Talk:Gaijin Entertainment

Biased

This page is clearly written as a biased piece of advertising by a member of that company. Even worse, it is absolutely the same text which you can find on their website. As such, it should be wholesale edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.246.84 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with above. I'm going to flag this article (NPOV, cleanup/deletion?) in a few hours unless someone with more wiki-fu than I steps in and tells me not to. The only citations are one to the company itself's website providing evidence that the company is Russian, and then two links to the App Store pages for two of their products, which seem more like product placements than legitimate citations. sherpajack (talk ) 11:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

World of Planes...?

So... there's no mention of this?

http://worldofplanesgame.com/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.150.132 (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The game is not by Gaijin, why it should be mentioned here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.24.21.213 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no Logo?

Why is there no Logo? Please add one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.99.169 (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing infobox

Missing infobox wants to needed in this article. Add this please. Thank you. Bryancyriel (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section has no authoritative sources

I don't see any links to a real court there, maybe any proof that it is not just gaijin.com fantasy (except of so big blog, that it got a Wikipedia article on it)? This story looks like an attempt to get on Wikipedia by gaijin.com. Which court that was, when there was a process? Any authoritative sources to proof its historicity? Blogs alone (and this story proves only by 2 of them) are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Now all this section is only a spreading of dirty gossips. Please remove it or add necessary ground to the history. 20.05.2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources

Enough time passed, but still there are no authoritative sources, that mentioned controversy had a place, so I will remove that section. 14.06.2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.24.29.33 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Time" is not a factor. I've undone your edit; the sources link to primary sources (the complaints and legal documents themselves) and are thus secondary. Are you attempting to whitewash this article?--50.150.107.245 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

By 'time' I mean time for your reaction and providing sources up to Wikipedia standards. In this case - from outside of two blogs. Can you at least tell, which court it was? Maybe a source, where a scan of court decision with a stamp? It looks to me now, as if someone just want more presence in Wikipedia.

Please check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.24.20.4 (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The controversies section has again been deleted multiple times by anonymous authors, stating that the sources are not "authorative". I disagree, because TechDirt seems to be a popular, professional, independent source and the article seems to state nothing but facts. Wikipedia:Blogs as sources, which has been mentioned a few times, does not say that a blog is always a bad source, as mentioned at the top of the page: "Like any source, a blog may be appropriate to use as an article reference as long as certain conditions are met, some of which are specific to blogs." If you have another reason why TechDirt is a bad source, please mention it, but the fact that it is a blog is just not enough to mark it unreliable.

Besides that, there is a legal document on the TechDirt article. There are no court documents, because the case never was taken to court since it was settled outside of it, as you can read in the TechDirt article. -- Lonaowna (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if it was not even taken to a court, then all this section lacking any content. Even in the sources mentioned in the article. The sources are supposed to be from outside the web, blog article is fine as long as it can prove anything (by showing how something had placed outside the Internet). But if the controversy is that there was no lawsuit (a fact which is really hard to proof, because it is not a fact, something does not happen) then such section should be added everywhere in Wikipedia.

name dispute is unnessary information

the links are from a podcast site and a blog which are not allowed as sourced material for verification. Also why does it matter? The case is settled, in wikipedia stuff like this is unnecessary information. Imagine if every companys articles have stuff like that added about domain cases? This is unnecessary information added probably by the site owner himself from Gaijin.com (the Gaijin about the Japanese topic).--Crossswords (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Crosswords: first-off, you should read WP:BRD and WP:3RR. To summarise them for you; when there is a dispute over a change the expected behaviour is to revert back to the status quo and discuss it. Not to revert back to the status quo, wait a few weeks until you hope people have gone away, and then revert the revert. Consider yourself warned; we will discuss this and if we cannot resolve it the default will stay around and if we can resolve it then great, but if you continue to engage in a slow-burning edit war my next venue is the administrators' noticeboard.

Second: It's not "a podcast site and a blog"; Techdirt is a news site so popular for technology news we have a Wikipedia article on it. The case is indeed settled, but things being historical does not make them irrelevant; literally everything possibly on Wikipedia is in some way historical. If every company had issued unfounded and ludicrous lawsuits I would indeed expect it to be in every article.

If you have evidence that the information was added by the website owner I would like you to present it. If you do not, you are making unfounded allegations about a living person (which is thoroughly not cricket) and a fellow Wikipedian, to boot. Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

look at my editing history, you wont see me editing within a week anything else because i actually have work and other activities in my life over wikipedia. And yes its allowed to edit after a week or more.

http://www.gaijin.com/2014/01/not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/ you even havent read the article, the source is by the Gaijin.com owner. its not reliable source--Crossswords (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note how I said "slow-burning edit war" not "3 reverts in 24 hours". Please try to maintain some professional decorum; implying that I do not have work and other activities to occupy my time is unnecessarily snarky (and also really inaccurate).

On the sources, I was pointing you to TechDirt. Which is a source and is a reliable source. If you want to remove information attributed solely to the source blog, go right ahead, but I suspect "they issued a ludicrous lawsuit according to techdirt" is not a substantial improvement over "they issued a ludicrous lawsuit and lost". Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And based on your recent edit (what did you mean by "flaming", and you know "bold" is not an insult, right?) I'm going to take you to the noticeboards, as I warned you that I would do. Ironholds (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Need a Star Conflict page.

