Talk:New Game!

Sourcing

Okay I am not interested in being blocked for a WP:3RR violation so I will start a new topic here. All the sources cited in this article are either primary sources or from Anime News Network, which has been listed as reliable after much much discussion. I don't see how most of the listed sources are unreliable. I can kinda understand the over-reliance on primary sources but not the unreliable sources tag. Link20XX (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Link20XX, the tag says "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject". I don't know what you think that means, but [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13] are links to the publishers' websites. That is the textbook definition of "closely associated with the subject. And now that I see these sites up close, I see that they're just spam links, since they link to sellers, so I'm going to remove them--unless you prefer I put a spam tag on the article too. If you see the point of one tag but not another, don't remove them both. Same goes for you, User:Goszei. This is still an encyclopedia, not a Wikia page or a spam site. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  This use of primary sources, narrow use to verify specific release dates, is well within WP:PRIMARY.

  • A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only 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. These sources do this.
  • Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. There is no synthesis or interpretation happening with these uses.
  • Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. The sources are used to narrowly and specifically verify release dates for print media.

  • These are not exceptional claims in the slightest, and so primary sources are acceptable per policy. — Goszei (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • When "primary sources" are spam links, these things don't necessarily apply. And you're missing another obvious point: if you cnanot get this information (half the sources in the article) from a secondary source, it's probably not encyclopedic material. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree with Link and Goszei on the matter. This feels mostly like a subjective stigmatization of what 'spam links' are. You're absolutely correct on the essence of 'secondary sourcing', but Goszei's aformentioned WP:PRIMARY policy is quite clear on the conduct here. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Goszei, I have to say, I am less than impressed with your practice of using primary sources. [[Hololive Production], a quarter of which you produced, has 123 sources (well, links). 45 of those are marked "press release", and some of those are used as references up to four times. So no, I don't think your practice is a good standard to adhere to. Sarcataclysmal, that policy might make sense in this case if we were talking about company documents, but we are not. We are talking about pages with links and buttons to sell the product. It does not get more spammy than that. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • And Izno, what silliness is this? You're actively restoring spam links. That's disgraceful. A page on the company website that lets you buy the company's products--that's what you are reinstating, under the guise of "oh we're discussing things". We're not discussing things--that is, you are not. You're spamming. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Drmies And you're damaging the Pedia by removing valid citations under WP:PRIMARY for the content presently there. I refuse to be called a spammer in this regard.
      • "We" was not "you and me", it was the three other users who have gotten a warning or comment from you in the past hour on the matter on their talk pages for reasonably reverting your unnecessarily aggressive removals.
      • As for whether the links in question are in fact "spam links", no, WP:EL is clear on the matter: if it's being used for a citation, the rules regarding its removal or use fall under WP:V and WP:RS. See first paragraph and Goszei's prior quotation on the point. Izno (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
        • When is a spam link not a spam link? When ... well. WP:EL has nothing to do with any of this. WP:V gives you no license to include commercial links, and WP:RS only does in a very limited manner, in WP:AFFILIATE. But if you can't find any independent sources to verify the information, then WP:V does have something to say about it--in WP:VNOT. In other words, if all you got is those spam links, sorry, primary links, then the information is maybe not worth citing. Put all of that together, and what I see is three anime-loving editors who are fighting very hard to keep a dozen commercial links in an article, and who could have used this time to find some actual reliable sources from something other than a fan site. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Drmies, I being to doubt your good faith. You have been pointed repeatedly to WP:PRIMARY. Read it. It is quoted above in case you do not want to visit that page (BTW, that page is WP:NPOV so, there's your policy basis for keeping these citations).
          • Moving on, you seem to have moved the goalposts. Either it is the case that PRIMARY sources are sufficient for the information being cited, or it is not. Do you agree, or do you not agree, that they meet the definition for the purposes of PRIMARY? If you do not, why not? Please use or reference the definitions from PRIMARY in your response.
          • Regarding VNOT, I actually accept the premise that not everything should be included on Wikipedia (and particularly have long had the 'deletionist' moniker hanging over my head whether I have wanted it or not). However, release dates in a list of released works fall under the list of things that I would include, categorically. Do you agree that those should be included? Do you agree the list as a whole should be included? It is possible that you do not, so that is why I ask. If you do not think lists like these should be included, I think your problem is much bigger than this specific talk page, so I would suggest taking it up at the relevant WikiProject. (NB I think most articles on anime suffer the problems you seem to have, if indeed they are problems.) A larger discussion would be beneficial if that is the case. If instead you do not think release dates should be included for lists of works, I think you're going to have a hard sell, well, just about everywhere on Wikipedia.
          • As for finding some actual reliable sources, you too could have been looking for or finding them instead of spending the past 2 hours chastising editors (badly) who are operating within the norms for the topic area. Izno (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Lastly, I do not appreciate the multiple barbs you've dropped after meeting resistance ("three anime-loving editors", "you're spamming"). They're ad hominem and irrelevant to the discussion. Do better. Izno (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Izon, can you please stick with the asterisks? Thank you. And I read PRIMARY. I accept it. It does not tell us that any primary source should be accepted: you should know that. If you want me to cite chapter and verse, I can--you keep citing #3, but I'm more interested in #1: primary sources "may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". You seem to think that because sometimes primary sources are acceptable, they should be acceptable here. That logic is faulty. And, in my opinion, PRIMARY doesn't apply if half the references in an article are spam links--"it is easy to misuse them", suggests the guideline, correctly. It is undue to a ridiculous extent. And you stuck a bunch of them back in, and every single time you post here you carefully skip around the fact that, as I said before, these aren't just primary documents. They are links with buttons. But you can't really address that, because you might have to agree that well, yes, these are commercial links.

