Source I removed was basically a journalist making a claim that game was developed by supposedly St. Petersburg department of the Saber Interactive.
However there are two arguments to consider:
1. There is no adequate proof neither of existense of such department as separate entity nor of whether development of the game per-se can be attributet specifically to it.
2. Even if there was some source for existence of department and it's activity - "developer" is defined legal term in the industry and developer of Space Marine 2 in every media and legal source is marked as "Saber interactive" including the website of company itself.
Thus I consider it unreasonable and confusing for people to mark "Saber St. Peterburg" as developer. Now - the information added by SpaceRefugee is better redirected to the develoment process category on the page of the game itself.
There is no legal aspect here, no. If the studio is formally known by a separate name, it is appropriate to list it, and the article already does so several times. It is pretty much guaranteed to be a separate legal entity as well, since it operates in a different country from the parent.
As for the source, while I'm not sure whether the site is reliable, i states, quite clearly, that said studio was the lead developer of the game.
If you believe the naming is an error, you should discuss this on the article's talk page and with the user who added these names to have a better forum. IceWelder [✉] 18:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not remember me, but two years ago I went down a bit of a rabbit hole trying to figure out who "Judy Lang" was, only to discover it was a typo and correct it. You took my correction and ran with it, doubling the article in a day and more than tripling it since, turning it into one of the most comprehensive developer articles on Wikipedia and earning it the much coveted GA mark.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's up for FA nomination one day. I thanked you at the time, but the editing you've put in since then deserves to be awarded. And you're still at it! Madly driven. 93.107.221.86 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I'll have you know that you're responsible for me even picking up this work. All I wanted to do was check whether your edit was correct, but those newspaper clippings simply had too much good info that I didn't want to let go to waste. One thing led to another and the article somehow grew fourfold. Also, can you believe this was already two years ago? Times flies! IceWelder [✉] 18:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Grand Theft Auto VI shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Seasider53 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also how much is €4 billion is in dollars since the Assassin’s Creed Franchise generated that amount in the last decade per [2]. I'm gonna add that to the Assassin’s Creed main article. Timur9008 (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry about that. Based on the timing, I'd assume it's the second NCAA game. For Assassin's Creed, stating the Euro value should suffice. It's made by a French company so I see no good reason to force in USD. IceWelder [✉] 09:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:MCV-Develop 951 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Long time no see, IceWelder. I've got a question to ask you, and that involves the Mindscape page. I was thinking that the page could be split up between the original company, and the French company that adorned the name after they purchased the international assets; as they are not the same business and overall it's just confusing on what the infobox is trying to say as the original US company was folded under The Learning Company itself after the Mattel purchase. What would you say? Luigitehplumber (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really have a strong opinion, but it does appear like a reasonable move. The only fear I have is that the French-led Mindscape is not super notable and a lot of gaps in how it was founded and disestablished would require original research to fill. IceWelder [✉] 08:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the thing I was thinking up when I expanded the page, especially as it was hard for me to try and find most of the information; mainly as I could only find most of it in French, and the fact I needed the help from other Wikipedias to find the links. So for now, we'll let the split aside until more information can be found, but I might list down that Mindscape is the name of two different companies, or something like that. Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional refs for Bethesda Softworks Question
Hi! :)
Are one of these refs anyway usable to add to the main Bethesda Softworks article? (This is after 2 years of searching and quite frankly I'm tired but I will keep going)
GamersHell is listed as unreliable at WP:VG/RS; the m0use.net and 8m ones look like personal homepages, and Twitter is Twitter with the usual issues to consider. TechWeb and GameStats may be reliable, although I don't see much information to be gained there. Perhaps consider listing websites like these individually at WT:VG/RS instead of just seeking my opinion. Also, the photo for Fletcher is cool but likely can't be uploaded under WP:NFCC, assmung he is currently alive. IceWelder [✉] 20:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rocksteady Studios
Persistent vandalism? simply added information supported by reliable sources such as Bloomberg.
The latest game is a failure, a costly $200 million failure, Bloomberg also clearly states in the article.
and the reasons for this failure were also highlighted but you and someone else say that it is vandalism.
When Warner Bros closes the company you will continue to say it is vandalism.
And I think I'm a huge fan of Rocksteady Studios, and it was a great studio.
Unfortunately the situation with the latest game is a total disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.123.34 (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noted at least once that you were adding content that was not only worded inappropriatly for an encyclopedia, it also clearly made up information that the adjacent sources did not present. Let's look at it in detail:
As November 2024, Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League has had very few sales and very few players, and is sold at very low prices in a desperate search for an audience and players to justify the costs of maintaining the active servers for Warner Bros. Games.
The source is the game's Steam page, which only shows that the game is out, costs $70, and has mixed reviews. It does not show that it "had very few sales and very few players", nor that it "is sold at very low prices in a desperate search for an audience and players to justify the costs of maintaining the active servers". Additionallu, even if the price was greatly reduced recently, wording it as "a desperate search for an audience and players" runs foul of neutral wording guidelines.
Losses of $200 million are estimated, which could jeopardize the financial stability of Warner Bros. Games and seal the fate of Rocksteady Studios, a studio that was clearly famous and successful until the development of Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League.
The source is a Bloomberg article, which does report that the game lost $200 million dollars, yet it does not report that WB Games would be financially unstable as result (and it wouldn't be by itself, as it is part of a much larger organization that had profits in the billions last financial year). The source also doesn't report that the game's commercial failure could "seal the fate of Rocksteady Studios". Quite the opposite, the article's author quotes WB Games's director as saying that "job cuts at Rocksteady wouldn't make sense". Making facts up and pretending that the source you claim to cite supports this extends beyond synthesis and original research into speculation, which you can probably guess Wikipedia does not seek to present.
The reasons for this failure are attributable to the long years of development, 7 years, to an unjustified increase in costs and to a late release at the beginning of 2024, when the public was already tired of long gaming sessions played during the COVID-19 pandemic and also to the tiredness of the type of game.
The source is IGN's review for the game, which supports not a single claim being made here, perhaps safe for the review's author arguing that "the looter-shooter mechanics are tired and dull". You made up the entire paragraph and pretended to cite a source for it. This also leads me to assume that it is you considers the cost increase "unjustified".
It is unfortunate that you chose to ignore the guidelines I cited and opted to revert perpetually. Without following standard practices and engaging in a discussion about the inclusion of your writing, you led to the page being locked. From what I stated then to what I detailed above, I would indeed consider your additions inappropriate editing, regardless of the studio's status. The article may not be in an ideal state at the moment, and the losses the game produced (and many other details currently missing) could probably be mentioned somewhere, but writing up an opinion piece and poorly attempting to disguise it as encyclopedic content is not the solution to that. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cybermania
I was thinking about Cybermania since the game awards wrapped up this year. Do you mind if I nominate it for GAN? I think it has a shot. Though if you would want to you can since you put a lot of work into it. GamerPro6417:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally just cleanup work that escalated bit, so I didn't really think to nominate it. But you're right, giving it that tiny green plus is a decent idea. I'm nominating the article as we speak! IceWelder [✉] 18:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I recently submitted the page Gjergj Thopia as a Great Article Nominee. I was just wondering if you could take a look at the page before someone actually starts the process. I just wanna know if it looks alright from another set of eyes. Since you helped on the Durrës Expedition article. Thank you! Arberian2444 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Albanian history isn't exactly my strong suit, and the article is a tad larger than Durrës Expedition. I can give it a read, sure, but I'd recommend getting a second opinion from someone who works that area more frequently. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
