Talk:Left 4 Dead 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Locking

Due to the very large amount of vandalism I would recommend that this article be locked under semi-protection --Amckern (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

i agree, it needs to be locked. Ive attempted to correct it atleast twice in the past 10 minutes (Mr. Bellcaptain (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Normally I would request it (as I'm involved), but the IPs are moving too fast. Semi'd for a week. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ME argee... P.S You should also lock the Left 4 Dead article too.--Woad85 (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Darn It

Someone beat me to making the template for the ACTUAL details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.28.237 (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Box Art

They might have to change that box art in the UK. The V sign is a rude hand gesture. Mylakovich (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a V sign, it's a 2...since it's a sequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.60.171 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a 2 sign, however, the gesture of making a 2 sign (V sign in that same fashion) in the UK is the equivelant of flipping someone off in the United States.

Indeed. But this is not pertinent to the article here. Dp76764 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost any position the fingers are in, it will be offensive in some country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.144.59 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Prices estimation (Amazon.com)

Possible future L4D2 prices could be (Amazon.com) :

• Xbox 360 = 60 USD/€
• PC = 50 USD/€

Amazon.com prices --90.55.62.2 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Prices are generally not listed in Wikipedia articles. DP76764 (Talk) 23:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Community Reaction

Perhaps something needs to be added about the overwhelmingly negative community reaction. Including the tidal wave of rage on the Steam forums, and the boycott L4D2 steam group which has amassed 2,000 members in 24h... 59.167.191.106 (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you find a reliable source discussing it? DP76764 (Talk) 23:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=885287

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=883767

Not sure if those count as "reliable sources". But they're the biggest threads on there so far. 474 / 176 replies respectively. But there's another 600 threads or so with two dozen replies to them discussing it.

The first post in the first link seems to sum up the general consensus on the Steam forums pretty well. 59.167.191.106 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I linked the policy for you to read. Forum posts do not qualify as reliable sources. DP76764 (Talk) 01:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Find something on gamespot, ugo, or such that in turn links to the forums, and you should be ok with posting the 'news site' - even if they have something listed on the PHL site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amckern (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Would any of these qualify?

http://www.newgamenetwork.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=179

http://www.gamerstyle.com/left-4-dead-fans-angry-at-valve-over-l4d2

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/47888/Angry-Steam-Users-Form-Left-4-Dead-2-Boycott-Group

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92174-Valve-Fans-Form-Left-4-Dead-2-Boycott-Group 59.167.191.106 (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The newgamenetwork.com and escapistmagazine.com articles look good. The other two seem a little dubious. DP76764 (Talk) 05:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the news based on the Escapist reference; it's sufficiently reliable to include this. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of small phrasing tweaks to the statement, in an attempt to have it sound more along the lines of what the 'manifesto' is trying to express. Thoughts? DP76764 (Talk) 15:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I discovered RPS had a reply on the issue from Doug Lombardi, so this is also added. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, just a couple of things about the "Development" section. "...in the form of a Steam community." should read "in the form of a Steam community group". Also, the article mentions that the group speculates that Valve began work on L4D2 immediately after L4D1, which has already been confirmed by Valve in the Doug Lombardi interview. They found that the best way to roll out the new ideas for the game was to simply make a sequel as it wouldn't fit into standard releases of DLC. Baraqyal (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that while noting how big this anti-L4D2 group has gotten is reasonable, this is far from what we would call a "controversy". It's a bunch of pissed-off players, but don't see anyone in the media raising it to that bar. We should still include comments as appropriate, but let's not make it out for larger than what it is unless it drastically alters Valve's plans. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of the boycott seems to be getting more and more biased. As mentioned by Masem it is hardly a unilateral boycott by the fans, and yet the Development entry reads less as a list of the games development and more as a manifesto for the boycott, including reference to how they can be found and joined. Whilst mention of the event is acceptable, surely the specifics are of no encyclopaedic relevance, and merely advancing an opinion? MGODP1 (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The current version is pretty much my text, and I believe it is a fair coverage; yes, it's ordered a little differently, but it presents Valve's side and the fans' side roughly equality with the weight that it should be given (that it, it has been covered by gaming sources, but this is a far cry from a Million Man March or the like). I felt it was necessary to state other factors that the boycott group mentioned without getting too much into their list. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with MGODP1 that the boycott group is being given more importance than it deserves. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MGODP1 as well, this boycott is insignificant and deserves no mention here. PJthePlayer (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno man, the group has 27,000+ members so far so I'd say they weight in rather substantially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.178.246 (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Joystiq & Promised DLC for orginal

There are several articles on l4d2 at joystiq. One of theme covers the negative community feed back. We should also mention that The original l4d was supposed to be supported with dlc like tf2 was. Several people are quoting gabe newwell on this in the official steam fourms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawanka (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 June 2009

but there was DLC with the original L4D Hervegirod (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean the quote with one of the people that work at valve. They sayd they would up date it like tf2 would instead of making sequals... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.137.178 (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2009

They never said "instead of making sequels", and they HAVE updated L4D, and it sounds like they're going to update it more. Anyway, TF2's updates have only recently given it a comparable number of maps to the number that L4D launched with. Not to mention that TF2 maps are smaller and simpler than L4D maps. But this is irrelevant - talk pages are not forums. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead Authoriting Tool?

