This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electronic literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic literatureTemplate:WikiProject Electronic literatureElectronic literature articles
Thanks a lot for the review and suggestions. I incorporated all of them. I also gave a good look over the ref section and the table for formatting. Let me know if I missed anything. I can keep chipping away.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 02:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
DanCherek (
talk) 02:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Improved to Good Article status by
Shooterwalker (
talk). Self-nominated at 01:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC).reply
Excellent article, fitting all of DYK's basic requirements plus more. QPQ checks out. Hook is interesting at least to those of us who enjoy these things -- I can't quite pretend to know what the rest of the world would make of it. However, "computer game developer Legend Entertainer" gives me pause, in that current usage of "computer game developer" generally refers to people rather than companies. "Studio" or "publisher" rather than "developer", maybe?
Vaticidalprophet 16:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
This is one of those things where you balance the technical term with something that's more readable and clear. I think "game studio" or "computer game studio" would be a good substitute for "computer game developer". What do you think?
Shooterwalker (
talk) 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Pulling up some quick research on the studio. Granted they're before a lot of peoples' time, but have a seminal place in early video game history. Here's a quick summary of how a few sources describe them:
Multiple entries on this "7 works of interactive fiction that every developer should study"
Gamasutra
"While there were many small companies that created text adventure games, the greatest of them all was Infocom."
Ars Technica
"Infocom, the king of text adventure games"
GameSpot
"Infocom’s games were considered top-of-class in what was once a very busy genre"
Touch Arcade
"Infocom, the granddaddy of the genre"
The Atlantic
"classic text adventures", plus additional acclaim for specific titles
PC Games N
"classic adventure games", plus additional acclaim for specific titles
Tech Raptor
"Infocom, a prominent producer of interactive fiction"
Engadget
I thought "acclaimed" was a pretty neutral summary of the sources, but "prominent", "classic", "glorious", "top-of-class", or "greatest of all adventure game companies" would all be reflected in the sources.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 14:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Logo image quality
The image quality for the logo image is pretty awful. Could we get a PNG/SVG version, or at the very least a higher-resolution non-pixelated JPEG? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)reply
That's certainly better than what we have currently; I'd say go ahead and swap it out. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I was thoroughly disappointed when I downlaoded the image and saw that it wasn't actually transparent but had a black background. I edit the black out as good as I could but hope we find a better, actually transparent image in the future.
IceWelder [
✉] 16:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electronic literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic literatureTemplate:WikiProject Electronic literatureElectronic literature articles
Thanks a lot for the review and suggestions. I incorporated all of them. I also gave a good look over the ref section and the table for formatting. Let me know if I missed anything. I can keep chipping away.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 02:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
DanCherek (
talk) 02:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Improved to Good Article status by
Shooterwalker (
talk). Self-nominated at 01:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC).reply
Excellent article, fitting all of DYK's basic requirements plus more. QPQ checks out. Hook is interesting at least to those of us who enjoy these things -- I can't quite pretend to know what the rest of the world would make of it. However, "computer game developer Legend Entertainer" gives me pause, in that current usage of "computer game developer" generally refers to people rather than companies. "Studio" or "publisher" rather than "developer", maybe?
Vaticidalprophet 16:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
This is one of those things where you balance the technical term with something that's more readable and clear. I think "game studio" or "computer game studio" would be a good substitute for "computer game developer". What do you think?
Shooterwalker (
talk) 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Pulling up some quick research on the studio. Granted they're before a lot of peoples' time, but have a seminal place in early video game history. Here's a quick summary of how a few sources describe them:
Multiple entries on this "7 works of interactive fiction that every developer should study"
Gamasutra
"While there were many small companies that created text adventure games, the greatest of them all was Infocom."
Ars Technica
"Infocom, the king of text adventure games"
GameSpot
"Infocom’s games were considered top-of-class in what was once a very busy genre"
Touch Arcade
"Infocom, the granddaddy of the genre"
The Atlantic
"classic text adventures", plus additional acclaim for specific titles
PC Games N
"classic adventure games", plus additional acclaim for specific titles
Tech Raptor
"Infocom, a prominent producer of interactive fiction"
Engadget
I thought "acclaimed" was a pretty neutral summary of the sources, but "prominent", "classic", "glorious", "top-of-class", or "greatest of all adventure game companies" would all be reflected in the sources.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 14:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Logo image quality
The image quality for the logo image is pretty awful. Could we get a PNG/SVG version, or at the very least a higher-resolution non-pixelated JPEG? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)reply
That's certainly better than what we have currently; I'd say go ahead and swap it out. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I was thoroughly disappointed when I downlaoded the image and saw that it wasn't actually transparent but had a black background. I edit the black out as good as I could but hope we find a better, actually transparent image in the future.
IceWelder [
✉] 16:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)reply