Talk:Extra Credits

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

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because <there are numerous credible sources already listed. Furthermore, as it says, the show is important because it is a major proponent in the game industry, and fosters intelligent dialogue on the content it presents.>. — Cfox101 (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at our notability guidelines for Web content. Also, please note that, by definition, notability (which is usually the make-or-break criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia) cannot be self-proclaimed. That means Youtube videos and primary sources do not establish notability. As for Facebook, its nature is such that it should never be used as a reference, period. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 17:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

More sources for notability added. --Cfox101 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blanchardb contends that there are no "reliable sources," even though there are numerous sources of varying topics, locations, and interests shown. In fact, two more excellent references are available, except for some inane reason, Wikipedia blacklists them. The writing of the article is obviously unbiased and well presented, offers links to many other Wikipedia pages, and meets all the standards that Wikipedia upholds. How in the WORLD could this article possibly be made better? I didn't realize "reliable sources" only counted as Wall Street Journal to Wikipedia moderators, these days. --Cfox101 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please state your case on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra Credits. Otherwise, some editors evaluating the merits of this article might miss it. (And please be sprcific about the "blacklisted" sources.) -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I implore the editors of this wiki to let this page stay around for a few weeks more, give it time to grow and gather 'decent' sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

To many, Extra Creditz is an important content creator, publishing informative videos on the Internet. I understand that Wikipedia has rules but I would hope, as the anonymous commenter stated previously, that this page is given time to grow and become an interesting and valuable edition to Wikipedia. --PiOfCube (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above user, it is a relatively new article and it has a lot of sources for such. Give it time, it will grow.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • keep, also per Cfox101's rationale.--Blood sliver (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Zero Punctuation has its own Wikipedia page, and Extra Credits was (until the dispute) The Escapist's second most popular series. Savager (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia started life as a free portal of information collated by the public. Similarly, Extra Credits is a free portal of information related to the processes and reasoning behind creating video games. To deny Extra Credits this article and a "trusted" source of information (wikipedia) of which to help it grow, would be to bite the hand that feeds. For Wikipedia started out in the same way. The show is written and spoken by professionals, and consultants within the video games industry, similarly to the writers of books and publishings. With the review of the deletion dropped, i believe it would give the writers and creators of Extra Credit the time to correct information and adjust as necessary without risk of wasting time on a page which is doomed to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Split episodes section into new page[edit]

I suggest to split the section Episodes into a new article. This list will inevitably grow further as long as the show is active. Jscorp (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine, are you going to do the split? Op47 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Hi! I'm writing here because there was some concern in the talk page about what is considered a reliable source and since there were quite a few unusable sources attached to the article, I thought I'd clarify for anyone coming on here and thinking "WTF- where did my link go?" I want to make one thing readily apparent at the start of all this: having lots of links to different sites does NOT mean that the article is any more notable than an article that only has 3-4 links. Generally speaking, you really only need one source per claim. (Of course you need about 3 articles to cement notability unless you're something or someone obviously notable.)

First off, blacklisted sites are sites that Wikipedia considers so unreliable that they wanted to ban them from being used. The most notorious site is, which is a site where literally anyone can publish and occasionally get paid to do so. It was very common for someone to pay to get an article posted and then use it to source an article, which is part of the reason it's blacklisted. It doesn't matter how good the article looks to you, it can't be used and it's a definite no-no to link to pages that merely point to the article. Examiner (or whatever blacklisted site you use) is not usable as a reliable source regardless of how you link to it. Period. Wikipedia doesn't blacklist many sites and in order to get blacklisted there needs to be an extreme amount of abuse, usually over a long period of time. Never use blacklisted sites in any format, especially if you're trying to rescue an article. It will only undermine your efforts. (WP:RS)

Secondly, anything released by the article subject, its representatives, the creators, or anyone that stands to profit over the subject (in this Extra Credits) is considered to be a primary source. Primary sources can only be used if there's multiple and independent sources (by sources not affiliated with the subject at all). In other words, you should have so many independent sources that using a primary source is unnecessary. I left the ones in the article up since they were backing up quotes, but primary sources will only be considered trivial sources. Trivial sources can never establish notability and should only be used when there's absolutely nothing else that can back up a claim or quote. A good example is that Jerry Garcia could come back from the dead to write a dozen tweets about yellow paperclips, but that doesn't mean that it shows notability for yellow paperclips. It'd only ever be considered a trivial source. (BTW, this is also an example of how notability is not inherited by being discussed or affiliated with a notable person per WP:NOTINHERITED). See WP:PRIMARY for more info on this.

