Talk:Berenstain Bears (video game)
(Redirected from Draft talk:Berenstain Bears (Atari 2600 game))
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Berenstain Bears. |
Reliable sources
[edit]- GameFAQs, MobyGames, etc. are unreliable video game sources
- IGN wiki pages (http://www.ign.com/games/berenstain-bears/2600-4498) are not considered reliable—we don't know where they're getting their stats
czar 17:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dsprc and Darb02, how did you access the offline sources? Can you post scans to the talk page for verifiability? czar 21:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Czar:, That would be copyright infringement... Doubtable a fair-use rationale exists for these purposes. Which source specifically? Can ask WP:Library to dig up a copy. -- dsprc [talk] 22:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Dsprc, I meant for verification purposes. Like if you just read those sources, can you email me either a scan or link me to where you found it so I can verify the details? Right now it isn't clear whether those articles are full or blurbs or one-sentence mentions about the game. The Wikipedia Library would be getting it the same way as you would, but ostensibly you have the sources since you just referenced them. On another note, I'd also recommend checking out WP:VG/RS, which goes through which sources have and have not been vetted as reliable. I've already removed several unreliable sources and that list would be useful before adding more. We don't use sources without standards for editorial quality, etc. czar 01:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Czar: Wiki Lib would examine material from a legally licensed archive, verify the source, then tell you it checks out; they aren't going to start reproducing copies of works and email them around (at least not supposed to), I won't either. Please assume good faith: The sources I've included are Video Games magazine, a print publication of the period with high quality journalistic content and editorial oversight (an era before clickbait, can you imagine!?). The Video Games article is like a five page spread of dense text but I can try to pull out a terse |quote= if need be. Atari HQ, which is listed by VGRS as an RS. And a piece penned in Asylum by Matt Gander, who has a reputation for contributing content to reliable sources within this "classic" genre such as Retro Gamer magazine, a print publication of the UK [1]; the author's contributions also include works in print edition, e.g. Retro Gamer Issue 135 p.21 UK. (no I won't send an illegal copy, can purchase back issues here) As to claim of unreliability for AtariAge (someone else' source, not mine), this is debatable [2][3] ((([4][5][6]))) but I'd much rather be editing than arguing. -- dsprc [talk] 19:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good faith is trusting that editors mean well—it doesn't mean that they're immune to misinterpretation (more apt would be "trust but verify"). TWL provides sources to other editors—I'm one of its main source providers. It hasn't ever been an issue for editors to provide photos/scans of their source material for verification. The Gander piece doesn't mean it had editorial control (especially considering that site's editorial demeanor). At most, if Gander was considered an expert (and I'm not so sure he should be), it would be used as a self-published source. Your AtariAge link says the website is a forum for fans. If you change your mind, I'd appreciate even a private email with the sources, just to take a look. Otherwise it looks like the sources didn't have much in them in the first place if this is all the info they provide czar 23:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Dsprc, I meant for verification purposes. Like if you just read those sources, can you email me either a scan or link me to where you found it so I can verify the details? Right now it isn't clear whether those articles are full or blurbs or one-sentence mentions about the game. The Wikipedia Library would be getting it the same way as you would, but ostensibly you have the sources since you just referenced them. On another note, I'd also recommend checking out WP:VG/RS, which goes through which sources have and have not been vetted as reliable. I've already removed several unreliable sources and that list would be useful before adding more. We don't use sources without standards for editorial quality, etc. czar 01:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:dsprc, if you're confident with your sources, just move the article into the mainspace and defend them if it comes to AFD. It's significantly less work than this. - hahnchen 01:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Except that it didn't pass an AfC review just 18 hours ago czar 02:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- This whole process is optional and unnecessary for registered editors. So feel free to opt out. - hahnchen 09:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- hahnch thanks for the support. Darb02 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- This whole process is optional and unnecessary for registered editors. So feel free to opt out. - hahnchen 09:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Except that it didn't pass an AfC review just 18 hours ago czar 02:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Czar are you able to view this screenshot? The Atari Encyclopedia actually dedicates four pages to the game... here's a clip from one of the pages: http://berenstainbearscollectors.com/2016/01/27/berenstain-bears-atari/#jp-carousel-973 User:dsprc I feel comfortable moving this to mainspace. I appreciate your help on this project, you've added some great references. Thoughts?
