![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
-- IDV talk 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Generally poor article, and may be non-notable. It relies HEAVILY on trash sources like Kotaku (group blog at best). Complex looks pretty low quality as well. Article might be better off as a few lines in other articles. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that the section regarding "exaggerated" physics only uses the Kotaku source. additional sources regarding the subject would be preferable, as opposed to citing the same source several times. On the same topic, as mentioned above the example list is for the most part an abridged presentation of a single source, with only two other sources. Consider removing the examples and using the sources as citations; for example, ending the segment with an addressal of the variety of games that have been criticised for their breast physics, with the three sources as citations.
Another thing of note is the inclusion of phrases within the "exaggerated..." section such as 'particularly female observers' and '(mostly male)', well as the entirety of the sentence beginning "Not only breasts, but also..." despite these statements and ideas not being presented the sources. Unless I am incorrect or until unbiased sources indicating as such is added, these statements presented as purely editor opinion and as such a violation of WP:NPOV; even if it is not the editor's opinion, there are no relevant sources cited and so the statements violate WP:V. That is to avoid the connotations of using "exaggerated," an intrinsically subjective term, .It is also reasonable to comment that footage of a seemingly small-chested woman in a tight-fitting bodice being directly used as evidence that video game breast physics is a false comparison, as complaints of exaggeration usually adress large-chested characters in looser clothing. Putting the issue of logical fallacies aside, the footage caption has no sources and so is presented as editor interpretation; unless a citation is provided that is produced by a third party and uses the footage to draw the same conclusion, this is a violation of WP:NOR.
In conclusion this article in its' current state violates Wikipedia's three core content policies, one of which is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and explicitly "non-negotiable." Such an article could be said to defy the very spirit of Wikipedia, and would require major revisions in order to restore compliance with the core rules governing Wikipedia articles and content. Sweetpizza ( talk) 13:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Instead of the completely irrelevant video of the ballerina, is there not a video of a big-breasted woman in action to show the actual difference between breast physics and reality? I'm scratching my head over the inclusion of that video, honestly.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
209.133.79.5 ( talk) 13:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
get rid of that video with the ballet dancer. she has no breasts so it shows nothing. 98.5.2.58 ( talk) 13:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: To both: A change must be proposed and consensus for it sought before an edit is requested. Feel free to suggest a better freely licensed video. Also, image captions are not for editorializing or commenting on themselves.
Sandstein
13:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that the section regarding "exaggerated" physics only uses the Kotaku source. additional sources regarding the subject would be preferable, as opposed to citing the same source several times. On the same topic, as mentioned above the example list is for the most part an abridged presentation of a single source, with only two other sources. Consider removing the examples and using the sources as citations; for example, ending the segment with an addressal of the variety of games that have been criticised for their breast physics, with the three sources as citations.
Another thing of note is the inclusion of phrases within the "exaggerated..." section such as 'particularly female observers' and '(mostly male)', well as the entirety of the sentence beginning "Not only breasts, but also..." despite these statements and ideas not being presented the sources. Unless I am incorrect or until unbiased sources indicating as such is added, these statements presented as purely editor opinion and as such a violation of WP:NPOV; even if it is not the editor's opinion, there are no relevant sources cited and so the statements violate WP:V. That is to avoid the connotations of using "exaggerated," an intrinsically subjective term, .It is also reasonable to comment that footage of a seemingly small-chested woman in a tight-fitting bodice being directly used as evidence that video game breast physics is a false comparison, as complaints of exaggeration usually adress large-chested characters in looser clothing. Putting the issue of logical fallacies aside, the footage caption has no sources and so is presented as editor interpretation; unless a citation is provided that is produced by a third party and uses the footage to draw the same conclusion, this is a violation of WP:NOR.
In conclusion this article in its' current state violates Wikipedia's three core content policies, one of which is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and explicitly "non-negotiable." Such an article could be said to defy the very spirit of Wikipedia, and would require major revisions in order to restore compliance with the core rules governing Wikipedia articles and content.
