Jump to content

Talk:Among Us

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.178.41.80 (talk) at 23:59, 11 November 2020 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article classification

It should be C class at most. This is far from a B-class article, there are grammar mistakes being made in the title and one user seems to be obsessed and protecting the article. The article is too young and undeveloped to qualify for B class. HarryKernow (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps point out the specific grammar mistakes you're referring to? And in what way is the article underdeveloped? I'd like to know specifically what issues you have, thank you. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm sorry if my actions seem "obsessed". I created the article and I'm trying to get it to GA status, so that's why I'm constantly editing it. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one I was specifically referring to was the semicolon in the second sentence. I guarantee you it's correct with it, but either way it's not the best sentence. A lot of the wording can be improved to make things more clear in the header. Either way, I think it's fine staying as a B class article, there's just nothing about the page that seems remarkable enough for Good classification. I've seen plenty of similar pages with only Start or Stub classifications. Also it's fine being obsessed, just try to be impartial. HarryKernow (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's correct with the semicolon, it's also correct without. I'll rephrase some things to avoid the problem entirely, as that seems best. On the topic of other similar articles having Start/Stub, there are plenty of articles with out-of-date classifications. Video games especially has had a backlog on that kind of thing. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I've restructuring the lead sentence involving the semicolon and I'm doing a passthrough of the whole prose to check for flow. If you have any other feedback, I'd like to hear it so I can work towards GA status. Thank you. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Space Mafia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Space Mafia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30#Space Mafia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More specific description

It is said here that some skins/cosmetic options are downloadable content, this is somewhat inaccurate due to the fact that in the PC version of Among Us most if not all skins and hats are free. (Because the PC version of the game itself is paid) JRBCodes (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Is there any particular reason why the title of the article isn't formatted normally? (I think it is in italics). Giraffer munch 13:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles for major works (TV shows, video games, novels, etc.) are always italicized. The "Infobox video game" template does it automatically. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Crewsona"?

What's the point of having that character sheet for a fanmade "crewsona" on the page? Not hating on the art or anything, but really just seems like that person is advertising their fanart and doesn't seem to belong in a wikipedia article, even one that covers fanmade content being a thing. Do we really need an example of people making OCs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C9:100:3B6:51BC:8E66:1454:670E (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the article seeing that there struck me as odd. Best someone (or me) gets rid of it. But at best we should seek approval. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 12:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the image serves an encyclopedic purpose, giving an example of the game's fandom. It's fairly common to do, I've seen articles with pictures of cosplayers in their "popularity" section. The character sheet is CC so there's also no fair use concerns. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"crewsona" picture edit request

Remove the example of a "crewsona", it's blatantly someone just inserting their own character to be on the among us page as if it's special

or replace it with a blank template/"crewsona" made for the purpose of a wiki entry

oh yeah here's a replacement if you for some reason REALLY need an example, 5 minutes in MS paint https://imgur.com/gallery/2HxSqI0 2605:6000:1708:92E7:C455:907A:67C0:A2A3 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the person who uploaded the photo. I did not make it, and actively went out and asked an artist if they would be willing to CC license their work. The one uploaded is from a person who agreed to that. While the idea of their art getting more exposure from it was brought up in the conversation, no money exchanged hands and it was all my decision, so I really find it hard to see this as advertising. The picture currently in the article is high quality, CC, and serves an encyclopedic purpose. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting fanart on a Wikipedia page seems inappropriate, even if you have permission to do so. There is also no proof of permission on the page, which is concerning, but even if you added proof that you had the license to use the image, I would still recommend removing it. An example of a crewsona is not needed. 2601:601:957F:C1B0:659F:DAA4:7357:653A (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Fanart is not inappropriate when discussing a game's fandom. Images of cosplayers have been used for similar purposes, and I would've used one if one existed, but, y'know, *gestures vaguely at pandemic* 2) Check the comments of the tweet. The user stated the image is licensed under CC-BY SA 4.0. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of InnerSloth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article InnerSloth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnerSloth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Right cite (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

In the second sentence of the third paragraph of the Gameplay section, there is a piece that says "players discuss who they believe an Impostor based on the evidence". In between the words "Impostor" and "based", there should be the word "is". A comma may also be needed, I'm not sure. Vive la Franks (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for InnerSloth

An editor has asked for a deletion review of InnerSloth. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Right cite (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Among Us/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