Any thoughts on a section or seperate article on the Left 4 Dead Authoriting Tool (SDK) referenced in the related pages? It may be of interest for the original and the upcoming sequel. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The authoring tool is the Source SDK, packaged with each Source game ever released. There is an article about that, and Valve has an entire wiki about it. --Gert7 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind :( --Gert7 (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Jack

I do not believe this at all, but I'd like some confirmation. An unreliable source told be that the guy in the white suit was originally going to be the legendary Chicago Jack. Is this true or is it just a bunch of infected lies and broken dreams? 67.149.207.52 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for discussion about trivia. You should try a fan or Steam forum instead. This page is for discussing improvements to this article. DP76764 (Talk) 17:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Who the hells Chicago Jack? Don't you mean Chicago Ted which is from graffiti in L4D "No zombie is safe from Chicago Ted." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.36.94 (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No announced publisher at the moment

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1138

Shack: EA Partners helped publish the first Left 4 Dead, but yesterday's announcement didn't mention any publishing partner. Who's publishing?
Doug Lombardi: We haven't announced it yet.
Shack: But there is a publisher?
Doug Lombardi: There will be before we ship.

Valve are big fans of EA as a retail publishing partner so it's likely they will be but we can't put that in the article Skeith (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The boycott section seems pretty biased

But I don't know quite how to rephrase it. Should probably be rewritten to be shorter and to the point or removed entirely and just put a paragraph somewhere about it. Smurfy 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As the one that wrote it and trying to avoid bias (note: I've no opinion in the overall matter), I think the current approach is as best as possible at the present time. The boycott group has been described in reliable sources, so technically at this time, ignoring it wold be bad. Now, say 6 months from now and L4D2 is out on shelves and the boycott group is nowhere to be seen, then yes, I'd completely wipe out their paragraph and reduce some of that to a one sentence "After E3, there was some complaints about the timing". But right now, this could go either way - no impact all the way to "egg on Valve's face". But I'd certainly think within a month we can re-evaluate this and see where it stands. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

i dont see why the group it's self can not be the source, its the most accurate and its a primary source Jalex3 (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The group is inherently not reliable, and thus should not be used as its own source. --MASEM (t) 11:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The group itself does not have control over the number you see here (white font, beside the group avatar); Steam counts it for them, and wouldn't that be a reliable secondary source for a statistic? —LOL ^T/_C 04:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Direct statistics for page views or membership numbers should come from a secondary source to establish why that number is important. Both the group and Steam's numbers are primary sources for this. It's important that other groups consider a number in the 10,000s is "critical" for discussion. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be a notability issue instead of a reliability one, right? If so, then I understand. —LOL ^T/_C 04:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it won't become biased if there's coverage or mention of "anti-boycott groups"? Anybody got a reliable source for that one? — Blue。 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know (or aware of) any anti-boycott groups, but we'd need coverage of them as well. The opposing viewpoint here is really Valve's stance, and if this should just be an footnote when the game is out, the Valve paragraph in the Boycott section is still good development information, once you strip out the "in response to complaints" part. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the "L4D2 Enthusiasts" Steam group created "in response to the L4D 2 Boycott group, becuase[sic] alot of people were against their oppinions[sic]". It's got some coverage from certain sites such as here and here, but that's about all I could find about them. — Blue。 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This section also needs to be rewritten. The manifesto of the boycott group now does not mention any complaints about inappropriate content, it focuses on the fact that this content was promised in the original L4D as DLC. To say that the group noted the changes in the visuals etc. is misrepresenting the group, as these are not the reasons for the boycott. Contributions/93.97.73.39 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the parts that are no longer part of the manifesto, but they still worry about lack of L4D1 content and the community fracture. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this section should be either removed entirely or re-written. It is biased.PJthePlayer (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see that too. Needs to be re-written or removed entirely. I say removed entirely until the release of L4D2 to see if the boycott even affected L4D2, which so far seems like nothing.Napalmdest55 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Survivors' Names

I think some of the survivors' names may be inaccurate.--173.25.42.122 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

PS3 version

While it may appear on EA's page that a PS3 version is expected, this conflicts directly with statements from E3 and its only PC and 360, and that Valve plans on skipping the PS3 again this time (Orange Box was ported by EA). We need a statement from EA or Valve that a PS3 version is coming and why, not just a listing for it as such listings may be wrong. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why EA want to port PS3 version?--Woad85 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

^Because they did it for Orange Box and they are Valve's publishing partner. The fact that they even edited the placeholder box with the PS3 logo, demonstrating intent and premeditation shows that the webmasters clearly knew what they were doing. Make no mistake about it. 118.92.158.204 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Valve responds to the boycott group + more

Bookmarking to be added in (I will try to do so soon) [1]. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New box Art released