- No, the post appears to have been deleted, but it's timestamped from today. Are you affiliated with the website? czar 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Czar2as you can see I have added several addition sources and more information from existing third-party sources showing detail and depth. I plan to move this to mainspace soon and hope that you will not unilaterally return it to draft, as this is clearly superior to most draft and stub-class articles. The article now contains multiple reliable sources and I would be happy to provide screenshots of some of them if you continue to question their authenticity. @Dsprc Thanks for your help on this article, if you have any addition sources or references, they are always appreciated. I will continue to make small edits over the weekend and plan to move to mainspace in the near future. Thanks! Darb02 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Articles exist on their own merits, not how they compare to the various crap scattered across WP or how many passing mentions they have in various references. Is there a single reliable review of this game available? I couldn't find any in my searches of catalogs from this era. Right now, it's a better argument for an article about "Kid Vid Voice Module" than about the Berenstain Bears game, which appears minor by every measure. A far better use of all our time, if I can suggest, is an article topic like Berenstain Bears video games. A licensed properties, they're likely to not have much coverage on their own, but if together there are several minor sources about each game, there would be enough for an overview article. (Edit: eh, there's not even enough for that—it's best to summarize the core gameplay and reception at Berenstain_Bears#Software_and_video_games unless there is proof that the games each received significant reception.) czar 18:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar2 Your assertion that the game is not worthy of an article due to its lack of commercial success is dangerous. The commercial failure for this video game is part of the game's notability and the reason it has been addressed in several histories and encyclopedias of early gaming and the Atari 2600 system. The fact that there is a lack of reviews and that Coleco itself bailed on the Kid Vid system shows the rapid fracturing of the video game market in 1983 that led to the North American video game crash and resulted in this game being one of the most rare, collectible, and valuable games made for the game system. I do understand why you feel as though this somehow makes the game "unimportant" but let me give you another example. Nearly 10 years ago, I made significant expansion to an article about Me and Juliet, the most unsuccessful Rodgers and Hammerstein musical. Many biographers and historians glossed over this "flop" because it wasn't as 'notable' as Oklahoma or The Sound of Music, for example. Yet that Wikipedia article was not relegated to draft status by an overzealous contributor... no, it was further expanded into what eventually became a featured article, a better article than those of their 'successes' like The King and I or South Pacific and helping to fully document the musicals of the 1950s and the R&H collaboration. It is true that some (or most) Berenstain Bears video games do not merit their own page (you don't see me arguing with the fact that you removed Camping Adventure or Extreme Sports!) but you are wrong about this one. The attack on this well-referenced and well-written article is misplaced. As you pointed out, there is plenty of garbage on Wikipedia. Go root it out elsewhere (seriously) but please respect the process and respect the fact that I've been contributing to the Encyclopedia for nearly 10 years and I'm not just writing a fluff article for no reason. I am very familiar with the notability guidelines - there is value here. Darb02 (talk)
- I've said nothing about the importance of commercial success and you don't need to convince me of that. If there were no reviews of the game, there should still be some degree of reception from the encyclopedias you mention about how the game was received. None of those sources have been shared with me so I can't comment on them. The sourcing in this article is nowhere near that of Me and Juliet, so I don't see the comparison. As for your personal expertise, I pass no judgement, but I would say that I expect someone who claims 10 years of notability experience to see the stark sourcing issues here rather than resorting to insults and pretending nothing is wrong. If the sourcing on this article is fine, it should have no problem getting a passing Articles for Creation review, as it's the lowest possible review bar we have. czar 22:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:Darb02, if you're confident with your sourcing and notability guidelines, you can just move the article into the mainspace. You may be challenged at AFD, but that will be put to the community, and not just one editor. That articles can be removed from the mainspace unilaterally is contentious and is being discussed right now. - hahnchen 23:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Hahnchen, any reason why you're encouraging these editors to move it but won't do it yourself? czar 00:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to see others stick this stupid process. - hahnchen 00:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I totally agree. I too am tired of editors wasting collective time at AfD just because they thought they were above rudimentary source review. @Darb02, I'm happy to move this into mainspace if you're having technical difficulties doing so, but it will go straight to AfD from there. czar 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- and for that challenge, I am more than prepared. What a silly battle you have chosen. 04:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I totally agree. I too am tired of editors wasting collective time at AfD just because they thought they were above rudimentary source review. @Darb02, I'm happy to move this into mainspace if you're having technical difficulties doing so, but it will go straight to AfD from there. czar 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to see others stick this stupid process. - hahnchen 00:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Hahnchen, any reason why you're encouraging these editors to move it but won't do it yourself? czar 00:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:Darb02, if you're confident with your sourcing and notability guidelines, you can just move the article into the mainspace. You may be challenged at AFD, but that will be put to the community, and not just one editor. That articles can be removed from the mainspace unilaterally is contentious and is being discussed right now. - hahnchen 23:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've said nothing about the importance of commercial success and you don't need to convince me of that. If there were no reviews of the game, there should still be some degree of reception from the encyclopedias you mention about how the game was received. None of those sources have been shared with me so I can't comment on them. The sourcing in this article is nowhere near that of Me and Juliet, so I don't see the comparison. As for your personal expertise, I pass no judgement, but I would say that I expect someone who claims 10 years of notability experience to see the stark sourcing issues here rather than resorting to insults and pretending nothing is wrong. If the sourcing on this article is fine, it should have no problem getting a passing Articles for Creation review, as it's the lowest possible review bar we have. czar 22:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar2 Your assertion that the game is not worthy of an article due to its lack of commercial success is dangerous. The commercial failure for this video game is part of the game's notability and the reason it has been addressed in several histories and encyclopedias of early gaming and the Atari 2600 system. The fact that there is a lack of reviews and that Coleco itself bailed on the Kid Vid system shows the rapid fracturing of the video game market in 1983 that led to the North American video game crash and resulted in this game being one of the most rare, collectible, and valuable games made for the game system. I do understand why you feel as though this somehow makes the game "unimportant" but let me give you another example. Nearly 10 years ago, I made significant expansion to an article about Me and Juliet, the most unsuccessful Rodgers and Hammerstein musical. Many biographers and historians glossed over this "flop" because it wasn't as 'notable' as Oklahoma or The Sound of Music, for example. Yet that Wikipedia article was not relegated to draft status by an overzealous contributor... no, it was further expanded into what eventually became a featured article, a better article than those of their 'successes' like The King and I or South Pacific and helping to fully document the musicals of the 1950s and the R&H collaboration. It is true that some (or most) Berenstain Bears video games do not merit their own page (you don't see me arguing with the fact that you removed Camping Adventure or Extreme Sports!) but you are wrong about this one. The attack on this well-referenced and well-written article is misplaced. As you pointed out, there is plenty of garbage on Wikipedia. Go root it out elsewhere (seriously) but please respect the process and respect the fact that I've been contributing to the Encyclopedia for nearly 10 years and I'm not just writing a fluff article for no reason. I am very familiar with the notability guidelines - there is value here. Darb02 (talk)
I just want point out that User:Czar brought this article from draft to mainspace then IMMEDIATELY marked it as afd despite the fact that I created the article and have been incubating it in draft for over a week. I am continuing to improve the references in draft yet he brings it to mainspace without making any effort himself to improve the article. I hope that any and all who review this article and its talk page read the dialogue that has taken place. Darb02 (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Was I unclear? czar 05:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)I'm happy to move this into mainspace if you're having technical difficulties doing so, but it will go straight to AfD from there.
- User:Czar clearly has an agenda to delete this article despite his lack of knowledge on the subject or his interest in reviewing my sources. I clearly stated that I wanted to continue to improve the article over the weekend and also (despite a possible infringement on copyright) offered to share with him on TWO separate occasions (both through wiki chat and direct email) to share screenshots of offline sources, yet he continues a vengeful, personal attack on this article. I ask administrators to review this article, its sources, and the personal nature of his unnecessary scrutiny. Darb02 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I find it strange, that after having made it clear that Darb could move the article himself, you then issued a warning that if that were to happen - it would go to AFD. And then instead of giving Darb that decision, you made it on his behalf and moved it anyway. Like how you made the decision to draft it. - hahnchen 11:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Darb (1) said, "I plan to move this to mainspace soon and hope that you will not unilaterally return it to draft", (2) had tried to move it to mainspace (I repaired the move), (3) responded in what I considered assent when I offered to haste the day, and (4) contributed to the AfD instead of requesting that the mainspace move be undone (which would have been fine). But here we are discussing process again: There would have been zero contention had the article stayed in draftspace until it received an experienced review, but both of you insisted that it did not need that admittedly low bar. Well, all right—shouldn't be an issue at AfD in that case. czar 13:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I find it strange, that after having made it clear that Darb could move the article himself, you then issued a warning that if that were to happen - it would go to AFD. And then instead of giving Darb that decision, you made it on his behalf and moved it anyway. Like how you made the decision to draft it. - hahnchen 11:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:Czar clearly has an agenda to delete this article despite his lack of knowledge on the subject or his interest in reviewing my sources. I clearly stated that I wanted to continue to improve the article over the weekend and also (despite a possible infringement on copyright) offered to share with him on TWO separate occasions (both through wiki chat and direct email) to share screenshots of offline sources, yet he continues a vengeful, personal attack on this article. I ask administrators to review this article, its sources, and the personal nature of his unnecessary scrutiny. Darb02 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)