Talk:A Trip Down Market Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


@Fedoit: Can you explain why you keep adding your game to the article without engaging in discussion? First, as I noted on your talk page, you possess a conflict of interest, of course to you your game seems much appropriate to the article but because it is your creation your judgment is influenced. Second, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, only notable mentions should be included and your edit summary shows that you mainly came to the article to promote your game. Note that it is still advertising even if the game is non-commercial. Can you prove that the game is a notable mention by linking to multiple, independent and reliable sources? Do not add the content back without discussion and forming consensus. Opencooper (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Opencooper: It's a normal practice on wiki to write infromation about representation of old pieces of art in morden culture. Look for example at
Yes, I changed my note a lot to make it less promotional as you asked. But no, I don't think that deleting it at all is a good idea. There is only one modern derivative work to this film and it should be said at the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedoit (talkcontribs)
@Fedoit: thank you for your reply. While you are correct that we do sometimes include the influence that something has had on popular culture, there is a distinction that you'll notice in the article about The Scream: every mention in the article already has its own article, meaning that it is notable, and is also referenced by an independent and reliable source. This essay says it well: "There is no encyclopedic interest in a famous historical figure being featured prominently in someone's self-published webcomic. The source of an in-depth popular culture reference does not necessarily have to be notable by Wikipedia's definition, but the more notable the source is, the less likely that its inclusion in a popular culture section is trivial." I could go an create an imitation of The Scream right now, put it on a website and link it on the article. Would you disagree that it doesn't belong in the article? Wikipedia only includes notable mentions. Again, like I said: provide a reference that your game has been mentioned in a reliable source and it is more than welcome to stay. Otherwise it is being given undue weight in the article and is only a trivial mention. Do not misconstrue this as a personal judgement on your game itself, I have looked at its site and it is well-presented and looks fun with the music, it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia and there are much better places for your to advertise it. Opencooper (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Opencooper: Hello. I have added a reference to the article on It's very popular and reliable source - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedoit (talkcontribs)
@Fedoit: I'm no expert on reliable sources, but AppAdvice does seem like one. Thank you for adding it and I apologize for missing it in my own search. I've removed the external link though because it doesn't follow our policies which don't allow links in the body. (Readers can still find the game through the reference and Wikipedia uses nofollow links anyway so it wouldn't affect your site's search engine ranking) Opencooper (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)