Talk:Frets on Fire/Archive 1

Speedied and recreated

I've deleted this a couple times, and a couple times it's been recreated. But, sometimes by different users. I'm of the opinion that, as a released-yesterday open source video game with no third-party sources talking about it, there's no verifiability or significance here. I suspect this would uncontronversial, hence the deletions, but if anyone else has opinions on why this should or shouldn't be an article, I'd be interested in hearing them. For now I've put {{deletedpage}} in there rather than another deletion, since it more-or-less explains the situation. Friday (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

obviously you are delete-happy and don't consider looking things up before speedying them. Perhaps you should consider listing as AFD and letting there be a concensus --Graveenib 21:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Friday, you don't own Wikipedia. There are rules and procedures to follow to delete an article, you don't simply take it on yourself to remove the text. I think the admins should keep a closer eye on your activities here. -- 12.22.250.4 01:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signifigance

The game won the competition for independent developers at the Assembly '06 in Helsinki, Finland (http://www.assembly.org/2006/). Is the position not considered signifigant enough to warrant a wikipedia article? It has been on Digg.com, and there is a community developing. If there were a wikipedia article about it, that would help people learn about it and enlarge the community, even though thats not the primary function of wikipedia.

What makes it significant is coverage in third-party sources. We're not in the business of attracting interest, only reporting whatever interest other people had. Friday (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not report, it should describe. On all other points I agree with Friday, this game (even though it is quite fun) isn't yet wp worthy.--Gleapsite 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant??! This game has spawned an extreme fanscene in just a couple of days, the sites flooding with traffic.The main site has so much traffic it can barely handle it.The amount of fansites has exploded during the first days, now on the fifth day at about 40 sites. The game is already getting quality song submissions by original artists.

Oh, well, as long as there's an "extreme fanscene." How 'bout something that can be documented? -Stellmach 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a registered user here, but I thought I'd make you aware that PC Gamer UK had this game on its cover DVD and feature on how it's played.

Digg isn't 3rd party?

As far as I know, the site was submitted to Digg, but is in no way affiliated with Digg directly. And typing "Frets on Fire" has gotten a number of blog entries, as well.

Slashdot too

Theres a bunch of discussion bout it on slashdot too

You should recreate this artice

Because the game won the competition (see http://www.mbnet.fi/jutut/assembly2006/tulokset/ , "Pelinkehityskompo", that means Game Developement Competition). This game is the StepMania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StepMania ) of guitar games!

Preventing this article from being created is out of any correct policy by Wikipedia. It seems as if someone is intentionally blocking this information for own interests, whatever they may be.

Will you listen to youself? Yes, there is a huge Wiki-wide conspiracy to keep this game surpressed, forcing it to fail. You are so clever for working that out. Have a boiled sweet. Seriously though, this article shouldn't exist. The Kinslayer 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly demo party

The page says the game won the 2006 Assembly demo party competition, but that event's article says differently. - Stellmach 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Assembly article doesn't give the results of the game development compo at all. Had I to guess I'd say that it's because there are clear degrees of importance among compos and a great number of them, so the article focuses on the most notable ones. It just so happens that the result page is down on the Assembly site, but I've checked several other sources and they all name Frets as the winner. --Kizor 07:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mirror of the Assembly '06 results here. Smidge204 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

If, indeed, Frets on Fire is as notable is claimed, producing evidence of its notability via multiple non-trivial published citations or some other evidence of software notability should be a simple task. Until then, the {{notability}} tag merely describes the fact that this has not been done, and its repeated removal by anonymous users is difficult to not regard as vandalism.

