Talk:Hellgate: London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hellgate: London article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
A request has been made for this article to be cleaned up by WikiProject Video games.
VG To-do:
To-do list for Hellgate: London: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Cleanup: Premise section
  • Other: Rewrite in-universe style writing
Archive
Archives
One · Two · Three


Contents

[edit] Review Comment

I've edited the line "PC Gamer recently gave Hellgate: London a 89 out of 100 in an exclusive review granted in exchange for a favorable rating" to remove the comment about the review being in exchange for a favorable rating. Hopefully the reason for this edit is obvious. Such an allegation had best have a reputable source (instead of none at all, as in this case), considering the defamatory and, one imagines, controversial nature of it.The Mink Ermine Fox 05:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are PC Gamer ads inside Hellgate London. Enough said.87.64.77.40 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the PC Gamer references to PC Gamer US. I'm not being nationalist or stirring anything up, it's just that that implies that the US edition is the "true" one, whereas the UK one was in fact the first one. However, i don't think being published a few months in advance gives it any particular prominence - I just think it should be "PCG US" and "PCG UK", rather than one having prominence over the other. 86.159.54.30 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing it as PC Gamer US or PC Gamer UK would not appropriate, as neither magazine is titled as such. I have fixed the entries, and you can see the changes. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section controversy

The founders of Hellgate: London do have a link to the idea of demons. I have noticed in the game and the book that the Goetia has been mentioned. In Diablo the support of these demons were used also. What is the reasoning for such a choice on the controversal characters such as demons? I do find it facinating, but am curious as to the reson for london? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genoshay2k (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the Controversy section, as it's full of POV and uncitedness. Once there are are better cites and less POV-ed writing, then it can go back in. QuasiAbstract (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncitedness? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellgate:_London&oldid=180997434#Controversy See the little numbers inside square brackets? They are citations. It's clear that you do not wish anything negative about the game to be conveyed here, based on your earlier revert of my edit stating "forums aren't a good ref, because anyone w/o an account can't access", and now, despite a mirror of the thread being cited you still removed my edit. So unless you have anymore lies to add I will be restoring the section. ~ Carlin U T C 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do about having negative things about the game, as anyone can see. However, there are many itmes that can't be verified, including your link. How can someone without an account verify the accuracy of your mirror? How do we know that's nothing more than someone promoting the negativity of the section? We don't. We need to have verifiable sources. I'll go through and do more than just a wipe, but we need better citations and much better writing that the blatant POV that is in there now. QuasiAbstract (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I just reworked the section. I removed any paragraphs with unverifiable citations and tried to reword POV heavy sections. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
My link is verifiable by anyone with a forum account and via good-faith. The alternative to that is a thread from a fansite, such as hellgate.incgamers.com or HellgateGuru, rather than the official site. The issue is an important one, as the lock-out of a large portion of Oceanic users is a serious and controversial issue, considering Flagship's lack of a response. ~ Carlin U T C 12:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
However, it violates WP:V where all readers should be able to check that material assed to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Forums aren't reliable. If we were able to find an article regarding this information, it could be added back in. Also, regarding the claim of Flagship and Ping0 ignoring the problem - there is no way to verify that.QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Forums pertaining to user complaints are not reliable? Let me rephrase; a 27 page thread on the official forums pertaining to user complaints are not reliable? ~ Carlin U T C 08:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Forums are not a published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If there were a source that references the 27 page thread, a reference that doesn't require a mirror, as that can still not be checked for accuracy, then we can put that information in. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for truth, but for verifiability. If I don't have an account, I can't check the verifiability, even with a mirror of the forums, I still can't check the verifiability. Also, synthesizing information from several pages of threads that there is a problem also violates WP:SYN and WP:OR. That's why we need use published sources. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So, in other words, the validity of the criticisms section is flawed as criticism made directly to Flagship via their official forums cannot be cited - I think not. If mirrors using WebCite, Way Back Machine and other such tools is accepted then a mirror of the thread in alternative hosting space is also acceptable. ~ Carlin U T C 10:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<- (lose indent) Even mirrored, forums are not reliable sources. Anything can be posted in a forum - there is no basis to assume accuracy. Game bugs are generally not "controversial" or notable. If the issue is notable, a reliable source (i.e. gaming news site, etc.) will report it which may provide basis for inclusion here. regards, --guyzero | talk 12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How are other mirrors accepted? They haven't been on this article and shouldn't be. 50 people could complain about the lighting to Flagship on the official forums, but does it really mean that there's a problem or notable? Possibly not. How can we determine the validity of those statements on the official forums, even if there are 200 people saying the same thing? We can't. QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBM is a mirror and is accepted as policy. Go figure. ~ Carlin U T C 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, the difference between a mirror by WBM and a mirror by a user, would be that the WBM is an reputable source. Reputable. A user is not a reputable source. If you were able to get a mirror from WBM or another reputable source, it could be used. It must be from a reputable source. QuasiAbstract (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
A user generated mirror could also be considered reliable if other person(s) with HG:L accounts confirmed its contents were accurate. ~ Carlin U T C 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really, because the source must be reputable - having a reputation. A group of users doesn't have the reputation that a source like WBM has. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, something mirrored by WBM is not automatically a reliable source. Even if the HG:L forums were mirrored by WBM, it would still not be a RS due to the concerns noted above. regards, --guyzero | talk 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What if I were to reference multiple other sources? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] (The login doesn't show you server status, so when/if the servers are down loading up the game ends with a time-out on the "Loading" screen, and the game Not Responding, with it only sometimes telling you that the "connection timed out".) - not talking about the same problem but that's exactly what happens to affected players. ~ Carlin U T C 18:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