Valve has released a new Box Art for L4D2, they made it a lot more yellowish. I would like to upload it, but unfortunately I don't know which license to use. Could someone upload and update the Wikipedia page? Because the current one's outdated. Here's the box art, I've cut it out so only the art itsself is on the picture: http://img3.imagebanana.com/img/8v45o36/Left4DeadCover_new_july09.jpg. The image originally looked like that: http://www.hlportal.de/?site=image&do=showimage&image_id=28353 (Sorry for the German source, other news sites probably havn't seen it yet, because Valve didn't announce the change, but if there are some editors around here, check out the Valve FTP, there's an Art Box folder where this updated coverfile file can be found in.) Ultio (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see at least some confirmation in English that this is it. You're probably right, in the long run. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand you fully, as I said, the problem is that Valve didn't announce it. I'm editor at HLPortal.de, which is the biggest German news site about Valve and their products. When we received the press mail about the new released screenshot of "Swamp Fever", a collegue of mine coincidentally saw that they replaced the old cover files with that new cover. I guess the other news sites either don't have access to the Valve FTP or just didn't see it. Maybe I'm just gonna contact a few English speaking gaming news sites and tell them that Valve has made a new cover for the game. Ultio (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Amazon has the new cover now as well: http://www.amazon.com/Left4Dead-2-Xbox-360/dp/B002BRZ852/ref=pd_bxgy_vg_img_a I think that's prove enough. Regards Ultio (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the yellow version is also on the Steamstore: http://store.steampowered.com/app/550/ Could someone please update the cover now? Regards Ultio (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also shows up on Amazon. New version uploaded. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Play.com and Amazon.co.uk have a different version than that. -- I need a name (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect (but we need to have a reliable source on that) that the US version - which has the two fingers in a V shape witht he back of the hand to the cover - can be taken as a vuglur insult in the UK, and thus the change to reverse the facing of the hand. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• laughs* Yes, the index and middle finger sticking up is a sort of 'up yours' statement in the UK. Pity. I liked the original version (before the fingers were bent back). Oh, well. PC Gamer was right when they suggested that the box art might be changed. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Boycott information

I move forward that the boycott information be removed from the Left 4 Dead 2 page at the bottom. Not only does that section contradict itself when it states that the preorders for Left 4 Dead 2 have already doubled those of Left 4 Dead, but the boycott has failed. Sales figures are more important than opinions of a boycott. There are hundreds of petitions online against certain products, yet wikipedia does not make a section for them or link to them, so why start now? Anyone else wish this information to be removed? Napalmdest55 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I second this motion. I feel that the Boycott is insignificant, as it has had no impact on either the release date, nor the preorders of L4D2. Also, the membership of the group has peaked. This passage should be removed. PJthePlayer (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The boycott has been reported in reliable sources (thus surpassing the typical standard for internet petitions), and has forced Valve to explain their rationale for why they are releasing the sequel a year after the first. Just because it hasn't impacted the game in any way is not a reason not to talk about it. Now, that said, when the game is released and there's nothing else to be said on the boycott (maybe they dissappate), then we can cut down the section to a few lines, but for right now this is sourced information that helps to fill out an article. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Many things are reported by "reliable sources" that are not worth mentioning on this article. This Boycott, I feel, is one of them. As of right now, it takes up a large part of L4D2's page, and gives the boycott much more precedence than it deserves. While the boycott group may have 37000 users, the preorders of L4D2 have more than doubled that of the first game. The large majority of people disagree with this boycott.PJthePlayer (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but those reports were hyped up, they sort of made the boycott more famous than what it really was. I mean you don't hear much about it anyway, and of course the sales figures can not lie. The boycott is very small in numbers, to be called a boycott. I bet more people won't but L4D2 because their computers can't run it than not buying it for the reason of boycotting the game. Napalmdest55 (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also it's noteworthy to mention that these so called "Boycotters" signed no legal documents saying that they would not purchase the game. I predict that a large number of them will in fact buy the game.PJthePlayer (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And where is this "large majority"? Oh, did you mean the 40,000 people who are now in the Left 4 Dead 2 boycott? Because that's the only clear proponent I see taking a stand and making a word here out of criticism. As such, it is more than noticeable when it is addressed by Valve and dozens of other media outlets, such as G4, destructiod.com, and Game Informer. It's obviously noticeable to stir reaction from them and it should not be removed simply because you feel as if sales figures outnumber the voice of 40,000 people. A preorder is not a word of outspoken protest against the boycott, neither is the silence from many others who have the original game. Anyone knows that only a fraction of the people who buy the game ever actually speak up about it in public and that fraction of the community is certainly becoming quite the majority when the peaking number of players in a day for Left 4 Dead tops at 20,000 players--only HALF of the number of people in the boycott.

