Talk:RollerCoaster Tycoon 2

Reddit as a Reliable Source

Why was This Deleted? Its' source is one of the developers on Reddit, and in fact, the projects main source of communication with it's users is via Reddit. Care to explain, @Eik Corell: 99.231.118.17 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

while a better secondary or tertiary source would be preferrable, I would also tend to accept this as primary source when the formulation is weakened (to not indicate fact): "according to the developers themselves...." cheers 19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: obviously this is also not trivia.... Shaddim (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I also don't think this should be added. The article should be about RCT2, not the ongoing status of OpenRCT. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

We should reflect the whole range of receptions. If a software got orphaned by a company and the still existing community takes up the effort in reverse engineering the engine to be able to continue the support (fixing, porting) this is clearly relevant impact and reception. Unlike other forms of media and art software is "soft" and keeps therefore evolving.

PS: reliable press reports about OpenRCT2 enthusiastically as "major breakthrough" http://www.pcgamer.com/how-one-player-spent-a-decade-creating-a-rollercoaster-tycoon-megapark/ https://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/09/you-can-get-rollercoaster-tycoon-2-for-basically-nothing/ https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/05/player-spends-a-decade-polishing-epic-theme-park-inrollercoaster-tycoon-2/ We clearly will add such information. Shaddim (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thinking longterm, I don't agree that this article should become more of a update status for OpenRCT than RCT2 itself. If its so well covered by sources, then it belongs as a separate article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, lets see how this develop longterm. Currently, if you look at the sources, OpenRCT2 is mostly described in context, as variation and as continuation of RCT2, not as separate entity.Shaddim (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

OpenRCT 2 infobox

I don't think it's appropriate to have a separate infobox within this article as it feels like a sort of hijacking of the article, which is about the main game. The mention of the clone in Community continuation subsection is fine, but I don't think warrants the extra infobox. WP:VG/GL deals with this indirectly: "If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. However, having a separate article should not endanger the notability of the parent article. If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article."

I don't think there is enough sources for a separate article, and having an additional infobox in this article seems to fit the whole endangering the notability of the main article criteria. Eik Corell (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We just merged the article back here due to OpenRCT2's non-notability. We don't need a separate infobox for it here. Any of the important info should belong in prose instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

very wrong. notability of OpenRCT2 is very well given, it was just "voted" that OpenRCT2 is discussed more often in context of RCT2 than alone and it was therefore merged. And two and more boxes are very fine and happing in many articles. There is no hard reason against it. 18:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If it was independently notable, it wouldn't have been merged here, would it? And what game article use two infoboxes in the lead? And even if they do, that's not standard and probably needed consensus for it, which doesn't exist here as two people are already against this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

the argumentation was not non-notability (as there are 3-4 good reliable sources) but the argumentation that it is disucssed mainly in context of the original. It should be seen as some series member or some expansion or continuation. And we have in such cases mutliple boxes. Shaddim (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I disagree and have asked WP:VG for their opinions too. Also, I still don't see any examples of your multiple-infobox game articles. OpenRCT2 is unofficial and doesn't deserve a massive infobox taking up half the article with mostly technobabble that casual readers wouldn't care for. It seems more promotional than helpful, are you associated with the project at all? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Be careful with baseless accusations. And also, it seems you are misguided here too: WP has ZERO differentiation between official and non-official. there is only notable and non-notable. Shaddim (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquaNox

AquaNox is not a video game article, but a video game series article. -- ferret (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

