Hey, Niwi3! I'm loving the RE work that you've done. Have you gotten a chance to look at Itchy, Tasty: An Unofficial History of Resident Evil (2021)? The author interviewed quite a few of the programmers who worked on REs 1-4, so there's a lot of really useful info in it. Just thought I'd mention it!--13:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Soliciting an opinion on a recent Mass Effect 3 change
Good afternoon. I just wanted to get your feedback on a recent addition to the Mass Effect 3 Development section. A user added an entire sub-section relating to Story, which includes a paragraph of dropped plot and story ideas. While I think that this information is interesting, it also strikes me as unnecessary. I have opened a discussion there, but was hoping to get your opinion as well. Your experiences with Mass Effect articles on Wikipedia combined with your overall body of work on the website make your opinion especially valuable on this particular topic, methinks.--Ktmartell (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wowee Zowee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Wowee Zowee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wowee Zowee for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Companieshouse lists the UK division of Ocean rebranding itself as early as 1998, so that's why i'm listing Ocean titles from that year as Infogrames United Kingdom, and because the back of the packaging (at least for PS1 titles) says "Infogrames United Kingdom" or "Infogrames Multimedia". [1]Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the source above doesn't mention Mission: Impossible, so implying that the game was published by "Infogrames United Kingdom" is original research. Also, the game was originally developed by Ocean of America, a studio based in San Jose, California, so you will need to find a better source. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m trying to say that Ocean of America and Ocean Software were seperate companies (part of Ocean International) so that’s why I’m saying Infogrames UK was publisher in Europe, mainly due to the rebranding. Hope this solves any problems, if there are any. (Which is the problem with this kind of thing in the first place because there are very little sources.)
And as for V-Rally, it’s not published by Ocean in any ways and was always an Infogrames product as you’ve seen on the PS1. Infogrames just simply branded the GB version under Ocean's umberella. In fact, I actually saw an ad for the PS1 version with Ocean branding on it, but not on the game case, so it could mean that Ocean were distributor before rebranding or something, but I have no idea. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So for research for V-Rally. The front of the packaging has an Ocean logo. The back only has a copyright date for Infogrames Multimedia at the back with an Infogrames Distribution logo. The manual only says “Distributed by Infogrames” alongside the copyright (not publishing) and Ocean logos, while the game itself has both Ocean and Infogrames logos with the same copyright date. Confusing, right? That’s why I only see 1998 Ocean titles as Infogrames titles because they were released after the company changed the name of Ocean to Infogrames UK, and some games like Wetrix have a disclaimer in the box saying “OCEAN is a trademark of Infogrames United Kingdom Limited” which is why I believe Infogrames only used Ocean for branding that year before ditching it completely. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. If there are very little sources, then please stop adding original research based on your own conclusions. You have not found a source that explicitly says that the N64 version of Mission: Impossible and the GB version of V-Rally were published by Infogrames UK. Also, the UK is simply one of 40+ countries in Europe, so saying that Infogrames UK was the publisher of the whole region is simply wrong. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So to solve this conflict, should we just leave the publisher as Ocean for the N64 version? On an expansion... the PAL PS1 Ocean titles from 1998 are so far the only proof of Infogrames being publisher of them, while the others don’t make any mention of who published the game at all. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would leave the infoboxes of Mission: Impossible and V-Rally as they currently are. I agree that the name Ocean is more appropriate than Ocean Software because the latter seems to refer to the development studio based in the UK rather than the international publisher. As for other Ocean titles that were released in 1998, you need to check their boxes or instruction manuals on a case by case basis if you can't find reliable sources. 1998 was a transitional year for Ocean and Infogrames, so it's not surprising that there are inconsistencies. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, thanks for the explanation. Heart of Darkness is fine to stay with Infogrames as publisher because the packaging says “Published by Infogrames Multimedia”. One more thing before we wrap this talk page post up...
For the PC games released by Ocean that year, how should I know who the publisher is if it’s not listed on the packaging? The copyright date? (Oh, and if you wanna check, I listed their 1998 titles on the page itself.) Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the packaging has the Ocean label on it then Ocean should at least be credited as the publisher. However, if there are additional logos then it's likely that the game was not developed by an Ocean studio. For example, you can see that the Ocean label is printed on the American front cover of F-22: Air Dominance Fighterhere (next to the Infogrames Entertainment and Digital Image Design logos), but if you examine the back cover here it explicitly states that the game was developed by Digital Image Design, published by Ocean of America, and distributed by Infogrames, so your infobox edits should be reverted. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. Branding resolving Infogrames titles was far easier when they branded titles under the Atari name before rebranding themselves... but still, thanks for the help. Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More Ocean-related stuff
This is just what the back covers say for the four titles, you're free to remove this if possible.
