Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spacewar!/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 8 May 2020 [1].

Spacewar!

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 14:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The history of video games in many references begins with the first commercial products in 1972, but they're predated by a much more robust game a decade prior: Spacewar!. Appearing out of almost whole cloth, it leapt past prior "tic-tac-toe" or "20 questions" games played by a handful of people as a multiplayer real-time space combat game that led to the first detached controllers and first game tournament. It was the first game known to be played at more than one computer installation, and in fact spread to nearly every possible mainframe installation as the most popular game of the 60s. It directly inspired both of the first two arcade video games, as well as games for years after, and was included as one of the first 10 games of the game canon at the Library of Congress in 2007.

I wrote this article in 2016 as part of a series on the early history of video games, but was stymied from taking it to FAC because one of the major sources was the online research notes of an in-progress book. That 600-page history book finally came out a few months ago, tightening up the sourcing story, so after some additional polishing I'm bringing it to FAC, hopefully as the first of several. Thank you for reviewing! --PresN 14:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from David Fuchs

[edit]

I will endeavor to give a full review to this, but initial bits n' bobs:

    • Media:
      • File:Spacewar1.svg links back to File:Spacewar1.png, but the latter could use information from the former (the link clearing it as public domain is dead in the latter.)
      • File:PDP-12 VCF 2001.jpg has a inoperative source link, making it impossible to verify the license.
        • Fixed the first, dropped the second- an internet archive link for the source shows that, while (presumably they) uploaded the image as CC-3.0, the actual website makes no mention of that. --PresN 18:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • References:
      • I'm not entirely sure what referencing scheme is being used in the article, nor when a citation uses a short ref versus full citation info in the "Sources" section. I feel like aggregating the references into a single section and using {{rp}} for the page numbers where necessary might be a more consistent and elegant solution.
        • On the same note, I'm a bit uneasy about the size of the page ranges for some citations; it's not easily verifiable where materials come from if you're giving a dozen or more pages for the content. Splitting references into smaller, discrete page citations would be better.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The referencing style is "use cite x templates", + "put books in their own section so as not to repeat that information over and over." It's the same as WP:CITESHORT, though I could change it to use last name instead of title if you want. I don't like Rp as it splits the page number away from the work being cited.
  • The largest page groupings for books were 9 and 12, which I've now chopped apart; any other "large" page groupings are magazine articles, and the only one that's noticeably long is the Byte source and most of that is printed source code. --PresN 18:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a spot-check of statements attributed to current refs 2, 5, 9, 14, 21, 26, 27, 30, 36, and 37.
  • 9 threw up a metadata error at Archive.org. Might be something temporary or something on my end.
  • Ref 14 doesn't adequately support With the added features and changes, Spacewar! was essentially complete by late April 1962. It was certainly being played, but it's unclear in what state.
  • Ref 30 doesn't adequately source In addition to Galaxy Game and Computer Space, numerous other games have been directly inspired by Spacewar!. (The other games aren't mentioned, and the Times article mentions it's important but not what direct influences it had.)
-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs: Sorry for the delay; 1) fixed ref 9; 2) reworded the sentence to be better supported by ref 14; and 3) reworded the sentence + added cites to refs 31/32, which more directly mention that other games were inspired by it. --PresN 04:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further spot-checks to 9, 10, 17, 18, 20, 25, and 33.
  • Ref 10 doesn't support In response, Russell began providing various excuses as to why he could not do so. Likewise it doesn't seem to be needed for One of these was the lack of a trigonometric function routine needed to calculate the trajectories of the spacecraft. This prompted Alan Kotok of the TMRC to call DEC, who informed him that they had such a routine already written. Kotok drove to DEC to pick up a tape containing the code, slammed it down in front of Russell, and asked what other excuses he had. Russell, later explaining that "I looked around and I didn't find an excuse, so I had to settle down and do some figuring", started writing the code in December 1961, the same month that the PDP-1's display was installed.
  • That whole chunk is cited to refs 2 (Creative Computing) and 4 (Smith p. ~53), with the quote coming from ref 2. I've removed 10 from that section, and moved around citations to make it clear where the quote came from. --PresN 16:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other checks were fine.
    • Prose:
      • Spacewar! is a space combat video game developed in 1962 by Steve Russell in collaboration with Martin Graetz and Wayne Wiitanen, and programmed by Russell with assistance from other people, including Bob Saunders and Steve Piner. Can we just shorten this to Spacewar! is a space combat video game developed in 1962 by Steve Russell in collaboration with Martin Graetz, Wayne Wiitanen, Bob Saunders, Steve Piner, and others.? It's unclear from the lead what the difference between developed/programmed is, and it seems a really lengthy first sentence to get through.
      • If you take out the dashed aside, this sentence doesn't make grammatical sense: Three of them ... referring to their collaboration as the "Hingham Institute" as Graetz and Wiitanen were living in a tenement building on Hingham Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, came up with the idea for Spacewar!.
      • The second paragraph in Development Graetz learned that MIT would be acquiring a PDP-1 computer and thought the three of them should create an interesting program to run on it. Wiitanen suggested that a game would be particularly engaging. seems redundant; you told us MIT was getting this computer and they wanted to make a game a section ago.
      • Though Tuck felt that Computer Space was a poor imitation of Spacewar! and his game a superior adaptation, many players believed both of the games to be upgraded variants of Spacewar!. "Both of the games" means Computer Space and Galaxy Game, correct? It's unclear from the structure of the article.
—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to coordinators: I've had Covid-related issues for the last few weeks; I'll be addressing these points shortly and have not abandoned this nom. --PresN 16:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Sorry for the delay; adjusted the lead, rewrote that sentence; removed the redundancy; clarified. --PresN 16:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Brilliant topic. How have I never heard of this?

