![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | Notice - Inclusion Criteria
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'll leave links to websites hosting scans of magazines from back in the day, which is where most of my research of unreleased Atari Jaguar titles comes from. Hope this helps a lot!:
KGRAMR ( talk) 17:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
So you are admitting doing original research based on data from these sites. Then using the data from magazine scans, which may have been puff pieces given to the magazines by marketing, or even faked shots to justify inclusion. I also notice that, for the arlo game, you actually reference out to your own post on assembler games forum. So WP:OR and WP:CoI in one article. StraightDown ( talk) 11:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
While I'm not 100% aware of the kick off 3 stuff, as its not even listed here. Looking at the CVG article shows the megadrive and SNES pictures, no Atari Jaguar - mentioned in the text though. Whoever circulated a mobygames picture as a Jaguar version really shouldn't be treated as an expert. As to the rest of your statement it shows that you are only putting the information on here to get validation of your contributions and not to actually aid people. You are doing it to get a buzz and perhaps recognition as an "expert" rather than altruistic reasons.
The response of "meh" also indicates that accuracy of information is not high on your agenda. You've not addressed any of the concerns and resorted to the "whatever" defence — Preceding unsigned comment added by StraightDown ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
KGRAMR ( talk) 12:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) So, to paraphrase, you are doing your own research (and as can be seen from the edits I've made today how accurate it's been), editing Wikipedia to reflect what you believe and don't see a problem with that. It's an example of WP:OR in case you didn't realise, this is meant to be an encyclopedia not a scrap book.
I also notice that a lot of your citations are either directly, or indirectly, to the same source - Kieren Hawken, who you are allied to on several forums, bringing both their validity and interpretation into question.
I'm sure you'll continue editing anyways, even after stating you would not, StraightDown ( talk) 02:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
KGRAMR ( talk) 12:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) I believe you've now gone into the conspiracy defence.
For the hard of understanding - apart from the links to YouTube videos many of the citations you made go to either announcements posted on forums by him e.g. the buggy ball link to http://gameon.freeforums.net/thread/136/buggy-ball-atari-jaguar , or to interviews carried out by him e.g. http://gameon.freeforums.net/thread/89/david-wightman-creative-edge
He also has an involvement in RVG magazine of course.
What I an saying is that a lot of the rumours and conjecture either use the same source, and play Chinese whispers as they get repeated or do not actually say what you think they do e.g. if you read the rebellion interview at no point does it say source code is available - he answers "probably in an archive... That would annoy I.T.". From that you have amended the article to say it is with them.
It's simply a failed console that doesn't need to be mythologised. StraightDown ( talk) 08:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
KGRAMR ( talk) 11:39 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Magazines can be reliable sources, publishers release dates and wish lists, that even the magazines themselves discount if you had actually read them and not just cut and pasted, are not.
For maniac the translation says its a wishlist and for the edge article it specifically states on page 34 that publishers release dates are unreliable. So no verifiable content, just an unreliable date that you have expanded to include your original research e.g. 40 percent complete.... Based on lynx game.. Etc. All off an unreliable date.
StraightDown ( talk) 04:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
As has been evident from the number of deletions I've made that this, as well as numerous other articles edited by a particular user, that a lot of citations made are nothing but links to magazine scans. These scans, when you manage to track down copies, turn out to be nothing more than release lists, and so of no actual value beyond a curiosity. The interdependence of magazines, including being under same ownership, means that these should not be treated, to my mind at least, as of any value as a citation. In numerous instances the text attached to the list, or elsewhere in the magazines, actually have disclaimers to say they are unreliable. Question is: should these sort of citations be allowed? StraightDown ( talk) 09:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC) StraightDown ( talk) 09:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
StraightDown ( talk) 22:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
That was the 22 of March revision, after I pointed this out you went back on 9 April and changed it to read "Worked" instead (and that is why Wikipedia tracks all changes).