At best the section does need to be reduced, perhaps to a paragraph, but to remove it simply because you have an agenda to remove it is not a legitimate reason, especially considering how noticeable it is. 98.244.243.96 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no agenda to have it removed, besides the fact that it is clearly biased and not noteworthy. There is no need to get angry with me about this. I realize that you wrote this article and you seem to be taking personal offense to my declaring of it as non noteworthy and biased. I realize you tried your best, but this article needs to be rewritten entirely or removed.PJthePlayer (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The section about the boycotting should be removed until there is more concrete evidence that it will even affect the game. Valve will still release it, they have always promised content for all of their games. Left 4 Dead 1 will be no exception to their promises. At this point there is no way to judge if it affected it, only how it did not affect it. Preorders doubled, proving that more people are interested in the game. I am buying Left 4 Dead 2, but have not preordered, so the amount of people buying in total will be very large Napalmdest55 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I have not preordered either. The sales for this game are going to be huge, and I doubt this boycott will have any effect whatsoever on it, as is evidenced by the already skyrocketing preorder numbers.PJthePlayer (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK so far we have two people wanting it removed, one person wanting it rewritten or "consolidated," and one wanting no action.PJthePlayer (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It did get noticeable media coverage. Resident Evil 5 got media coverage over what they charged as racism. It did not affect the game's contents, but the reaction to a game is real-world content. An article would kill to have real-world content besides development and reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First, a few minor arguments: this discussion makes it sound like the pre-order figures are a testament to the boycott's failure, but who knows if the number would've tripled or quadrupled had the boycott not existed? It was also said that the article "contradict[s] itself when it states that the preorders for Left 4 Dead 2 have already doubled those of Left 4 Dead", but the "contradict[ion]" is actually an attempt to maintain a neutral point of view by taking both sides; an actual contradiction would exist if the section were to claim that the boycott would cause less users to pre-order the sequel. The section doesn't come off as "clearly biased" to me because, with the exception of the first sentence, the entire first paragraph is Valve's rebuttal, as well as the latter half of the second paragraph. Yes, the section makes up one third of the article's words, but the majority of the section covers anti-boycott actions by Valve.

Now, more importantly: because of Wikipedia's no original research policy, it's not our job to analyze the significance of the boycott, synthesize conclusions based on the pre-order performance, hypothesize about how many of the boycotters will purchase the game, measure how much we hear about it these days, or interpolate the hype of the reports. We leave those to reliable sources to state explicitly, so until we find one that says that the boycott was a failure, I don't see the complete removal of the section. PJ, if it's true that there are "[m]any things are reported by 'reliable sources' that are not worth mentioning on this article", it'd be great if you could list some of them. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and nobody can say that this article is 100% complete. If anybody plans to question my motives—even though that would be bad practice)—please keep in mind that I've written virtually none of the article's content and that all of my edits to this article are copyedits or reversions justified by consensus or vandalism removal. And just fyi, Wikipedia doesn't make decisions directly according to the number of users who endorse proposal A or B (WP:VOTE), so we don't have to keep track of who wants what and such. —LOL ^T/_C 09:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the content in that section is currently quite well balanced. It mentions the boycott movement and provides reliable third-party discussion on the topic. It also mentions preorder figures. Thus it shows both sides of the situation. Whether the boycott affects sales or not is irrelevant - that the boycott movement was large enough to accrue reporting shows that it is important to the game's pre-release. Keep in mind that after the game is released, the significance of the boycott may be re-evaluated and the section shortened. Please refrain from disruptive reverts, edit-warring and blanking sections until more people have weighed in on this matter. I'm sure this page is watched by many, give them some time to have their say. BlazerKnight (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with virtually everything you say, I am in fact giving a large amount of time for people to weigh in, which is why I haven't edited the article yet. 98.26.157.181 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider looking in (and without prejudice to the IP, PJ, or Napalm), LOL is correct in saying that whether or not the boycott backfired is immaterial for several reasons: For one, we aren't to judge such, and one can argue that the boycott's press is driving up preorders just because it's press (the old maxim "There's no such thing as bad press" definitely applies here). Second, even if it did backfire, the boycott has reliable sources to back it up (mainly in reaction to same from Valve), which generally means it's noteworthy enough to add to the article regardless of its effect. Third, the section is, for the most part, as balanced as it can be (I feel it's a bit too biased in covering Valve's reactions, but that's just me). All in all, I'd say removing the boycott section (at least at this point in time) would end up doing more harm to the article than good. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

By that same logic, I could post something on the article, like, say, my own personal gameplay statistics, and that would be fine. While it's completely insignificant, and most users wouldn't care about it, it could be backed up by a reliable source (Steam's stat tracking), and pertains to the topic. With the inclusion of every single detail that can be backed up by a reliable source, the article will eventually be bulky and full of useless, unimportant facts.PJthePlayer (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not how notability and reliable souring works, so your argument is invalid. DP76764 (Talk) 02:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that proves my arguement. The L4D2 Boycott, in my opinion, does not meet the notability requirements. That's what me and a few others have been saying all along. PJthePlayer (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How does that prove your argument? As another user already pointed out, big media outlets (that are independent of the subject) such as G4 and Game Informer have been covering the boycott. How many of them cover your personal stats? Reliable sources are only part of notability. —LOL ^T/_C 03:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look above, at the Community Reaction section. Many people agree with me. As you said, the boycott may have been mentioned by reliable sources, but it lacks notability. PJthePlayer (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have looked into some of the references used for the boycott section, and I believe that the boycott falls under the No Original Research Rule, which states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." Well according to the first source under the boycott section (linked too http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3174667 ), the reasons for the boycott are as follows:

"

1. Significant content for L4D1 was promised, and never delivered

2. Valve put little faith in L4D1 since they almost certainly started working on L4D2 right after release

3. The fact that L4D2 is nearly identical to L4D1 will decimate the community for both games

4. The announced date is not nearly enough time to polish content or make significant gameplay changes

5. The new character designs seem bland and unappealing so far

6. L4D2 is too bright to fit in with L4D1's visual aesthetic

7. The fiddle-based horde music is extremely disliked, though the differently orchestrated music is otherwise welcome

8. L4D2's release will result in a drop in quality and frequency for L4D1 content, even compared to before

9. The community has lost faith in Valve's former reputation for commitment to their games post-release

"