  • "Ships are destroyed when hit by a torpedo, colliding with the star or colliding with each other." Tense shift? Tricky. Even if it's grammatically accurate (I'm not sure?) it's a little jarring.
  • "to being executed in batches" Jargon?
  • I've tweaked one sentence to become " These interactive graphical games were created by a community of programmers, many of them students and university employees affiliated with the Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC), led by Alan Kotok, Peter Samson, and Bob Saunders.". The ambiguity is whether the "community" or the TMRC was led by those three - as I've written it, it's the community. Previously, it was (I think) ambiguous.
  • I know some people recommend against the use of the word brainstorm. I'm not going to insist on anything...
  • "and in some versions there is an increasing probability of the ship exploding with each use" In the lead, it wasn't clear that this was only in some versions.
  • I'm surprised that you drop the ! after first mention (excluding the very last!). Is there something in the MOS about this?
  • If Expensive Planetarium and Expensive Typewriter are the names of specific pieces of software, shouldn't they be italicised?

That's what jumps out at me from a first read. Double-check my edits! (I'm taking part in the WikiCup.) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: See more at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Early history of video games if you're interested!
  • Tweaked
  • Replaced with "on a schedule", and linked to batch processing
  • That's correct, thank you
  • Replaced with "pondering"
  • Fixed
  • I've gotten contradictory opinions on this before; I'm looking through the MOS now, though, and I can't find any guidance regarding punctuation in proper nouns outside of article titles. I'm going to go ahead an switch it to be Spacewar! universally, and see if any reviewers have a different opinion.
  • My understanding, per MOS:ITALICTITLE, is that software programs that are not artistic works like a game are not italicized, e.g. Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Word are not italicized, but are capitalized as a proper name.
--PresN 21:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Bump, sorry- any other issues? --PresN 04:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'm pretty happy with how it's looking now, but I'm holding off to see what others think for now. If there's no activity for a little while, I'll revisit. (Sorry, I know that's not very satisfying.) Josh Milburn (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Hey, sorry, it's been a month and one support, but this is moving towards the bottom of the FAC list. Are you willing to give this another look? --PresN 15:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happy to. Ping me again if I haven't gotten to this in a week... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • @Nikkimaria: Can't recreate source website; that said, while the original source code and game are public domain, that screenshot was of a possibly public domain recreation of the game in another programming language; to avoid issues, replaced the first with a picture of the original public domain game, and removed the code image until I can find a better source. --PresN 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HaEr48 (support)