(The above text was originally posted as a reply to the discussion entitled "Poor article:" but is now being posted as a discrete discussion for the purpose of visibility. Please reply to this post if possible.) Sweetpizza ( talk) 14:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
but if we have one reliable source (as Kotaku is per consensus at WP:VG/S) there's no reason not to use it,
That's exactly the problem. Kotaku, and the entire Gawker media is uttery trash. Low quality, click-bait blogging masquerading as journalism. They have no journalistic standards. They publish anything they think will get hits. It's a complete embarrassment that Wikipedia uses such sources. Wikipedia should be a source of serious scholarship. More books, studies, journal articles, magazines. Less blogs, and sensationalistic trash internet "journalism".
You allow trash sources, you get trash articles like this. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
To me, Kotaku looks like many other gaming news websites: not better, but also not worse than many others.
Hardhitting Kotaku Journalism. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 10:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure Fatal Fury didn't have a spring constraint in its engine... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.197.166 ( talk) 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There is an unecessary focus on the exageratedness and presumed unnaturalness of breast physics without any proper citation. The /info/en/?search=Breast_physics#Unnatural_breast_physics section in particular but also the gif on the top of the page. Video games are first and foremost a form of expression and artform thus they don't have to strife to be natural or perfectly follow the laws of real world physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ectoplazl ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I spent a good deal of time dramatically improving this article earlier today. It was in an almost unreadable state, and failed to note any sort of subtleties regarding this topic that were noted even in the sources cited.
All of my edits were very sensitive, retained all of the content that was already present while fixing a lot of language errors and making things more readable, most of my edits had nothing to do with introducing other viewpoints and were only made to improve the presentation of the viewpoint already represented in this article. In addition, a couple of my edits presented, in a tasteful and neutral way, the contrasting viewpoints that were already contained in the sources cited in this article but weren't presented in this article. This was not at all a viewpoint that I hold or agree with, but it was a viewpoint which nevertheless was given a fair presentation in all the sources cited in this article, but which is not present in this article.
The sources cited for this article, despite containing the author's voice, are actually fairly good and nuanced articles, noting many of the subtleties and contrasting opinions related to this topic. But for some reason none of the nuance or detail present in these sources is being allowed onto this article.
Now I know why that is the case: a bullying editor, Sandstein, believes this article is critical to the politically sensitive "GamerGate" controversy, and is maliciously reverting any edits by people seeking to improve the article. He left a bullying and nasty comment on his revert, accusing me of "attempting to make a case" for this contrasting viewpoint (that, again I don't even hold, but clearly deserves to be presented as fairly as it is in ALL of the sources for this article). I know how Wikipedia works and I have no recourse against administrator-bullying like this, but if anyone else is wondering why this article is in such a poor state and has the idea of spending time trying to improve it, don't waste your time: it is being held back by a politically motivated bully, and your time will be wasted. MarcelB612 ( talk) 21:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
3O Response: Thankyou for the request for a
Third Opinion. As I understand it, the issue is whether the 16 edits made by
MarcelB612 on 1 December 2020 are neutral and whether they reflect the coverage of reliable sources. In summary, I am of the opinion that whilst there are some minor changes to prose which both accurately reflect the source material and improve the article; the vast majority of the changes to the article are not reflective of the references to which they are attributed (that is, they consist of
original research), nor do they portray the subject from a
neutral point of view. Therefore, I recommend that the edits should not be restored to the article, and nor should similar edits be made to the article without the provision of appropriate references which support each assertion. I hope that this has been helpful.
Jack Frost (
talk)
08:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if you included this, but apparently, there is a controversial mod for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate that gives Pyra and Mythra (the most recent DLC characters) exaggerated jiggle physics. Can you include this mod in the article?-- 24.44.76.88 ( talk) 18:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the article at AFD (though it closed before I could even comment) and I was going to make the comment: Is there a better title for this article? The current title really doesn't indicate that it's about the fictional/gaming context. (Something as vague as "Breasts physics" could just as easily apply reality/real life outside of games - it doesn't really indicate it's about video game depiction.)
