2014.[5]
Sure they SAID it was for that reason, but the only reason that companies stop offline single player modes is to stop piracy. Look at SimCity, or any other recent example of "Hurrdurr we can't make singleplayer offline because reasons." then it later comes out it was to stop piracy. There's absolutely no reason to not address this honestly though, Wikipedia isn't a PR statement, it's an encyclopedia. "On date, person announced the removal of the game's offline single player mode sacrificing availability to players wanting an authentic original Elite experience to prevent piracy." There's nothing wrong with saying that. And given the huge backlash they got for making this decision it's worth noting it, heck HEAPS of the original backers were in an uproar, which is how I found this game and this Wiki article and opted to comment because it really doesn't seem like a trustworthy article. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