As part of the October 2020 Backlog Drive, I will be reviewing this article. Lazman321 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just want to voice an opinion and say this should fail its GAN due to stability issues. The article is not at all within the lines of criterion 5 as there is constant editing disputes. GamerPro64 03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there are constant edits to the page, these are almost entirely vandalism which are quickly reverted. I don't think that qualifies as edit warring. The constant vandalism to the page is something I've brought up before, and the page was protected, but only for a limited time. In any case, the article is stable outside of that vandalism from what I've seen. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lazman321, if you don't want to take up this review I would love to take over. OmegaFallon, I'd be willing to review this in less than 2 days. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well written

Clear and concise prose

Personally, I don't like filling up the review with prose issues that could be addressed. As a result, I will correct the prose issues myself with help from Grammarly after the rest of the issues have been taken care of. The article is easy to understand and read at a glance though.

MoS adherence

This article satisfies all the MoS guidelines required for GA promotion. The lead summarizes all the key points of the topic, the layout flows nicely, there is no questionable word usage, fiction is used in a real-life context, and there are no lists.

Verifiable with no original research

Reference list

Yes, there is indeed a properly formatted reference list.

Reliable sources

The phrase, though contrary to popular belief, the Among Us community did not invent the word, as it has been in use long before the game's release. cites an unreliable source, a dictionary that anyone can edit. I find this website to be more suitable due to being run by a university.

Citation 6 is supposed to back up, [Among Us] was initially intended to be a mobile-only local multiplayer game with a single map It never says this in any way. Citation 7, however, does say this.

Fixed this. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

There is no original research used in this article. This one is safe.

This tool detected a 96.4% chance that it violated the copyright of a website. At first, I was worried, but then I realized that the website was a forum that copied the Wikipedia article. Anyway, this one is safe.

Broad in its coverage

Main aspects

and due to this initially had no sound, as to avoid revealing hidden information. Can you be a little bit more clear. I don't know that sentence is supposed to mean.

Besides that, I believe that this article does address the main aspects of the topic at hand.

I think I fixed this up, in any case the sentence is meant to explain that, when the game was local multiplayer only, there was no audio, as audio could potentially reveal hidden information. (For example, if you killed someone and that made a sound, everybody would hear it and know it was you.) Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add a note that says e.g. the sound of an impostor killing a crewmate could reveal to the other crewmates who the impostor was.
Done. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

There are no focus issues, every fact that is stated is related to the topic in some way and are organized in a coherent format.

Neutral

This article is neutral about the topic at hand. Most of the opinions in this article are in the critical reception section and are attributed to a webpage. All facts are stated neutrally.

Stable

This article is not going under any edit wars currently.

Illustrated

Free or tagged media

All media used is either free or tagged with a fair use rationale. However, the cover art's resolution does need to be smaller.

Relevant media

Every media used relevant to the topic. The cover art and screenshot are used as the primary means for identification, the picture of Sodapoppin is relevant due to him being the one who popularized Among Us, and the crewsona is used as an example of fan creations of crew members.

Overall

This is a pretty fine article and does have GA potential. I am placing this  On hold for 7 days. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has  Passed the GA criteria. Lazman321 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times

  • Lorenz, Taylor (14 October 2020), "With Nowhere to Go, Teens Flock to Among Us - YouTubers, influencers and streamers popularized the multiplayer game. Then their fans started playing too.", The New York Times, retrieved 14 October 2020, When an indie game company created Among Us in 2018, it was greeted with little fanfare. The multiplayer game remained under the radar as many games do — until the summer of the pandemic. Eager to keep viewers entertained during quarantine, Chance Morris, known online as Sodapoppin, began streaming the game, created by InnerSloth, to his 2.8 million followers on Twitch in July. By mid-September, Among Us caught on like wildfire. Suddenly major YouTube stars, TikTok influencers and streamers were playing it. PewDiePie, James Charles and Dr. Lupo have all played the game for millions.

Added The New York Times to Further reading section. Please feel free to make use of this source as a reference to cite in the article itself as well. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC

  • Rodriguez, Salvador (14 October 2020), "How Amazon's Twitch turned an obscure game called Among Us into a pandemic mega-hit", CNBC, retrieved 14 October 2020, Developed by InnerSloth, a small studio in Redmond, Washington, Among Us was download nearly 42 million times on Steam in the first half of September, according to Safebettingsites.com, and it was downloaded nearly 84 million times on iOS and Android that month, according to SensorTower. The game hasn't left the top five on Apple's U.S. App Store since Sept. 1, and it has seen more than 158 million installs worldwide across the App Store and Google Play to date, SensorTower says.