Wiki really does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryKernow (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaijin Entertainment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20150204101753/http://www.bladesoftime.com/ to http://www.bladesoftime.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Gaijin Entertainment exists? Where? In all documents with users as representative company is only Gaijin Network Ltd. , not Gaijin Entertainment.

https://gaijinent.com/en/b/privacypolicy 1. DATA CONTROLLER Data controller means the legal person which determines the purposes and means of the processing of user data. Controller’s name: Gaijin Network Ltd. Address: Kyriakou Matsi, 10 Liliana Building, 2nd floor Office 203, PC 1082 Nicosia, Cyprus E-mail: privacy@gaijin.net

https://gaijinent.com/en/b/eula This Electronic End User License Agreement (the “Agreement”) is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or an entity), (the “Licensee”), and Gaijin Network Ltd. (address: Kyriakou Matsi, 10 Liliana Building, 2nd floor Office 203, PC 1082 Nicosia, Cyprus) (the “Gaijin”), regarding the game you are currently playing (the “Game”) and the related software that you about to download, downloaded, or otherwise obtained through Gaijin’s services or though a network in object code form including without limitation (a)

https://gaijinent.com/en/b/termsofuse THIS IS AN AGREEMENT GOVERNING YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GAIJIN NETWORK LTD (ADDRESS: KYRIAKOU MATSI, 10 LILIANA BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR OFFICE 203, PC 1082 NICOSIA, CYPRUS) (“GAIJIN”) AND USE OF GAIJIN’S SERVICES (AS SUCH TERM DEFINED BELOW) AVAILABLE ON GAIJIN.NET AND GAIJIN'S DOMAINS INCLUDED WITHIN THIS SITE PROVIDED TO YOU BY GAIJIN (“SITE”). YOU MAY USE THIS SITE AND/OR THE SERVICES ONLY ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU ACCEPT ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN. PLEASE READ THESE TERMS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS SITE AND SERVICES. USING THIS SITE AND/OR SERVICES INDICATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS (“TERMS OF USE”), DO NOT USE THIS SITE AND/OR SERVICE. You may receive a copy of these Terms of Use by contacting Gaijin at: legals@gaijinent.com.

2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20170531095140/http://gaijinent.com:80/en/about Gaijin Entertainment is the largest independent video game developer in Russia. Founded in 2002, we employ more than 150 people primarily in our offices in Russia and Germany, consisting of industry thought leaders and highly qualified specialists.

2019 https://gaijinent.com/en/about Gaijin Entertainment is an independent video game developer. https://efiling.drcor.mcit.gov.cy/DrcorPublic/SearchResults.aspx?name=Gaijin+Network&number=%25&searchtype=optStartMatch&index=1&tname=%25&sc=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.121.77 (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Founding Location Edit Suspicious

The edit to change the founding location removes a link to a now deleted article from the same site as the new one. This change was made during active controversy SerialElf (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is the same (https://www.igromania.ru/article/29694/15_let_Gaijin_Entertainment_Put_ot_Bumera_Sorvannye_bashni_do_War_Thunder.html) as it was here before, but it never contained a founding location in the first place, only the year. Teena3D (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

and I obviosly removed this baseless Belarus edit. Teena3D (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Founding Location Source Points to Null Page

The citation is unchanged and leads to a no article landing page — Preceding unsigned comment added by SerialElf (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Add Russian roots!

The company was founded in Russia and HQ was in Moscow! It is completely left out! 82.131.58.24 (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Further, the times when they started to de-Russify are tangled. War Thunder was launched in late 2013, so if the German office was founded in 2012 it cannot have been "after the successful launch". The only citation for the 2012 date is the Terms of Service which do not appear to say anything on the subject in their current form. BruceR (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Also why are we suddenly privileging a new article from this week with a "not long after that" vague statement over the company's own website (see link above) which said it was still the "largest independent video game developer in Russia" in 2017? BruceR (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It clearly states under the History section, "Gaijin Entertainment was founded in Russia in 2002 by Anton and Kirill Yudintsev..." - I'm not sure how much more explicit you want the roots to be. I was perfectly fine with saying "European" as was on the page for a while since they have offices and employees all over Europe. HarryKernow (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Gaijin has two websites?

Hi. According to this article, https://gaijinent.com is the official website of Gaijin. If you go to https://gaijinent.com/game/warthunder, there's a big red "play for free!" button. When you click that button, it takes you to https://warthunder.com. Then, on that website, when you click on the logo in the top left, it takes you to https://gaijin.net, so I'm assuming both https://gaijinent.com and https://gaijin.net are official. Shouldn't that be added to this article? IdfbAn (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Gaijin.net is the Gaijin.net service website (their store and game distribution platform). 87.228.176.40 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Probable AI generation

This article's current revision is probably AI generated, should it be rewritten? Sangsangaplaz (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Words like notoriety are placed in such a way that is very similar to AI generation of ChatGPT, also the fact that the last paragraph talks about the current day is a bit suspicious along with use of a 'On/At (date) format. The latter two points are not suspicious on their own though. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That phrase about "notoriety" dates back to at least 2016 and hasn't been changed since then.

AI writes like real people do, that's normal. 46.188.48.118 (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"AI likes like normal people do."is a controversial statement but okay, so which revision was that part added? Sangsangaplaz (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)