Now all of those reasons for the boycott, at least to me, seem to fall under personal opinion, argument, and ideas. Those are strictly listed under No Original Research. If the entire point of the boycott is behind those reasons, which fall under No Original Research rule, then the boycott itself must not be mentioned in the article, as it is original research. Napalmdest55 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That guideline does not behind OTHERS' original research. It only applies to us. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK that makes no sense. So I can go make whatever I want, so long as I am not a member of Wikipedia, and then reference it later? What makes the research of Wiki members worth less than the research of everyone else? Either it should apply to that boycott group, or it's a bogus rule. (Unfounded accusations removed by Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)}) PJthePlayer (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain it, then: Wikipedia:No original research prevents us editors from extrapolating sources, concocting information based upon what we know of or how we perceive the information and the circumstances around it. It does not preclude us from using information from opinionated (though still knowledgeable) experts in the field who are regularly published in respectable publications. Likewise, if an expert in the field who has commented upon the boycott were to edit the boycott section, they'd be obligated to let us know or risk being blocked. Deception is not a good idea.

Next, reliable sources. Take this to heart, not because I'm an administrator (I'll point out you were blocked over my objections) but because understanding this very simple point will earn you far less enemies than being stubborn: Reliable sources are publications/websites from organizations with a good record of editorial oversight and fact-checking (such as Game Informer) or journalists/experts/people known in the field who are routinely published by same publications or websites (i.e. Matt Casamassina). Steam wouldn't qualify as a reliable source unless we were at Steam (content delivery). VALVe's higher-ups would be.

I also feel obligated to warn you you're stepping very close into accusing people of conflating RL with WP, which requires extraordinary evidence to prove. Redact the postulation above, PJ, or I will do it for you and drag you to AN/I in the process. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Was going to respond, but Jeske said everything I was going to but better. Though I have to add that you should totally assume good faith. We have not accused you of favouritism towards L4D2, so we expect the same respect. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV Dispute to the boycott section. This tag should remain until an agreement can be reached on how to handle this article. PJthePlayer (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's really no disputing the POV; that is, from what I've seen, the only dispute is whether it should exist. It is NPOV if it presents itself in a neutral way, no matter the subject or how the subject slants. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Haven't actually had a chance to read it yet, but I believe that we should keep at least some mention of the boycott. If I get a chance to read it, I'll update my comment. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned above, as with others in the section on the talk page dedicated to the section being biased, there are those that believe it is. I am one of them. I think it should either be removed till after the release of Left 4 Dead 2 so we dont have to speculate on its actual importance or re written as it biased towards the boycott. Have it say "Announcement and boycott" makes it seem the boycott was huge and warrants the text in a large section and beside Announcement. To note announcement of such a hugely popular game beside that of its small boycott, is very large. Is it speculative of us to mention the boycott even before that of the so called boycotted product release, I believe so. Also Jeremy, please do not talk about accusations to alot of people. Remember you accused PJ and I of being the same person. In Good Faith Napalmdest55 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Napalm, that was before you provided your evidence otherwise. I've already apologized to PJ for the cockup; now let me apologize to you for it. The difference between PJ's accusation and mine is that I had plenty of evidence that suggested you two were sockpuppets, whereas PJ's just throwing darts in a dark room and hoping to hit a photo.

