This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Revolution 60 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Revolution 60" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Brianna Wu was copied or moved into Revolution 60 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
I'm curious as to why this has arisen.
The topic has received coverage in numerous press articles pertaining to the game itself and not to the developers
The sources are verifiable
The sources, where possible are secondary. However, where background factual detail on the game itself has been required, this has been supplied by the lead developer in interviews. Such information has been restricted to objective information.
"Independent of the subject" - where facts about the game are required, I've accessed different areas, including reviews (not press releases) and interviews.
Is it a case of not enough 3rd party sources? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Branmacmuffin (
talk •
contribs) 16:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see why this game meets that notability guidelines at all, and that this page is anything but blatant use of wikipedia for publicity. Given it has yet to be released or played by anyone, it is not important for anybody to know about its sequel either. The entire page should be scrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.224.167 ( talk) 22:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Talk pages aren't for making personal attacks on the subject. Only actionable comments, based in policy, directed towards improving the article are useful. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why do you mention only the bought media reviews? Looking at metacritics, that game has a 73 from paid writers and an user score of 3 with 90 negative, 1 neutral and 37 positive. How can an article, that's meant to be objective simply ignore these facts? If that game was written by an unknown developer without a woman desperately putting her victim card when ever possible, it wouldn't even have been noticed like 1000 of other first-try games that have nothing, no technical improvement, no extraordinary graphics or usability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.142.125.36 ( talk) 09:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
So it seems Tony and I have different opinions on the use of The Guardian article. The source would be good if it was part of a review. But its instead the writer describing the game. Besides that, it doesn't exactly add much to the article in terms of that quote. But that's just me. I would like to hear User:Tony Sidaway's opinion, though. GamerPro64 00:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian article is about Brianna Wu, Giant SpaceKat, and Revolution 60. The paragraph from which the quotation is drawn is specifically about what is new about the game and why it attracted a following. I don't see any good reason to remove it. Arguably all of our coverage of media reception should be in this form rather than direct quotes from reviews, but it's not so often that the mainstream press obliges with such an overview. -- TS 00:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Can someone do a synopsis about the story?,Like for example the background, the characters, the plot, and the endings?.....Coy
Gonna work on a summary .... Coy
This page isn't for attacks on the topic. Add any reliable material that you may have on the plot, don't lament its absence. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Surely the story of the game must be good enough to allow this subpar game to win game of the year, I would think that would be top proirty no? Can someone here please can ask about it, mabye get a copy of the pdf form the source ??.....coy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.232.6 ( talk) 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Seriously its been almost a year since this game came out and not one detail plotwise on this raw page. Why is there only external information related to the game?, why is this page required, its just extra information that can be merged with the developers page.....Coy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.232.8 ( talk) 20:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
|
The game is bad Steam gave it a score a negative score out of all the things on steam its declared bad this article has no solid proof of it being good no one who has played it on steam has given it a positive score 80% of players call it bad, hows that for a source? 173.89.74.237 ( talk) 00:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Revolution 60 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Revolution 60" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Brianna Wu was copied or moved into Revolution 60 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
I'm curious as to why this has arisen.
The topic has received coverage in numerous press articles pertaining to the game itself and not to the developers
The sources are verifiable
The sources, where possible are secondary. However, where background factual detail on the game itself has been required, this has been supplied by the lead developer in interviews. Such information has been restricted to objective information.
"Independent of the subject" - where facts about the game are required, I've accessed different areas, including reviews (not press releases) and interviews.
Is it a case of not enough 3rd party sources? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Branmacmuffin (
talk •
contribs) 16:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see why this game meets that notability guidelines at all, and that this page is anything but blatant use of wikipedia for publicity. Given it has yet to be released or played by anyone, it is not important for anybody to know about its sequel either. The entire page should be scrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.224.167 ( talk) 22:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Talk pages aren't for making personal attacks on the subject. Only actionable comments, based in policy, directed towards improving the article are useful. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why do you mention only the bought media reviews? Looking at metacritics, that game has a 73 from paid writers and an user score of 3 with 90 negative, 1 neutral and 37 positive. How can an article, that's meant to be objective simply ignore these facts? If that game was written by an unknown developer without a woman desperately putting her victim card when ever possible, it wouldn't even have been noticed like 1000 of other first-try games that have nothing, no technical improvement, no extraordinary graphics or usability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.142.125.36 ( talk) 09:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
So it seems Tony and I have different opinions on the use of The Guardian article. The source would be good if it was part of a review. But its instead the writer describing the game. Besides that, it doesn't exactly add much to the article in terms of that quote. But that's just me. I would like to hear User:Tony Sidaway's opinion, though. GamerPro64 00:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian article is about Brianna Wu, Giant SpaceKat, and Revolution 60. The paragraph from which the quotation is drawn is specifically about what is new about the game and why it attracted a following. I don't see any good reason to remove it. Arguably all of our coverage of media reception should be in this form rather than direct quotes from reviews, but it's not so often that the mainstream press obliges with such an overview. -- TS 00:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Can someone do a synopsis about the story?,Like for example the background, the characters, the plot, and the endings?.....Coy
Gonna work on a summary .... Coy
This page isn't for attacks on the topic. Add any reliable material that you may have on the plot, don't lament its absence. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Surely the story of the game must be good enough to allow this subpar game to win game of the year, I would think that would be top proirty no? Can someone here please can ask about it, mabye get a copy of the pdf form the source ??.....coy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.232.6 ( talk) 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Seriously its been almost a year since this game came out and not one detail plotwise on this raw page. Why is there only external information related to the game?, why is this page required, its just extra information that can be merged with the developers page.....Coy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.232.8 ( talk) 20:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
|
The game is bad Steam gave it a score a negative score out of all the things on steam its declared bad this article has no solid proof of it being good no one who has played it on steam has given it a positive score 80% of players call it bad, hows that for a source? 173.89.74.237 ( talk) 00:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)