Thirdly, try to avoid any links to social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. The reasoning behind this is that many times it's very hard to prove that the quotes/topic is from an authority or from the person themselves. Even if the source is absolutely from the source (such as the fb link on the article), it's discouraged because it's so easy to be misused. See WP:FACEBOOK and Wikipedia:FACEBOOK#Social_networking_websites for more on this.

Fourthly, if you're going to use a link, make sure that it's from a reliable source per WP:RS. By this I mean that it's from a site or person that's considered to be an absolute and trusted authority. Blogs are almost never usable as a reliable source and I think out of all of the sources I've ever used on an article, blogs make up less than 1%. The reason behind this is that the vast majority of blogs out there are not by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject they're discussing. By "absolute authority" I mean that they're the type of person who is quoted on a regular basis by people writing books or magazine articles. For example, if my zebra painting blog got quoted once, that does not automatically make me an authority on painting zebras. It just means I got quoted once. If I got quoted fifteen times in different books/articles, then that would potentially make me an authority. Generally speaking, blogs can only be used if they're by someone who is considered to be notable. A blog run by Wil Wheaton would be considered a reliable source. A blog by Bob Blogger is not, regardless of how long he's been blogging. Having a long running blog or writing for years does not always make someone reliable. If you ever have a question about reliable sources, post on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with the link, asking if it'd be usable on this article. It's far better to ask and know that it's reliable than to add it and have it end up an unreliable source. From personal experience I can say that using unreliable sources only throws the entire article's contents in doubt, as editors and readers might assume that the information in it is equally unreliable.

Lastly, I removed a youtube video. The reasons behind this was more because the video was by a non-notable person, but I also wanted to expand on how you can use a YouTube source. YT videos can be used to show notability, but only if the segment is on a notable and reliable show. A random person interviewing an EC creator isn't considered a reliable source, but him being interviewed by G4 would be. Here's where it gets tricky: even if it's a clip of an interview from a reliable source such as G4, if it's uploaded by a random user then it shouldn't be used due to copyright issues. You never know when that link would be removed as a copyvio, so you shouldn't use it. See WP:YOUTUBE and Wikipedia:FACEBOOK#YouTube for more info on this.

Well, this was a pretty long spiel and will probably be TL;DNR to many, but I wanted any users coming to the page to be versed in why certain links were removed and why they should not be re-added. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask me anything or to go to the RS noticeboard.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of criticism section[edit]

I re-removed it as the section is sourced to primary sources, contains an opinion by editor(s) not found in the sources.

Per Wikipedia:Criticism:

Note that the same considerations of fairness, neutrality and due weight apply to praise and positive coverage. As with all other content added to Wikipedia, negative criticism must be attributable to a reliable, published source, and not contain any original research.

The section seems to be an effort to maximize negative attention, unsupported by reliable sources. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 11:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. I think the material is usable, with modifications. What was said on the show is appropriately sourced to the show. And counting the number of comments is not OR. The question is rather the proportionality of the coverage here, and the wording to avoid an implication of whether or not we agree with what was said. I think the material could be condensed, But did no third party source ever comment on this? BTW, it should be stated right in the lede that unless otherwise credited, material on the show is written by Portnow (if such is the case). DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Extra Credits stance on the subject of science and faith is in the comments to the "Religion in Games (Part 2)" episode - making those comments the primary source.
Next episode, "God Does Not Play Dice" addresses those comments, making that episode (and to a certain extent the comments to that episode) a secondary, and a reliable source which acknowledges existence of criticism.-- (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extra Credits. 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 on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 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) 12:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)