It appears more mainstream news media sources are now covering this phenomenon regarding topics Among Us and InnerSloth. Right cite (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innersloth or InnerSloth?

I've seen valid sources with the S both capitalized and uncapitalized. For consistency, we should pick one. Let's discuss which. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I've seen InnerSloth in more sources, more often, with the S capitalized version. Right cite (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Innersloth is the stylizing used by the company at innersloth.com and used by them formally. Rafplayz001(talk | contribs) 14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official website uses "InnerSloth" at http://www.innersloth.com/About.php Right cite (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Right cite: They must have changed it then, it was Innersloth before. Then I believe "InnerSloth" should be used instead. Rafplayz001(talk | contribs) 15:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay no problem, thank you! Right cite (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Among Us" videos topped 4 billion views in September

  • ""Among Us" Surged in September - "Among Us" videos topped 4 billion views in September", YouTube Culture and Trends, 14 October 2020, retrieved 14 October 2020, Among Us is an online multiplayer social deduction game developed by an American indie game studio, Innersloth. Among Us is a space-themed game in which a crew of astronauts must complete tasks while trying to figure out who among them is an imposter, who is sabotaging their work and killing the other players. The game has been available for about two years, but viewership of videos related to the game soared last month. There were over 4 billion views of videos related to Among Us in September.

4 billion views. Pretty fascinating Internet phenomenon. Right cite (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top download worldwide for September 2020

Right cite (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to wait to include until after this happens...

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be playing Among Us with top Twitch streamers to promote voting in the upcoming election. --Masem (t) 21:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. SWinxy (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds podcast development details

The three devs had a podcast in Newgrounds. I'm not going to watch the whole thing again but here are some key points. Straight from the source.

  • Forte bass never did sound design before and mixed noises from multiple sound packs to create the SFX.
  • Forte created the menu music when he was depressed, which shows.
  • When creating maps like Skeld Puffballs had a habit of googling things like "Electrical room", picking out key details, and implementing that into the room
  • Puff took a month off working on the henry stickmin collection to design the Skeld map
  • Originally the game had no sound because it was originally intended to be played locally on mobile, and sound would give things away. Sound was implenentee for the PC and online releases.
  • They had a group of 8 friends to playtest the game periodically, at this stage the map art wasn't made yet.
  • There are details in the podcast about how they got into newgrounds, game development, and other stuff.

Keep an eye out for when details from the podcast get media attention in order to cite them. 2604:2000:1107:8A76:EDB1:495F:D4EB:8C6F (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that for details about a company, primary sources from them are allowed, so it should be fine to cite this. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among us VS Fall guys

(Quick Article)

During mid-August a game called fall guys hit the popularity charts.The games basic idea is tiny jelly beans trying to outlast other players in competitions such as races to the end or surviving until the round ends. Mediatonic (fall guys owner)'s game hit the top 10 charts by end-August.

Made in 2018, Now a well know gamed called among us slips into a popular state in September of 2020. Crewmates in the game are forced to find an alien impostor that is hidden among the crew mates. Only using their eyes, Admin, and security cameras to try to find the impostor among them. When a body is reported OR somebody presses the big red button in the middle, Players can vote out anybody who is sus (suspicious) to try and eject the impostor out.

Fall guys was slowly falling as soon as Inner-sloths Game among us started to pull people from all type of games. Among us brings fall guys down and takes top 3 in 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperLearner1234 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify voting, quorum - really majority vs plurality?

The article says e.g. If a plurality vote is reached, the chosen person is ejected from the map and dies. What is the quorum? How long does the voting period last? Is it really trying to just say that a majority of voters (players?) need to agree on an outcome? That's quite different from a plurality, which could be a single vote if there was only one successful voter and a quorum of 1 was allowed. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the definition of plurality voting, it states that every voter can only vote once, and the one who polls the most is voted in. Per the context of Among Us, this means the one with the most votes is voted out/ejected. It would also have a quorum, it would be a plenum, as everyone must attend it. The time is interchangeable per lobbies, but I suggest adding the default voting time to the article. Rafplayz001(talk | contribs) 15:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sounds like it is plurality, but I also note that there is a "none of the above" option ("Skip"). Updated the article. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nealmcb I recommend adding that information to the gameplay section instead of the lead as the lead is supposed to briefly summarize the key points from the article while the body or individual sections can go into a bit more detail. Lazman321 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spam attacked on Public after AOC's stream

When I searched on via Google Search. Among Us' public server got suffered by spammed attack. This spam attack came from 'Eris Loris'. This individual or 'entity' might be a Pro-Trump supporter. InnerSloth adviced the players is to play Private server(s) aka Server with code required.