Anyways, I'm not trying to make a stink about it or something, I dont feel that strongly on it. Just thought I'd share my thoughts on it - I was initially confused why such a title was tagged to "video games". Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
-- IDV talk 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Generally poor article, and may be non-notable. It relies HEAVILY on trash sources like Kotaku (group blog at best). Complex looks pretty low quality as well. Article might be better off as a few lines in other articles. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that the section regarding "exaggerated" physics only uses the Kotaku source. additional sources regarding the subject would be preferable, as opposed to citing the same source several times. On the same topic, as mentioned above the example list is for the most part an abridged presentation of a single source, with only two other sources. Consider removing the examples and using the sources as citations; for example, ending the segment with an addressal of the variety of games that have been criticised for their breast physics, with the three sources as citations.
Another thing of note is the inclusion of phrases within the "exaggerated..." section such as 'particularly female observers' and '(mostly male)', well as the entirety of the sentence beginning "Not only breasts, but also..." despite these statements and ideas not being presented the sources. Unless I am incorrect or until unbiased sources indicating as such is added, these statements presented as purely editor opinion and as such a violation of WP:NPOV; even if it is not the editor's opinion, there are no relevant sources cited and so the statements violate WP:V. That is to avoid the connotations of using "exaggerated," an intrinsically subjective term, .It is also reasonable to comment that footage of a seemingly small-chested woman in a tight-fitting bodice being directly used as evidence that video game breast physics is a false comparison, as complaints of exaggeration usually adress large-chested characters in looser clothing. Putting the issue of logical fallacies aside, the footage caption has no sources and so is presented as editor interpretation; unless a citation is provided that is produced by a third party and uses the footage to draw the same conclusion, this is a violation of WP:NOR.
In conclusion this article in its' current state violates Wikipedia's three core content policies, one of which is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and explicitly "non-negotiable." Such an article could be said to defy the very spirit of Wikipedia, and would require major revisions in order to restore compliance with the core rules governing Wikipedia articles and content. Sweetpizza ( talk) 13:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Instead of the completely irrelevant video of the ballerina, is there not a video of a big-breasted woman in action to show the actual difference between breast physics and reality? I'm scratching my head over the inclusion of that video, honestly.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
209.133.79.5 ( talk) 13:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
get rid of that video with the ballet dancer. she has no breasts so it shows nothing. 98.5.2.58 ( talk) 13:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: To both: A change must be proposed and consensus for it sought before an edit is requested. Feel free to suggest a better freely licensed video. Also, image captions are not for editorializing or commenting on themselves.
Sandstein
13:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that the section regarding "exaggerated" physics only uses the Kotaku source. additional sources regarding the subject would be preferable, as opposed to citing the same source several times. On the same topic, as mentioned above the example list is for the most part an abridged presentation of a single source, with only two other sources. Consider removing the examples and using the sources as citations; for example, ending the segment with an addressal of the variety of games that have been criticised for their breast physics, with the three sources as citations.
Another thing of note is the inclusion of phrases within the "exaggerated..." section such as 'particularly female observers' and '(mostly male)', well as the entirety of the sentence beginning "Not only breasts, but also..." despite these statements and ideas not being presented the sources. Unless I am incorrect or until unbiased sources indicating as such is added, these statements presented as purely editor opinion and as such a violation of WP:NPOV; even if it is not the editor's opinion, there are no relevant sources cited and so the statements violate WP:V. That is to avoid the connotations of using "exaggerated," an intrinsically subjective term, .It is also reasonable to comment that footage of a seemingly small-chested woman in a tight-fitting bodice being directly used as evidence that video game breast physics is a false comparison, as complaints of exaggeration usually adress large-chested characters in looser clothing. Putting the issue of logical fallacies aside, the footage caption has no sources and so is presented as editor interpretation; unless a citation is provided that is produced by a third party and uses the footage to draw the same conclusion, this is a violation of WP:NOR.
In conclusion this article in its' current state violates Wikipedia's three core content policies, one of which is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and explicitly "non-negotiable." Such an article could be said to defy the very spirit of Wikipedia, and would require major revisions in order to restore compliance with the core rules governing Wikipedia articles and content.