Thank you for what will no doubt be an effort to provide the customary citations rather than compromise the integrity of the article. - Stellmach 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku

It's been mentioned at least once, and I'm guessing more, on Kotaku. Does that count as thirdy party, or not? Either way, I really don't see a reason for this to be deleted. It seems to have more a place on Wikipedia than, say, that Linux Lemmings clone with the penguins. Just my two cents. Kirbysuperstar 05:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's "third party" as long as it's not affiliated with Frets on Fire. My experience has been that blogs are generally considered pretty weak evidence of notability if an article does come up for an AfD discussion, though, since there's little need to be discriminating in what one blogs about. You'll have a better case the more professional your source is perceived as being. I myself don't know the specialty press covering the demo scene well enough to judge.

Citing other Wikipedia articles just to show that your topic at hand is more notable, on the other hand, relies implicitly on the fallacy that only the least notable article on all of Wikipedia is indefensible. This is generally met with indifference at best in AfD discussions. If anything, it might make somebody put the other article up on AfD as well, or suggest that it should be. -Stellmach 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a reliable citation source. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, particularly the section on online and self-published sources such as blogs, message boards, and such. The short of it is that they are generally not acceptable as primary or secondary sources, as they cannot be attributed properly and lack editorial oversight and fact-checking. More detailed discussion of what good sources are can be found at those pages as well. -Stellmach 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject: Computer and video games

Since everyone is bantering about "reliable citation" perhaps this is a good time to remind everyone that Wikipedia has encountered this stalemate before. Therefore, I would like to nominate that this game be included in the Computer and video games WikiProject. There are already many established articles that deal with "self-published" games with little or no historical significance (my opinion, of course), and considering the popularity and fanfare of the original game (Guitar Hero) I don't think it's a stretch to say this game should be included as well.

Let's focus on building and improving content on Wikipedia instead of deleting things just because a few people couldn't find an article about it in Wall Street Journal. Smidge204 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that it's self-published, and the WSJ thing is clearly a straw man. It's that nobody can thus far point to any source where an interested user could reliably verify any of this content. This isn't some technicality; it's one of the stated core principles of Wikipedia. That's the way the game is played in these parts.

If Frets on Fire must be significant because Guitar Hero is, then does the same apply to individual Elvis impersonators? The argument is specious.

By all means, let's focus on building and improving content on Wikipedia. Let's do it by posting content that can be appropriately cited. I fail to see why this should be so difficult. -Stellmach 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the difficulty lies in exactly what will qualify as a "reliable source" to cite. At best the reliability of any media is subjective, though I think we can agree that some sources are definitely better than others, but what's the cutoff? If you want to "reliably verify the content" of the article, I agree is the official page is likely not enough by itself... so what would be? Since you seem to know exactly how this article is lacking, perhaps you can offer a hint as to what you'd like to see instead of just saying "it doesn't meet the requirements."

Not that I have any vested interest in this article at all, but I see this kind of discussion happening in several places and I'm finally curious enough to try and pin down these types of claims. Statements like "multiple non-trivial published works" begs the question of what constitutes "non-trivial" work. (Edit: Signing in helps... Smidge204 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You presumably mean 'raises the question' not 'begs the question'.

Well, the short answer is "go read Wikipedia:Reliable sources; that's what it's there for." But lest that seem too dismissive...

There is no "cutoff." That's a fallacy of the excluded middle. As a practical matter, the standard is not objective: rather, article sources have to be convincing to whomever participates in the AfD discussion, should the article come up for one. The article will either survive the discussion or not, and the real question is how to build a good case for the former.

But if you want someplace to start, sources with any evidence of some sort of editorial oversight would certainly be a good place. Or in other words, can you look at the source and say "sure, but anybody could say that" or not? That's the problem with fan sites and blogs and such: nobody, as far as the reader can tell, has to convince a single other human being of their statement in order to make it. It's a pretty simple issue, really. -Stellmach 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The September issue of Pelit (the definitive Finnish gaming magazine) covered Frets on Fire. I can scan if you want. Please tell me that this is enough. --Kizor 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it would be Kirbysuperstar 12:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! -Stellmach 17:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it funny that after all this discussion last September, all these wiki freaks have to eat crow considering how popular FoF has become.