Lucky Luke - "PUBLISHED AND DEVELOPED BY INFOGRAMES MULTIMEDIA" (This is officially an Infogrames title because the company already had the Lucky Luke license beforehand) Only Ocean's logo appears on the packaging, but both Ocean and Infogrames' logos appear on-screen.
Viper - "Published by Infogrames United Kingdom Limited." The packaging also has a small logo for Infogrames UK below with "Distributed by" above. The game itself only has an Ocean logo on-screen because from what I guess, it was originally in development at Ocean beforehand alongside it's sister game Tunnel B1.
Snow Racer 98 - "Published by INFOGRAMES MULTIMEDIA." Solely has Ocean logo on packaging, but both Ocean and Infogrames' logos appear on-screen.
Heart of Darkness - "PUBLISHED AND DEVELOPED BY INFOGRAMES MULTIMEDIA" (Amazing Studio, in reality, developed it, and both Amazing and Infogrames are co-copyrighted). The Infogrames Distribution logo appears on the back, but no Ocean logo. That only appears on the front cover. I think the game has only Ocean's logo on-screen.
Sony at least solved the confusion of that, yet for other platforms it's confusing. So technically, if an Ocean project was part of Infogrames before and just branded under the Ocean name, does that count as an Infogrames game then or would that still depend? (ie V-Rally) Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the late 1998 releases can indeed be confusing because Ocean uses the same logo for different things (Ocean Software, Ocean International, and Ocean of America). If the packaging has an Ocean logo but explicitly states that the game was published by a different company then use that company as the publisher. Ocean probably contributed to its development in some form. On the other hand, if the packaging has an Ocean logo but does not explicitly state which company published it then I would still consider Ocean as the publisher, especially if the developer is not an Ocean studio like Infogrames Multimedia. Hope that helps. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are just two examples I've found. The above one lists Infogrames Multimedia as the gaming subsidiary and lists Ocean as a separate subsidiary as well. I've also found this registration card which uses an "Oceanline" email address but uses the "Infogrames Entertainment" branding on it, which I could guess is proof that Ocean of America did indeed rename as "Infogrames Entertainment, Inc." [4]Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting finds, but those sources don't explicitly state any game or specific date. My gut tells me that, when Infogrames decided to rebrand Ocean (and therefore its American studio in San Jose) in early 1998, they still kept the Ocean name for several Ocean games that would be released in the following few months, especially for games whose development started a couple of years earlier. Also, I'm pretty sure things did not instantly change from one day to another in early 1998 because a rebranding like this generally involves a lot of legal documents and paperwork in different countries. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I did find something quite notible as well. This game ([5]) (C3 Racing) I could believe was originally planned to release as an Ocean title. I say this because the publisher and the copyright holder is "Infogrames United Kingdom", which of course, is "Ocean Software Limited"'s former name. As for the registration card thing, I did source that and a few other pages as proof Ocean of America, Inc. and Infogrames Entertainment, Inc. were the same.
Oh, and I did find this French advert that features both the PS1 and Game Boy versions of V-Rally (both under different branding), but I still don't think that's notable enough to show that Infogrames published the GB version because the same game distributor can display games that have different publishers in TV adverts. [6]
I did also find Ocean's UK website from 1998, too. [7] Not much to say about it, though. Copyright says "Infogrames United Kingdom", with their logo above alongside Ocean's, and it does promote both versions of V-Rally, so I could guess Ocean distributed the PS1 version in the UK although the packaging doesn't say otherwise (due to it being multi-language). It makes note that the game is "Now Available for PlayStation" so the planned N64 version likely would have been branded under Ocean's umbrella as well similarly with the GB version, or something like that. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know by now what it is...
Other than the stuff I posted a few days ago (including the additions which I don't think you've seen yet), I came across Infogrames' E3 1998 Press Kit on YouTube that someone uploaded, and they showcase an early cover to the PC and N64 versions of V-Rally with Ocean logos on the packaging. In fact, it even lists the Looney Tunes titles as Ocean titles, too.
The press-kit also lists down Infogrames using both their name and Ocean as "Brand Names" for the European division, and Ocean, I*Motion and DID as product lines, so this might have been before Infogrames ditched the Ocean brand name altogether.