[edit]

Very interesting topic. Great work. My feedback below:

  • "Somebody [[[Marvin Minsky]]] had built some little ...: Do you mean to have triple bracket around Marvin Minsky, or is it a formatting error?
  • In background, would it be possible to add some properties of the PDP-1, as context for the general reader? E.g. its capabilities and limitations in terms of computing power or storage, its input/output. For example.
  • The ships follow Newtonian physics: Does the source say it this way? (can't find the exact source in the cited ref no. 2). There's more to Newtonian physics than just remaining in motion after accelerating
  • What does rotating do? E.g. if I rotate a ship by 180 degrees, does the ship then move in the opposite direction, or does it now move backwards according to the previous direction?
  • For the #Development section, Any detail on what the programming and the original code is like? Was there any programming language, or an equivalent? I'm a bit surprised to read that someone gave Russel a trigonometric function by slamming some tapes, can some context be added in #Background about programming at the time?
  • Suggest splitting #Legacy to #Distribution for the initial spread (similar to how most game articles have #Release section) and focus #Legacy on the long term impact (such as inspiration to other games, or its consideration as one of the most important games)
  • Similar to #Release section in commercial games, suggest the #Distribution section to contain details of how the game was distributed. Did people just request a copy of the tapes (or whatever distribution method existed at that time) from the authors? Did the authors never sold it commercially? Also suggest adding a sentence of two to the lead about these
  • The image "Spacewar! on the Computer History Museum's PDP-1 in 2007": may be more appropriate in #Legacy?

-- HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a note, I plan to claim this review for Wikicup points. HaEr48 (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HaEr48: Thanks for reviewing!
  • Ah, that used to work, the parsing of those square-bracket templates changed from under me... corrected.
  • Added a little bit about input/output, but the exact specifications of its computing power are too much detail for an article about a game that ran on it.
  • Dropped the term and tried to explain a bit; the gist is that if you move in a direction you keep moving that direction even if you stop accelerating or if you rotate. So, in your example, if you thrust for a bit, stop, and then spin 180 degrees, you're now going backwards relative to your orientation.
  • Added a sourced line that it was written in the PDP-1's assembly language. I'm not sure what you mean about the tapes, though? I've now added some links and a picture that I think will help, but it's punched tapes- long strips of paper that are the code. It's the same thing as if someone had slammed down a floppy disk in the 90s, or a CD in the 00s- he said he couldn't start the game because he didn't know how to program the trig (presumably for how to rotate images?), and they went and found code someone else had already written.
  • Yeah, that was the context I was missing, thank you. Thanks for adding a link to punched tapes in the background.
  • Disagree with splitting Legacy- there's no clean break between distribution and legacy, as the game was changed as it spread. Added a couple sentences about how it spread, but it wasn't really "distributed"- someone saw the game, made a copy of the code, and took it back to another installation, where they used it directly or wrote their own version for the non-PDP-1 they had there. Or maybe they only saw the game and didn't have the code, or maybe they read Graetz's paper about it (mentioned in the article), or maybe they just wanted to make their own version to see if they could. It made it to Stanford because Steve Russell moved there a year later and brought the code with him. There's few records of most of this- see the Kinephanos source for the best tracing out there- there's just dates when the game was seen running on a system somewhere. It certainly wasn't sold- never mind that it went against the "hacker" mindset, it's a game that could only run on a few dozen computers that cost the equivalent of a million dollars and were only found in research labs. Who exactly was going to buy it? Hopefully it's a bit clearer now- I don't want to have too much digression into the state of the programming community in the early 1960s, or even how programming was done at the time or now, though some is obviously needed.
  • I see. I suggest changing the title to "Distribution and legacy" then?
  • Agreed, moved to Legacy and replaced with a picture of the front panel of the PDP-1, including punched tapes, which I think will help with comprehension of some of the terms used. --PresN 02:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. Happy to support this article. Well done. HaEr48 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • I would not bother including publishers for periodicals (e.g., The Computer Museum) but if you do, you should do so consistently (you don't with, e.g., Creative Computing). Same for websites (e.g. Geek.com).
  • You don't need retrieval dates on courtesy links (e.g., Rolling Stone). You're not citing the webpage, there, you're citing the print publication. The link's not needed at all (though good to have).
  • ISSNs are, again, not necessary, but if being used should be used consistently.
  • Your date formatting is inconsistent - you sometimes spell out (e.g., archive date on Creative Computing) and you sometimes use numbers (e.g., Bill Pitts source).
  • Kinephanos is (seems to be?) an academic journal - it should be cited like one.
  • Page numbers for the Kruglisnk source?
  • Your Stanford Magaine citation looks incomplete.
  • Have you had a look at this? Other than that, a look through the first ten pages of Google Scholar raises no concerns - though this is 1) A hard thing to search for and 2) Probably something that has been covered in a fair amount of academic work.

