Jump to content

Talk:Universe Sandbox

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

Promotional puff

[edit]

This whole article appears to be just promotional. Of the 12 references currently listed, only the Tech Radar article would count as an RS: the others either link to the company's own website, are dead links, or to an article about DLP televisions which isn't connected to the software. Richard3120 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:BOLD and purge the puff, fluff, fan cruft or whatever you feel needs to be deleted. The article is on my watchlist so if you go too far, I'll comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

A conflict of interest tag was added to this article. This is based on the direct statement here ("The article is about a software I helped develop") by an editor who is a sock puppet of the indefinitely-blocked editor User:Tetra quark, who has made a number of substantial edits to the article, mostly in January 2015. Editors who know something about this subject may want to check Tetra quark's edits. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that anyone does know the subject as it's barely notable. I will see if I can prune it, but I suspect that @Richard3120: might be up for the challenge. I suspect that the fluff and COI edits intersect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup, removing details that wouldn't normally be seen in an encyclopedia, though I'm not sure that the article itself even deserves to be in Wikipedia. Still, I think this is possibly acceptable to others. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: thanks, but Isambard Kingdom has saved me the bother. There are still problems: the "In the Media" section is about a single video which is a dead link, so there is no way of proving that the software was used in the programme. And the first reference links to the company's website, which may be acceptable or not. So we still only have one reliable independent citation. I have mixed feelings about this article, because as someone with a keen interest in astronomy I find the software intriguing, but as a Wikipedia editor I am struggling to find anything that makes this article notable. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell this sock puppet has caused an edit war, looking at the history. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashill: I'm the project director of Universe Sandbox ². We don't know who made those changes, but I suspect it may have been one of several hundred people that helped alpha test the new version (which is why they claimed they helped develop it). This person is not a paid member of our team. Regarding notability, since its launch 5 months ago, Universe Sandbox ² has been in the top 200, often top 100 selling games on Steam. The original version sold over 700,000 units Source: http://steamspy.com/app/72200 and the sequel has already sold over 100,000 Source: http://steamspy.com/app/230290. Universe Sandbox ² was also used by UNSW to create their video announcing the discovery of Wolf 1061c Video on YouTube. We want to respect conflict of interest but would like to help improve the article to better explain the differences between the versions (as it more clearly did back in October 2015 Old revision of Content deleted). What can we do to help that's not in violation of the Wikipedia guidelines? DanDixon (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the top 100 games on Steam isn't really notable. WP:N explains what is. If you can provide multiple, reliable sources that are independent of your development project here on the talk page, other editors can vet the content and sources and update the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've compiled a number of articles about Universe Sandbox ² and the original Universe Sandbox on our Press page: http://universesandbox.com/press. We've also outlined the basic facts about the project on our Press Kit page: http://universesandbox.com/presskit. Also, how do we prove that person claiming to work on the project does not? As this false claim seems to be the basis for the 'Conflict of interest' tag. In addition, as this is a video game, all of these categories would be appropriate: 2015 video games, Early access video games, Windows games, Linux games, OS X games, Unity (game engine) games, Indie video games. Thanks! DanDixon (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the page

[edit]

Shouldn't there be more details about the game, because it's kind of a bit flat and not, like other pages on other games... NHPluto (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NHPluto: Universe Sandbox isn't actually a game, it's a simulation program (I don't know why it was added to Project Video games). The reason it seems lacking in details is because the page was basically written by an editor who admitted being one of the programmers, and almost all the citations came from the developer's own website, so it had a conflict of interest. Once all the promotional stuff was taken out, there was very little left, as you can now see, which means it probably fails notability for a Wikipedia article as well, and it may well get put up for deletion at some point unless some independent sources can be found. You can see a diff of the page as it stood before the promotional material was removed here – also see the edit history during September and October 2015, and the posts above on this talk page. Richard3120 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Universe Sandbox ² is an unusual piece of software because it's an educational simulator that's sold as a video game on Steam. It's similar to Garry's Mod, but with stars, planets, and accurate physics. As I explained in the 'Conflict of interest' section on this page, the editor was definitely not one of our programmers, but likely one of our early users. I also shared some info for evidence of its notability. We would like to know what we can do to help improve this page that's not in violation of the Wikipedia guidelines. DanDixon (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Oh I see, so is it possible that this page should be labelled as a stub since the page is dead already? I'm thinking of deleting "In the Media" since the links do not work: you are free to undo my edit if it doesn't 'fit'.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Universe Sandbox. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are back

[edit]

Why are the edits back when most of the citations aren't from an external source?NHPluto (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the editor Sir Cumference decide to restore all the previously deleted material with this diff, although he failed to say exactly how lots of self-referential citations would help the article. Neither of the last two citations are useful as they don't mention Universe Sandbox in any way, so really there's still only one independent citation in the whole article, the PC Plus/Techradar one. I am still of the opinion that this should be put up for AfD as it doesn't seem it's going anywhere except as promotional material – I assume Walter Görlitz still has this page on his watchlist, I don't know if he wants to comment. Richard3120 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent detailed addition (possible promo)

[edit]

Recently, Deghop added detailed information that does not appear to be me to be worthy of inclusion, as it is very detailed and appears to be promotional: [1]. I propose that this material be removed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the following bit of text:

"Christian works on the architecture and user interface, Georg works on the graphics"

can be found on the internet via google search. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Universe Sandbox. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 11:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sol 80.116.138.4 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universe_Sandbox&oldid=1239819117"