<- The only link I see that can be used is from CorpNews, because it is a published article, not a forum. QuasiAbstract (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When the problem is a user-complaint forums, ie. a place where people can voice their concerns, are a legitimate source. Numerous other articles cite forums as a source; World of Warcraft#modifications, World_of_warcraft#_ref-29 and World_of_warcraft#_ref-21. Starcraft#_ref-4, Starcraft_2#_ref-5. Not to mention numerous "new articles" that are actually user submitted. I could find more if I had time and could be bothered. ~ Carlin U T C 08:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that if we reference user posts on forums, we start doing original research by compiling what the users are complaining about and finding trends in what they are talking about. That's why we use reputable, published sources. They find the trends and make the compilations. Also, if they are referencing forums, they should only be referencing developer posts and not user posts, and users are not reliable sources, at least not for Wikipedia. If the other articles are referencing user posts, just remember - Just because an article is doing it, doesn't mean they should be doing it. New articles should be referenced with reliable sources as well. Wikipedia must be verifiable, not necessarily true. We can't validate user posts on forums, so whether they're true or not, we shouldn't reference them. QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The sheer amount of sources proves its verifiability. ~ Carlin U T C 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For us to state the problems while referencing the forums, we would have to make sure the statements are valid. We don't know that they are, so adding the information would violate Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy. Now, if we ignored that and still wanted to state the problems while referencing the forums, then we would now be violating Wikipedia's Original Research Policy. By reading through the forums and coming to the conclusion that X number of users are claiming the problem, then we have performed original research, which is why we need a reference that is published by a reputable, third-party source. QuasiAbstract (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A statement like "... people began to complain about an issue which caused them to become stuck at the loading screen" could be verified by citing a forum post, as there is evidence that people are complaining about the issue. ~ Carlin U T C 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

<- Unfortunately, forum posts cannot to be used for verification of anything. I'm not saying that you and other users aren't experiencing this loading problem, but anyone can say anything in a forum post. Please take a look at WP:ATTRIBUTION which summarizes WP's core content policies. With regards to forum posts, it explains, "...Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely unacceptable. Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used." If a reliable source (for example, a gaming news website, such as Kotaku) were to comment on Hellgate's bugginess in general or this particular bug, we could include that information. I hope this helps to clarify, sorry that you are experiencing this loading problem. regards, --guyzero | talk 08:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious I'm fighting a losing battle here, so I'll concede and leave the section about it out. No hard feelings. ~ Carlin U T C 09:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't give up, as you did provide one reference, CorpNews, should be an acceptable cite. Just familiarize yourself with acceptable references and the Wikipedian policies. Don't give up, just become the best editor you can be. QuasiAbstract (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Premise section

Is it just me, or does the Premise section sound a lot like a description would be in-game instead of sounding like an encyclopedia? I keep reading it, and some of the word usage sounds POV ("unfortunately", "heroes", etc)...point of view of the humans, instead of an outside source. Please let me know what you all think. QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article is written in-universe, which is not recommmened by WikiPolicy. I'm going to try to rewrite it when I get time, and using Wikipedia:WAF and WP:Fancruft for help. If someone else gets to it first, please do. QuasiAbstract (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:VG/GL I'm going to rename it 'plot' and put it below gameplay. I'll remove the excessive sub-headings in gameplay where possible and try to integrate text into paragraphs, 'flowing prose' and all that. The way the articles contructed, in bullet-style lists, masses of subheadings etc. means that the scaffolding is still up, we need to collapse it back down into a typical article. Someoneanother 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the whole article looks a lot better. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Not a singe screen-shot, not to mention picture, can be found in this article aside from the cover art. I think that a few should be added.  Xeysz  ☼  01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diablo series

Same people who made the diablo series. Not blizzard Entertainment, people who had worked for them and made their own company. I dont know why no one bothered to say that on the actual page of the game, It says it on the game cartridge.


~~april 2008~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)