Having said that, there's no bias in the Announcement and Boycott section because it has already been established that (α) Reliable sources have commented on it and (β) Valve has responded to the concerns. If there's any bias, it's too much Valve in the boycott section. This section is sourced and surprisingly neutral; there's no reason to get rid of it.-Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not speculative to call the boycott notable. Has it been mentioned in numerous reliable sources? Yes. As such, it is notable. We needn't wait for its release. And I'm not sure what makes it biased. Someone explained why it was not biased, so could you please counter this so I may have better elaboration? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NARH, you're confusing Lucas with Ness. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I feel that having the NPOV dispute tag on the article helps a lot. It warns people to take this information with a grain of salt. However, I doubt there will ever be a consensus on this matter, especially considering the hostile attitudes of my opponents. According to Wikipedia rules, that means the tag should remain indefinitely. PJthePlayer (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You called us your "opponents". That sounds pretty hostile to me. And if you can't provide a reason to take this information with a grain of salt, why should the tag remain? You've not shown that the section is slanted in favour of the boycott, so I'm confused as to where the POV is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is interesting, if that people are saying that we shouldn't speculate and not publish speculation. The entire platform the boycott stands on is based on speculation and biased opinions. The reasons for their boycott, also listed above do not warrant their inclusion into this. It is just a group of people with a similar opinion on left 4 dead 2, why should they be mentioned. Also the boycott information is too large, maybe shortened or moved to a separate page. As for details on left 4 dead 2 boycott you can read http://www.zmogo.com/video-games/will-the-left-4-dead-boycott-survive/ , the site goes into more detail about the arguments the boycott pose. Napalmdest55 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, us editors cannot publish our own speculations. Read. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a NPOV dispute... me and many others feel the section about the boycott is in fact biased. On the Wikipedia NPOV page, it states that if there are people who feel the article is biased, it more than likely IS biased, and NPOV dispute tag should remain until a consensus can be reached. Also, "new age retro," I didn't necessarily intend to include you in that group of "opponents." There have been a few specific users that seem to have a vendetta against me. PJthePlayer (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because we disagree with you does not mean the section is biased, and taking a hostile attitude towards editors on this page will just result in more heartache. Unless you can give me one good reason to keep the POV tag on a neutral section, I'm going to remove the tag. It has no merit whatsoever. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith here. Jeremy, please read the entire sections again on the talk page. I believe you have mistakingly missed some that point out how this section is biased. Read and post back here when you have done so, I rather discuss this than having people start another Revert War. Napalmdest55 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(Re-indent) Only you and PJ have made any claim to bias in the section. I've read the section, it's neutral as can be. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag itself says "Please do not remove this tag until the dispute is resolved." Well this dispute is most certainly not resolved, so the tag should remain. There are other users who claim the exact same thing, check the community reaction section as well. There's even a section above us that says "The Boycott section seems pretty biased." PJthePlayer (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What dispute?! That's a fragging POV tag; there's no demonstrable POV there now, one and a half months after the last thread! There's no reason for there to BE a POV tag on that section any longer! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is that I, as well as Napalmdest, and a few others, feel that the article is biased. As long as there are Wiki members that feel the section is biased, it should be marked to reflect that. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Baloney! You need to prove the section is biased, which you have failed to do. The section is very much unbiased; the only bias that exists is what you manufacture in your minds. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy please calm down, all of those exclamation points within your reply make your response seem hostile, but I am assuming good faith here again. Jeremy according to the other section in the talk page "10: The boycott section seems pretty biased". Also when you say "I've read the section, it's neutral as can be." you sound as if your opinion is the only one that matters. Please be neutral about this. There are plenty of others that can have input in here, and the banner needs to stay for that reason. When a consensus can be had, according to the wikipedia guidelines and policies, we can put this behind us. Until then, the banner needs to stay. Napalmdest55 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So Jeremy, now you're resulting to insults. Please read the NPOV article. Both Napalm and I feel the section is biased, which is reason enough for that tag to remain. You seem to fancy yourself a supreme authority on this matter, so I must remind you that you are in fact only one person. I am one person, and Napalm is as well... a fact you seemed to have a hard time grasping earlier. Our opinions should weigh equally on this matter. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who believes the section is neutral; LOL and the Earthbound enemy seem to believe the same thing. Only you and PJ are the ones who think it's not. It's not an insult if it's demonstrably true. Also, that section is from June and appears to have been addressed. Side note: AN/I thread. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank for that link. It helped put some things in perspective. Why did you say this on that page? "Could I get some help instilling these users with some clue? I have the patience of a saint with most users, but this is just willful ignorance and lawyering, and I'm about ready to blow my top.?" When clearly that falls under Meat Puppets, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets Napalmdest55 (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I does not handle content disputes, Napalm, only conduct disputes. The users from there will not get involved in this dispute except to do what I seem to have failed to do myself - explain the rules in such a manner that they're unambiguous. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No Jeremy, what's insulting is that you said we "manufactured" the bias in our heads. We have nothing to gain from the removal or re-writing of this section, and we are entitled to our opinions. It seems strange to me that the majority of people defending this article are admins. Having administrator priviledges should not give you any more authority on this issue than a standard wikipedia issue. It's supposed to be a debate. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All editors, administrators included, are permitted to give their views on a topic, but if they do so they can't take administrative actions (blocks, page protections) to defend their preferred version. And I stand by what I said - the only POV I see in the article is coming from you slapping on the POV tag, not from the article text itself. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hate to say it, PJ, but you two have. You've done very little to demonstrate an actual bias in the section, but are rather aying that the section being present is in itself bias towards the boycott, and this is simply not true. You must focus solely on the content of the section and not the section itself. Similarly, a section in the Holocaust article may have a section about its validity without it being biased as long as it presents itself with a neutral point of view. All that matters is that one side is not given favour unless there are reliable sources to dispute them, and the boycott section is completely neutral, at no point saying that the boycott is a good idea, nor saying that anything of what the boycotters say is true. It even presents statements from the developers of Left 4 Dead 2 that seek to show that the boycott is unnecessary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so by that rule you would not be able to block me or protect the page. That's probably the only reason I haven't been blocked yet I suspect. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to block users who are this aggressively clueless unless they become active disruptions, which you two aren't. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As an admin, I'd think it would be your responsibility to describe whatever it is you feel we are "clueless" about, instead of insulting us. And people wonder why I called you hostile. You seem to have some anger management issues, which makes me suspect several things. I won't mention those until I have gathered sufficient evidence, however. Anyway, since you're so keen on linking to wiki rules, here's one for you : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks PJthePlayer (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jeremy, I see you re-removed the tag. Is this not edit warring? Administrators in the wiki chat have told me if the tag was removed a second time to issue the offender a warning for the removal of maintenance tags. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This coming from someone who accused Masem and other editors of conflating the boycott with Wikipedia's coverage thereof. We are not Igor and Grichka.