StraightDown ( talk) 23:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What is evident as I go through these citations is that more than a few of these titles do not exist as anything but design documents. These may or may not have been accepted for production and if not, how can they be called cancelled. These titles occupy an odd area, in that they should be recorded but not as cancelled games, more like games that never were. I'd suggest an extra table to capture these and remove from the main table. StraightDown ( talk) 13:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) StraightDown ( talk) 13:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | Notice - Inclusion Criteria
|
![]() | This article is rated List-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:
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'll leave links to websites hosting scans of magazines from back in the day, which is where most of my research of unreleased Atari Jaguar titles comes from. Hope this helps a lot!:
KGRAMR ( talk) 17:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
So you are admitting doing original research based on data from these sites. Then using the data from magazine scans, which may have been puff pieces given to the magazines by marketing, or even faked shots to justify inclusion. I also notice that, for the arlo game, you actually reference out to your own post on assembler games forum. So WP:OR and WP:CoI in one article. StraightDown ( talk) 11:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
While I'm not 100% aware of the kick off 3 stuff, as its not even listed here. Looking at the CVG article shows the megadrive and SNES pictures, no Atari Jaguar - mentioned in the text though. Whoever circulated a mobygames picture as a Jaguar version really shouldn't be treated as an expert. As to the rest of your statement it shows that you are only putting the information on here to get validation of your contributions and not to actually aid people. You are doing it to get a buzz and perhaps recognition as an "expert" rather than altruistic reasons.
The response of "meh" also indicates that accuracy of information is not high on your agenda. You've not addressed any of the concerns and resorted to the "whatever" defence — Preceding unsigned comment added by StraightDown ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
KGRAMR ( talk) 12:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) So, to paraphrase, you are doing your own research (and as can be seen from the edits I've made today how accurate it's been), editing Wikipedia to reflect what you believe and don't see a problem with that. It's an example of WP:OR in case you didn't realise, this is meant to be an encyclopedia not a scrap book.
I also notice that a lot of your citations are either directly, or indirectly, to the same source - Kieren Hawken, who you are allied to on several forums, bringing both their validity and interpretation into question.
I'm sure you'll continue editing anyways, even after stating you would not, StraightDown ( talk) 02:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
KGRAMR ( talk) 12:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) I believe you've now gone into the conspiracy defence.
For the hard of understanding - apart from the links to YouTube videos many of the citations you made go to either announcements posted on forums by him e.g. the buggy ball link to http://gameon.freeforums.net/thread/136/buggy-ball-atari-jaguar , or to interviews carried out by him e.g. http://gameon.freeforums.net/thread/89/david-wightman-creative-edge
He also has an involvement in RVG magazine of course.
What I an saying is that a lot of the rumours and conjecture either use the same source, and play Chinese whispers as they get repeated or do not actually say what you think they do e.g. if you read the rebellion interview at no point does it say source code is available - he answers "probably in an archive... That would annoy I.T.". From that you have amended the article to say it is with them.
It's simply a failed console that doesn't need to be mythologised. StraightDown ( talk) 08:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
KGRAMR ( talk) 11:39 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Magazines can be reliable sources, publishers release dates and wish lists, that even the magazines themselves discount if you had actually read them and not just cut and pasted, are not.
For maniac the translation says its a wishlist and for the edge article it specifically states on page 34 that publishers release dates are unreliable. So no verifiable content, just an unreliable date that you have expanded to include your original research e.g. 40 percent complete.... Based on lynx game.. Etc. All off an unreliable date.
StraightDown ( talk) 04:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
As has been evident from the number of deletions I've made that this, as well as numerous other articles edited by a particular user, that a lot of citations made are nothing but links to magazine scans. These scans, when you manage to track down copies, turn out to be nothing more than release lists, and so of no actual value beyond a curiosity. The interdependence of magazines, including being under same ownership, means that these should not be treated, to my mind at least, as of any value as a citation. In numerous instances the text attached to the list, or elsewhere in the magazines, actually have disclaimers to say they are unreliable. Question is: should these sort of citations be allowed? StraightDown ( talk) 09:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC) StraightDown ( talk) 09:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
StraightDown ( talk) 22:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
That was the 22 of March revision, after I pointed this out you went back on 9 April and changed it to read "Worked" instead (and that is why Wikipedia tracks all changes).
StraightDown ( talk) 23:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What is evident as I go through these citations is that more than a few of these titles do not exist as anything but design documents. These may or may not have been accepted for production and if not, how can they be called cancelled. These titles occupy an odd area, in that they should be recorded but not as cancelled games, more like games that never were. I'd suggest an extra table to capture these and remove from the main table. StraightDown ( talk) 13:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) StraightDown ( talk) 13:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)