              Moving goalposts? You're accusing me, I think, of wanting to delete release dates. That's crap; I didn't say that, and you're gaslighting. What I said was that if information cannot be properly sourced with secondary sources, then maybe it shouldn't be in an article. What that means is that if you really want it in, you should probably go and look for them rather than fighting over and reinserting spam links. Don't tell me to do it: the onus is on you. Finally, that most anime articles suffer from huge amounts of unsourced content, fancruft, and spam links, that's nothing new. Half the references are to ANN, the other half is to company websites that sell the product (or offer it some other way, like Crunchyroll), and someone has a pet hedgehog. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

              @Drmies: Ok, you are asserting that the use of a publisher's website for release date is a misuse or lacks care. Point 3 in fact provides an example that indicates that is an acceptable use. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label .... What exactly do you think is a misuse or lacks care? The aggregate? PRIMARY #5 does say that one should be cautious about basing large passages on primary sources. Do you believe that a dozen citations to an equal number of dates in an article that is 450 prose words in length is a large passage? The sum quantity of dates in count of words is probably in the realm of 15 words. 15 words out of 450 does not seem like a large passage to me.

              They are links with buttons. So, are you asserting now that citations may be removed solely because they are what you assert are "spam"? Mind you, I think this would contradict what WP:EL has to say on the matter. Please be clear in this regard.

              I do not see that I am deliberately gaslighting. I am making statements I am pretty sure are factual and asking questions based on those statements. (I have learned that is a good model for discussion to avoid both passiveness and aggression.) You began this discussion (er, Link began it, but forgive me my use of English) concerned about the links. You were quickly told that the links were fine in their use and the guidelines provided indicating so. Then you pivoted to "none of the information should be there at all". Then I asked you some questions that you didn't answer that I thought would move the discussion forward on the point of whether the information should remain. To which you replied that I am gaslighting you. No, thank you, I think the historical record above is pretty clear. That is textbook goalpost-moving. Please answer the direct questions I asked you.

              Don't tell me to do it: the onus is on you. No, no it is not, especially not with the policy basis I believe supports me. Secondly, I did not tell you to do it, I reminded you that you could have been the one to find them.

              Regarding bullets, 1) I am not required to keep to your preferred indenting style (you have misread WP:INDENTGAP if that is where your belief comes from - it requires only consistency in the order of the indent markers relative to the post replied to), and 2) This is the default and only supported style in the new Reply tool by the WMF. You should try it. You can find it in Special:Preferences under the Beta tab. Izno (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

              I see also that Goszei has started a discussion at WT:NOR#Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY, so I'm sure that will help both of us in the future to understand the appropriate application. Izno (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

              And lastly, regarding most anime articles suffer from this, I wasn't just talking the 80% by quality of articles. I was talking about current FAs, GAs, and FLs. If it really is an issue (and I believe my position on whether it is an issue is clear), that is a large problem that needs fixing. Izno (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

              And actual lastly, if it's not the dates, then what is it? Those are the ones I reverted and which you have insisted are spam. --Izno (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

              • • Izno, there is no point in continuing with this. You are just badgering, and, I think, deliberately missing my point. It seems to me you think something is written down, "primary sources are fine as long as you're not doing OR, because it say so in EL" (it doesn't, and EL is not relevant here--why would you think that?), that therefore it's always fine. What I am maintaining (third time?) is that this huge amount of links (a dozen--half the "references in the article) adds up to spamminess. So I'm still not answering the question? Remind me--what was it--I'm supposed to explain from PRIMARY that it's not OK to use a ton of spam links to verify information? Asked and answered, but you already knew that: "What exactly do you think is a misuse or lacks care? The aggregate?" Yes. I'm glad that finally sank in, but you shifted that immediately to how much text is verified by some link, which was not the point (and that's why the OR talk page is not relevant here, because my problem isn't with OR). It's the aggregate. Show me an FA that has half of its references as spam links, and the other half almost all from ANN. No--never mind.

                  It's pretty amazing. You started by chastising me for not leaving an edit summary for a simple tag (I did leave an edit summary), and you continue with badgering and misconstruing my answers. The very first sentence of this diatribe ("you are asserting...") is already a misconstruction. I'm done with you, Izno; there is nothing enjoyable about talking with you. My regards to the other editors, and my apologies if I was too harsh to them. Drmies (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

                  I had a couple hundred word response to this, but I'll skip it. Izno (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable secondary sources reported on individual volume releases of this manga. Natalie on the Japanese volumes, and Anime News Network on the North American volumes (see [14] and [15] for the final volume reports, and searching on the sites reveals the rest). I still maintain that use of the publisher's websites is well-within WP:PRIMARY. — Goszei (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Game

new game in mobile 2404:1C40:DC:FE22:F535:D993:55A5:8ABF (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)