And I keep removing the tag because the dispute isn't about point of view; it's about two people who don't think the boycott worked trying to remove the section under any means. Which leads me to believe you haven't read anything I've said in the past hour of arguing. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have stated, countless times by now, that I feel the article is biased. Napalm feels the same way. I see nothing listed on the NPOV page about how many users need to feel the section is biased to warrant a NPOV dispute tag. The article is biased, it might as well be a recruitment flyer for the boycott group. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How the frag can that section be a recruitment for the boycott? That's like saying I enjoy cheese because I sleep in a bed! There is no way that section can be a recruitment tool! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been duly noted that you do not feel that way, Jeremy, but others do. What annoys me is that you are not respecting the opinions of others. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And it annoys me that you're taking something totally benign and assigning it a sinister purpose, then trying to get it removed based upon your warped interpretation of POV. That is indeed being aggressively clueless. Only a truther or birther would even come close to agreeing with you on this point.

So prove me wrong. Provide the evidence below, as NARH says. If you find any, I'll be frankly surprised. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, PJ. Let's all calm down, and PJ can list his complaints there. Remember, the complaints must be with the contents OF the section, not that the section exists. It must explain why we, the Wikipedians, are presenting an unfair bias towards anyone or anything. And PJ, it's not disrespecting your opinion because you aren't giving any foundation for your opinion. You need to provide solid reasoning WHY the section is biased, and as you've been told many a time, the nature of the section is not a reason. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Napalm and I are discussing with a few other admins what course of action we should take. I'll keep you posted. PJthePlayer (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The boycott/petition isn't being completely removed as it appears to have a number of non-trivial reliable sources to back it up, so isn't WP:OR. But it seems to be badly written and looks to be, or on the verge of violating WP:SYN. User:PJthePlayer and User:Napalmdest55 seem to be the only ones wanting to remove it, and it seems looks like quite a few random users have come told them they are wrong. The editing times and User talk:98.26.147.251 make it all seem very suspicious which is really testing peoples ability to WP:AGF.--Otterathome (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So, Otterathome, you agree that the article could use a re-writing? I never said the article had to be removed, I said it should either be re-written or removed. I would gladly end this debate if the article was re-written in a non-biased manner. PJthePlayer (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Practically all of what you've said above has been calling for the section's removal, not a rewrite. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply not true Jeremy. Scroll up and read my posts. Virtually every time I mention having the article removed, I also mention a re-write being fine. PJthePlayer (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a rewrite of the section, removing unnecessary garbage from the section. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PJ, please list your grievances with the section in the subsection below. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome, could you please explain where the synthesis lies? Taking the quotation "A and B, therefore C" as a base line, I'm seeing A's and B's in the section, but no C's. —LOL ^T/_C 22:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding of the NPOV Tag

I find the information about the boycott to be biased. I believe it needs to have the NPOV tag added under that section for further review and discussion. All input on this topic is valuable to the Left 4 Dead 2 article, please contribute. Napalmdest55 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article is in need of a NPOV tag. PJthePlayer (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to question both whether you are trolling, and whether you are two people or not. Pardon me if I point out that Napalmdest has never made an edit unrelated to Left 4 Dead 2... - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And to clarify, the questioning of trolling is based on that several requests have been made for both users to present the bias, but they have failed to do so, merely saying that they believe it to be biased. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The section as of right now looks fine to me, what's non-neutral about it? Someoneanother 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, again with the suspicion that we're the same person. We are NOT, I assure you. Also, keep in mind "Someone Another" that the article has been edited since this discussion began, and is getting closer to a neutral point of view. However, I feel that if the Anti-L4D2 group is going to have it's manifesto listed on this page, then the Pro-L4D2 group, referenced in reference 14, should also have it's manifesto listed here as a counter-point, if only in the interest of maintaining neutrality. PJthePlayer (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

First, if the Pro-L4D2 group got anyone close to the exposure the other one did, it would have been added. The only article I can find is the CimenaBlend article, so that's not really anywhere close to the anti-group. Now, I will note that if you are a member of the Pro-L4D2 (which, I will not, it seems to be given a "PJthePlayer" user in it, but I will also note that "Naplmdest55" is also a different Steam account (but not part of that group) so nobody should be accusing these two of meatpuppetry), and you're fighting to get Pro-L4D2 included in here, that's a conflict of interest. It's one thing to suggest we add it, but to fight against its non-inclusion is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, well in that case neutrality isn't served by piling undue weight on trivialities. Source 14's language smacks of axe-grinding rather than neutral journalism and I find the use of the source at all questionable. I agree with the poster below, neutrality has been served (and served well) by the developers' responses being given, a minor tit-for-tat move by a comparitively miniscule number of fans is hardly something that needs to stand on equal footing. I've got the latest GamesTM here, L4D2 is the cover story carrying the subtitle "Valve speaks on the game that's alerted the horde". An excerpt: "GamesTM had the dubious privelege of ascending to Valve's Bellevue headquarters the week after the biggest display of public bad-feeling aimed at the company in living memory." There was a strong response, reliable sources say so, so the section is relevant. The only thing that I'd suggest could be changed is that if the boycott is not the centre of the strong fan reaction then mention of it could be removed from the section heading, and further details added about general 'fan feelings' rather than focusing on that. That's only if the boycott isn't the eye of the storm, if it is then it's fine. Either way, neutrality is not a problem here and it certainly doesn't need tagging. Someoneanother 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no neutrality problems here, certainly nothing requiring intrusive tags being plastered around. You have a fan-made group that has been amply reported on to justify inclusion. You have an official response, equally sourced. There isn't neutrality problem here. Seems balanced in proportion to coverage in sources. A brief acknowledgement of a pro-L4D2 group is the most that this could stretch to, using the current source for it in the article, but no more than a brief mention, otherwise you're giving undue weight disproportionate to its coverage. -- Sabre (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hippie, please refrain from personal attacks (calling both me and napalmdest55 liars) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