If you have any time, would you happen to maybe try and make the V-Rally sequels good articles as well? I was thinking that if you only seem to notice the editing of the first installment, why not the sequels? I could maybe help you out if so. Luigitehplumber (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Hope you found all the research I have done about Infogrames and Ocean interesting as well. I've learnt a thing or two, and maybe you have as well. Oh, do you have any plans to make the Ocean page a good article or is that also a no? Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That, I don't know. I do find the company interesting, as I grew up playing several Ocean games in the 90s, but I'm generally more interested in articles about games (rather than companies). I might improve one of their games to GA status one day, but I can't promise anything. Even if it happens, it won't be any time soon as I currently have other plans. It really is a shame that such a prominent company has a low-quality article, but then again, there are so many interesting things on Wikipedia that could have better articles that I'm no longer surprised at this point. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like, I did try to improve it a bit, but I mostly put the focus onto the Infogrames era. The Atari SA page itself is fine although it's a bit low quality in my eyes as well.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Need for Speed: High Stakes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Need for Speed: High Stakes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Need for Speed: High Stakes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fan editor research interview
Hi Niwi3! I don't know if we've crossed paths before, but my name is Gen. Quon and I'm a Wikipedia editor who works mostly on TV and music articles. I'm also working on my PhD dissertation, which is about the information behaviors of fan editors. (Here's a page outlining my project, if you'd like to read more about it!) I've been reaching out to editors to see if they can share their experiences with me. Given the interests you've outlined on your main user page, I thought you might be a solid editor to reach out to. Would you be interested in chatting with me about your info experiences here on Wikipedia? I'm more than happy to provide additional details via email, if you'd like.--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!)16:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gen. Quon, I appreciate your interest, but at this time I am very busy IRL and won't have much time for these questions and interview. In fact, I barely have any time to edit articles these days. I wish you good luck with everything, though. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if the Bigelow book verifies most of you edits then it's perfectly fine to cite it, but if you attribute Variety in the prose then you should also cite that new link. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I misunderstood and thought you were saying the Bigelow book wasn't a valid source for some reason, that we needed the original articles or nothing. My mistake. I'll use the Bigelow book as the citation for all info for which I have no links to actual articles, and only mention Variety in the prose for the facts that I have actual Variety articles to link to.User:Jamesluckard (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see that you adjusted a couple of things in my revised version and I wanted to discuss them. 1) You moved the portion about Angela Bassett's casting after the portion about the casting of Lenny. Bassett was cast first, before the script was even done, after she read the treatment document, so it seems chronologically confusing to put the Bassett portion after the Lenny portion. 2) I'm not sure the sentence "Although the script for Strange Days was completed in 1993, the lead characters were not secured in the cast list until May 1994." needs to be added back in, for two reasons. It's not true - Bassett was cast before there was even a script, and also the portion "the lead characters were not secured in the cast list until" is not written in clear English. A more grammatically correct structure for that portion might be, "the lead roles were not cast until" but again, it's not accurate, as Bassett was cast before then. Also, it's not unusual that it took 6 months to a year to cast the film after the script was completed, that's entirely common and doesn't really feel noteworthy.User:Jamesluckard (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I rearranged the order of some sentences, but kept the fact that the script was completed in 1993. Let me know if you still think there is an issue. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looks better, thanks! However, I would still argue that the first sentence doesn't really work. If anything, I think the bit of information - that the script was completed in 1993 - should be moved up to the "Development" section, right after it's stated that Jay Cocks turned in his script. The date would fit nicely there. Otherwise, the sentence "Although the script for Strange Days was completed in 1993, some roles were not cast until May 1994" suggests that there's something noteworthy or unusual about it taking a year to cast all the roles. That duration of time is completely normal and could even be considered faster than many films. I only have two other minor notes. I'd like to restore the date of the Hollywood Reporter article announcing Fiennes's casting. It's relevant because I mentioned Fiennes's Oscar nomination coming just days after the article announcing his casting. Without the date of the article, that becomes confusing. Also, I think you adjusted my text "Juliette Lewis, was cast" to "Juliette Lewis, had been cast," which isn't really grammatically correct anymore. If you want to keep "had been," then the sentence would need to be changed to "By May 1994" and not "In May 1994." We don't know the exact date she was cast, it's true, she just shows up in a cast list in May, so she may have been cast in April.User:Jamesluckard (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would add that Bassett being cast before there was a completed script shows that there really wasn't a relationship between when the script was completed and when the roles were cast. She was almost certainly cast off of "What's Love Got to Do With It?" which came out in June 1993, which would be when Bigelow sent her the treatment document, and the earliest draft of the script I have a copy of is dated August 11, 1993.User:Jamesluckard (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Slanted and Enchanted Luxe & Reduxe.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Slanted and Enchanted Luxe & Reduxe.png. 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 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Conker the squirrel.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Conker the squirrel.png. 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.