(The above text was originally posted as a reply to the discussion entitled "Poor article:" but is now being posted as a discrete discussion for the purpose of visibility. Please reply to this post if possible.) Sweetpizza ( talk) 14:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
but if we have one reliable source (as Kotaku is per consensus at WP:VG/S) there's no reason not to use it,
That's exactly the problem. Kotaku, and the entire Gawker media is uttery trash. Low quality, click-bait blogging masquerading as journalism. They have no journalistic standards. They publish anything they think will get hits. It's a complete embarrassment that Wikipedia uses such sources. Wikipedia should be a source of serious scholarship. More books, studies, journal articles, magazines. Less blogs, and sensationalistic trash internet "journalism".
You allow trash sources, you get trash articles like this. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
To me, Kotaku looks like many other gaming news websites: not better, but also not worse than many others.
Hardhitting Kotaku Journalism. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 10:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure Fatal Fury didn't have a spring constraint in its engine... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.197.166 ( talk) 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There is an unecessary focus on the exageratedness and presumed unnaturalness of breast physics without any proper citation. The /info/en/?search=Breast_physics#Unnatural_breast_physics section in particular but also the gif on the top of the page. Video games are first and foremost a form of expression and artform thus they don't have to strife to be natural or perfectly follow the laws of real world physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ectoplazl ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I spent a good deal of time dramatically improving this article earlier today. It was in an almost unreadable state, and failed to note any sort of subtleties regarding this topic that were noted even in the sources cited.
All of my edits were very sensitive, retained all of the content that was already present while fixing a lot of language errors and making things more readable, most of my edits had nothing to do with introducing other viewpoints and were only made to improve the presentation of the viewpoint already represented in this article. In addition, a couple of my edits presented, in a tasteful and neutral way, the contrasting viewpoints that were already contained in the sources cited in this article but weren't presented in this article. This was not at all a viewpoint that I hold or agree with, but it was a viewpoint which nevertheless was given a fair presentation in all the sources cited in this article, but which is not present in this article.
The sources cited for this article, despite containing the author's voice, are actually fairly good and nuanced articles, noting many of the subtleties and contrasting opinions related to this topic. But for some reason none of the nuance or detail present in these sources is being allowed onto this article.
Now I know why that is the case: a bullying editor, Sandstein, believes this article is critical to the politically sensitive "GamerGate" controversy, and is maliciously reverting any edits by people seeking to improve the article. He left a bullying and nasty comment on his revert, accusing me of "attempting to make a case" for this contrasting viewpoint (that, again I don't even hold, but clearly deserves to be presented as fairly as it is in ALL of the sources for this article). I know how Wikipedia works and I have no recourse against administrator-bullying like this, but if anyone else is wondering why this article is in such a poor state and has the idea of spending time trying to improve it, don't waste your time: it is being held back by a politically motivated bully, and your time will be wasted. MarcelB612 ( talk) 21:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
3O Response: Thankyou for the request for a
Third Opinion. As I understand it, the issue is whether the 16 edits made by
MarcelB612 on 1 December 2020 are neutral and whether they reflect the coverage of reliable sources. In summary, I am of the opinion that whilst there are some minor changes to prose which both accurately reflect the source material and improve the article; the vast majority of the changes to the article are not reflective of the references to which they are attributed (that is, they consist of
original research), nor do they portray the subject from a
neutral point of view. Therefore, I recommend that the edits should not be restored to the article, and nor should similar edits be made to the article without the provision of appropriate references which support each assertion. I hope that this has been helpful.
Jack Frost (
talk)
08:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if you included this, but apparently, there is a controversial mod for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate that gives Pyra and Mythra (the most recent DLC characters) exaggerated jiggle physics. Can you include this mod in the article?-- 24.44.76.88 ( talk) 18:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the article at AFD (though it closed before I could even comment) and I was going to make the comment: Is there a better title for this article? The current title really doesn't indicate that it's about the fictional/gaming context. (Something as vague as "Breasts physics" could just as easily apply reality/real life outside of games - it doesn't really indicate it's about video game depiction.)
Anyways, I'm not trying to make a stink about it or something, I dont feel that strongly on it. Just thought I'd share my thoughts on it - I was initially confused why such a title was tagged to "video games". Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)