Masem, I have found a user named Masem in the L4D2 boycott group, so where does that leave us? PJthePlayer (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, nor did I ever call either of you two liars. What I said was you weren't responding to any of our requests. We ask for specific examples, so please, provide them. You've never actually said where the bias lies, only that it exists. If you can't show bias, then it may as well not exist, and as such, the tag should and shall be removed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how the tag isn't there yet in the first place, I don't see how it "shall be removed." Anyway, you called both of us liars by accusing us of being the same person, which has happened before and been proven incorrect. PJthePlayer (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PJ, there is more than one "Masem" on Steam, and it's not hard to tell a friend to join a group and change their alias. You can't prove that the Masem of Wikipedia joined the group. —LOL ^T/_C 23:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my point, LOL, and that is why there being a PJthePlayer in the Pro-L4D2 group cannot be proven to be me, either. Thanks for clarifying that for everyone. PJthePlayer (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely on Steam but not part of ANY L4D support or opposition group. And besides, I was trying to help settle the meatpuppetry issue, but noting that COI could be a factor here, the way the above statement was intoned. (It really does sound like bitter resentment that the anti-group is in the article but not the pro-group, even when assuming good faith). --MASEM (t) 23:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. I have a Steam account, but have no affiliation with any groups associated with L4D or L4D2, not having the former and not being a fan of survival horror in any case. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We had a discussion earlier that the number of people involved in the movement is none of Wikipedia's concern, which is why the massive preorder numbers for l4d2 were not reason enough to have the boycott info removed. By that same principle, while the membership of the Pro-L4D2 group is smaller, it should not be overlooked. It exists, pertains to the topic, and is referenced by a reliable source (that is, if you consider source 14, which you added, not me, to be reliable.) PJthePlayer (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Masem, I was not accusing you of being a member of the boycott, just noting that someone having the same name in a group proves nothing. You defend this article, and there is a Masem in the Boycott. I am against this article, and there is a PJthePlayer in the Pro group. A bizarre coincidence, but there is not enough evidence to prove the STEAM-Masem is Wiki-Masem, nor that STEAM-PJthePlayer is in fact Wiki-PJthePlayer. Sorry if you took that the wrong way. PJthePlayer (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And no, I'm not saying you are, though it helps to defend your case against the meatpuppetry claims that others (rightfully, given the editing patterns between you two) are making. But at the same time, I need to caution that if you are part of that group and are upset it's not included (and judging by *that* group's manifesto, it's less Pro-L4D2, and more Anti-"Anti-L4D2", critical of the other group, so there is good cause to worry about this), trying to force this page to remove the Anti-L4D2 or add the Pro-L4D2 without any other justification is a conflict of interest. We're welcome to address concerns on the it and help improve the coverage, but at the same time we can't be influenced by an external group. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me New Age Retro Hippie, I have been in the java applet chat talking to Chzz. They have been helping me learn how to use wikipedia, you may be able to tell from checking my test page :). I would also like for you not to bring arguments into this discussion again, not needed or wanted. LOL did a pretty good job from making it more balanced, you can check the history for the changes. However I still believe it needs to be under a new sub header away from Announcement. When you pair the small boycott to the large announcement of this popular game you give the boycott a false sense of size and importance. Maybe a smaller sub header under Announcement dealing with the boycott. We must remember the boycott should not be the main focus of this article, but the substance of the actual game. Napalmdest55 (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea Napalm. Yes, I too feel that the "Announcement and Boycott" section should be bisected, into an "Announcement" section, and a "Boycott" subsection. PJthePlayer (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The boycott is inseparably tied with the announcement. Someoneanother 23:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally we'd not even have such sections - announcement information would be in development sections, while the boycott would be part of its reception. At the present time, this article can't support those, because we're still a fair distance from release; the best coverage about this game is the new features and the boycott and subsequent explaination from Valve regarding the details. We can re-evaluate all of this as more development and reception is presented, but right now, from my experience working on VG articles, any RS information on its pre-release activities is very very useful. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Perhaps once the game is released and a reception section is developed the boycott would be better off there. Someoneanother 23:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and if the boycott fizzles (all 30,000 some members drop out, for example), then the bulk of this can be reduced to a single sentence. But right now, it is good coverage for a video game, so it needs to be kept but improved to meet any concerns. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, after Otter's reconstruction of the section, I am mostly happy with it. I feel that adding a mention of the Pro-L4D2 group, using reference fourteen, would complete the section, making it as neutral as possible. Considering how you feel about pre-release RS information, I'm sure you'll agree Masem. PJthePlayer (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)