How did this occured? 3 days after AOC's twitch stream

sources?

1.https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/10/23/among-us-suffers-attack-by-apparent-pro-trump-hacker-three-days-after-aocs-hit-twitch-rally/#3433b06d65a0

2.https://www.engadget.com/among-us-eris-loris-hack-223724773.html

3,https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/23/21530984/among-us-spam-hack-attack-eris-loris-innersloth-maintenance

please give me a note if these 3 sources are considered Unreliabe.

Flankbed (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a question of having reliable sources, it's also a question of whether it's WP:NOTABLE. Remembers that Wikipedia is not news, we don't report on everything that happens. I'd give these criteria as a rough guide for deciding if this event is notable:
1. it remains relevant months later
2. it results in sweeping, long-lasting changes to the game
3. it is an unprecedented event in gaming that gets reported on by multiple sources.--Megaman en m (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this does have significant coverage to warrant being added to the article. A lot of sources, like Eurogamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, Kotaku, The Verge, Forbes, IGN, EnGadget, and Geekwire talks about the hack. Even the Forbes article about the hack is written by a member of the Forbes staff, making the article reliable. The Eurogamer article is especially noteworthy since it found out who created the hack. Eris Loris, a hacker and cheater, created the bot as a publicity stunt with a bunch of his discord members supporting the bot attack. The Trump2020 phrases at the end of messages were just because he was a Trump supporter. He believes that he has a workaround for if the emergency update is successful, though there may be a chance that bot may be no longer usable after the emergency update. Lazman321 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The attack is definitely tied to its popularity, but it would be good to see how its resolved before adding it. --Masem (t) 17:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the attacks should me mentioned in this article. WP:NOTNEWS as well as the fact that this is being fixed rather quickly. Probably should redact the links and name to prevent this guy from getting attention, even if this is kept. SWinxy (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still of the opinion that it shouldn't be mentioned due to WP:NOTNEWS. This is probably going to be forgotten about within the month without leaving a permanent mark on the game.--Megaman en m (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. I will never put news link again. Also, I understand the what Wikipedia is not. I must be careful what I did especially Analysis. I will never forget read the rules. Flankbed (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but I think it's important to keep it as it has sort of become an important part of the game's history. Now, the game is relatively new (i say that in relation to its popularity despite being made in 2018) so it wouldn't surprise me if more major events like this happen in the future. When they do I think it would be important for those to possibly replace this Eris Loris hack thing. But like I said, I'm new to Wikipedia so what I'm saying could go completely against some of Wikipedia's policies. Blaze Wolf &#124 Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze The Wolf: There is no "hierarchy" of notability, it's either notable or it's not. It often takes a while, sometimes years, to see if an event is notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Also, it's not the case that a "more" notable event will cause a "less" notable event to be removed from Wikipedia (space is not a concern, if the article becomes too full of notable facts you can just make a sub-article!).--Megaman en m (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. It's just that sometimes certain events are overshadowed by others which makes the previous event seemingly redundant. That's sort of what I was thinking. But it makes sense to keep all notable events. Blaze Wolf &#124 Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar/prose improvements

Just a heads up, I've gone ahead and made improvements to the the grammar/prose and general flow of much of the article. I think this should have been given more weight in the GA review. In particular, there were lots of run-on sentences with too many commas and semicolons, extra wordiness and redundancy in some sections, and the section on the hacking read like a news article. I also think think there was/is an over-reliance on direct quotes from the devs, but that's not so much of a grammar issue. I know this is somewhat of a high-profile article, so if anyone has any objection to my edits, please let me know. The Only Zac (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and correct all the prose and grammar issues you want. Any edit that improves the article in some way is allowed, even correcting grammar issues. You can even do a GA reassessment if you believe that this article doesn't meet the criteria. Lazman321 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

The fourteenth word of the last sentence of the second paragraph is spelled wrong. It should be changed from ‘Imposters’ to ’Impostors’. 71.178.41.80 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Among_Us&oldid=988244838"