Sources all seem appropriately reliable. No spotchecks done. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I think it's cleaned up now?
  • Publishers are always a hassle- Creative Computing published itself, so the publisher field is omitted as it's the same name... to make it clean, I've dropped all periodical publishers.
  • Dropped retrieval dates for magazine/journal references
  • They are now- 3 magazines don't have them (The Computer Museum Report, Saga, Stanford Magazine).
  • Should all be spelled out, the Bill Pitts article was a yesterday addition that was not consistent- now fixed
  • Fixed Kinephanos, I think- their numbering is weird, they don't stick their "special issues" in volumes and only have one issue per volume normally
  • Was there as 86–111; changed to 86–89 as the rest of it is code/details on code, which isn't the part I'm citing.
  • I think it's right now? It's awkward, the issues are just "month1/month2 year", not numbered.
  • Yes, that source is a guide to programming in a language, and has as an example program a version of Spacewar. It wouldn't be a platform not already listed in the article, just a different programming language, so isn't useful. --PresN 14:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff - I've had a fiddle around with some references (digging out page numbers, etc.). Please check my edits! It'd be great to have page numbers for the MSDN articles. I'm also seeing a few "publishers" for websites - worth removing, perhaps? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Edits verified; removed website publishers for consistency. --PresN 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - sources looking good to me now. If spotchecks are required, let me know. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs did spotchecks, so I think we're good there. --PresN 05:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the peanut gallery - I don't understand the request to remove publishers. There's an expectation that citations use a consistent format, but not that there's an equal amount of data to display between all citations. There are all sorts of fields that only make sense for certain citations - secondary authors, translated titles, original publication dates vs. dates of the copy used, etc. If some magazines have a known publisher, and some don't, that's totally fine and not something that needs "fixing". SnowFire (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't request their removal - I said that I wouldn't include them, but if they were included, they should be included consistently. As for why I wouldn't include them: it just seems an odd thing to include. Is it something called for in style guides? I've never seen publishers included for academic journals outside of Wikipedia, for example. Josh Milburn (talk)
      • I probably wouldn't bother with publishers either, I'm just saying that "consistency" doesn't make any sense if there isn't a consistent amount of information to share. If you think that publishers shouldn't be included In General, that's fine of course, I just think that if there were 5 magazines and 1 of them had a relevant publisher and the other 4 didn't, then it would be totally fine to have 1 magazine include the publisher. SnowFire (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think we really disagree. But I do note that, first, a rule that says something like "Include publishers if there are any" could be consistently applied, and, second - if we're splitting hairs - surely every published magazine has a publisher. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Spacewar!/archive1&oldid=955646957"