exactly. as it was decided to handle openRCT2 as family member of the the original, not as separated article, so this fits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddim (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Merging topics as a subsection in an article doesn't change it's primary topic. This article is about the game, RollerCoaster Tycoon 2. It is not about a series of games or a family of games. It simply includes some related information. -- ferret (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree: it describes now a family of games or an expansion or continuation Shaddim (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I was simply asking a question due to your insistence on keeping anything OpenRCT2 related from being removed, despite its questionable notability. Anyway, I already stated that if it was, it wouldn't have merged back here. If I remember right, most of the sources used in that article were simple redirects back to its GitHub, or as passive mentions in sources, neither of which helped it establish independent notability. And again, what game articles use two separate infoboxes in the lead? If you can't provide a few examples, then that argument should be invalidated. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In the lead? if your problem is where the box is positioned in the source code, this is an easy fix and the rendering would not change. I positioned in the lead, as high as possible, to prevent that the box might indeed destroy the structure of the article. Shaddim (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Opposed to inclusion OpenRCT2 should not have an infobox here. It is not the primary topic, and it's infobox is wide and overwhelming. It eats up a lot of the article's visual space to convey no important details on the topic, RollerCoaster Tycoon 2. I do think the screenshot could be kept for that section though. -- ferret (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  it is now the primary topic: it was decided that is handled as expansion / sequel of the main game as notability was not challengable. Space is not an argument as WP is not on paper. What about as compromise a box which is collapsed? 18:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  How is it the primary topic when its currently only mentioned in one section with a few sentences? All of the important enough should belong in prose, the massive infobox that seems more promotional than anything shouldn't. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It is most definitely not the primary topic. RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 is. OpenRCT2 is a secondary subsection of the topic. When I say space, I am not talking about disk space or storage, but literal usage of the viewing space (Which is why I used that phrase, visual space). It stretches out and pushes text, and makes the article, simply put, look bad. While collapsing the infobox might work, it doesn't appear the Infobox Software supports a state parameter. -- ferret (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - It's large and ugly, and conceptually does not make sense to have such an unwieldy infobox for something that currently only amounts to 4 sentences of content of a very small subsection. (And please don't read this, add 2 short sentences, and then feel its time to re-add the infobox. I'm saying it falls well-below the need for having an infobox here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• This is getting into disruptive/OWNy territory with this particular editor. Oppose inclusion of the infobox per Serge, Dissident, and Ferret. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's awkwardly placed in the lead section with the main infobox, and disrupts coverage of the article's topic. The infobox almost makes the article seem "guide"-like, as if telling the reader "hey, looking for (whatever the infobox describes)? here's a solution", and is also potentially disruptive for its promotional-ness. I'm definitely in favor of OpenRCT2 being covered in a section though, seeing as how the article for Theme Hospital treats CorsixTH the same way. FosterHaven (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@everyone: seriously what is your problem? Your main argumentations seems to be the feeling? "it unusual, it feels wrong"... this is not a proper argument. And this infobox/openRCT2 has nothing to do with "gameguide"?!? We have articles with exact this structure: series, and games with expansion. And it is not that crammed that the structure is destroyed: if I adapt the ratio on my 16:9 1366x 1024 monitor from fullscreen to small windowed mode it is still properly structured. And, it was decided that OpenRCT2 is joined here, I thought the self-standing article was well made from the new author, but the authorship at large "felt" differently. So again, compromise proposals: collapsing the box? Or again, if you think the OpenRCT2 content is already to unwieldy as series and expansion style article -> an own article? Notability is given.... Shaddim (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That others have different opinions than you, myself included, does not mean we "have a problem". Two infoboxes is unwieldy and gives RCT2 a bigger spot it deserves. Why would you assume that merging the article on an open source game on the one it was based implies having two infoboxes? Let's turn the table: what's your problem with open source video games and ignoring consensus? Wikipedia is not the @Shaddim show. If you can't play nice or agree with core guidelines, feel free to start your own wikia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I have zero problems with open source games,. Also, I didn't voted for eradicating the OpenRCt2 article. As compromise a merge was proposed. I actually implemented this merge, which other authors have a problem again with. Shaddim (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: your wikia hit indicate an unfounded (as notability is given!) underlying "stomach feeling" that open source or community content does not belong here. This is a strong misunderstanding about our inclusion criterias: again, we have no notation about official or unofficial. This is often but totally wrong differntiation we should not apply. And such wrong stomach feelings against our piolcies I will resist. Shaddim (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems you have a problem with consensus, @Shaddim. We've got five experienced editors saying something else, and you keep ignoring consensus. From my experience, you don't work well with others. So why not suggest wikia? There you can do whatever you please. Nobody's brought up "official or unofficial". Notability is based upon sources. Without several, reliable in-depth coverage, it fails stand-alone notability. Do I really have to explain this? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is not an article on a series of RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 games. This article is about RollerCoaster Tycoon 2. It contains a small section about a (merged) related topic. Merging non-notable related material does not change the parent topic of an article. And yes, OpenRCT2 is non-notable. If it were notable and could pass GNG, it wouldn't have been merged. I've removed the infobox, there's a clear consensus here. I kept the screenshot for now. -- ferret (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, it is now an article about the RCT2 family. This was some consequence on the decision of not granting an own article. Also, your counting of votes is quite premature: you should wait at least some days before counting out votes.... (voting this is also not "consensus" -> consensus is giving all side due time until a common position is found) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You're simply wrong on this. The primary topic of the article is still the original game. This is 100% typical and how spins offs and related content is often handled. There is no sourcing for a "family of RCT2 games". The topic is RollerCoaster 2, and some related content that is not independently notable on its own happens to be included. -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This is fundamentally incorrect. This is not a series/family article. The scope of the article has not changed. It always had a little bit about the fan variant. The only difference was that the fan game article was redirected here. That doesn't alter the primary topic. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

First, there was a careless eradication of a nicely written article with several reliable sources. After pointing out this carless behaviour, it was accepted that reliable sources should not be eradicated that carelessly -> still the article was a ruined mess. Then, the attack vector was: openrct2 is mostly discussed in context of RCT2 so the proposal was to merge it here. Now after it is merged and complain is... "hu... it is now merged and requires space, couldn't it go elsewhere? don't like it as part of the RCT2" About your argument with "due weight" and "it does not deserve an own infobox": this project alone keeps RCT2 alive nowadays, all serious players use it due to fixes, expansions etc it is a worthy continuation as it is also pointed out in the reliable sources Shaddim (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your argument here dives into GAMEGUIDE territory, as others have noted, because now you're talking about what serious players do and how the game is kept alive and that we should cover that. We are an encyclopedia. We document notable topics. RCT2 is a notable topic, with independent in-depth coverage by reliable sources. What came later may not be notable, and helping to keep the "game alive" is not our goal or purpose. If you believe OpenRTC2 is independently notable from RTC2 (With in-depth coverage from reliable sources specifically about OpenRTC2, beyond simple announcements), then your course of action should be to contest the original merger. Almost by definition, doing a merger makes a statement that the topic being merged is not notable on its own. If you decide to undo the merger, I suspect someone will send it to AFD. -- ferret (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

this is development material not game guide -> development like bugfixing is NOT in universe for players. Also, your description does not fit how the merger happened in reality. also, my posotion was overruled there, but Ic accepted the majority vote. I accepted and implemented the merge, which faces now resistance again without strong policies but stomach feelings. well, so be it. Shaddim (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Come on, hyperbole like that doesn't help your cause. It wasn't "careless eradication". The article was trimmed back on the grounds that it should be written according to third party, reliable sources, and then merged based on a consensus of policy-based arguments by experienced editors. I can't tell if your strong feelings on the subject are blinding you to the reality here, or if you just straight up still don't understand the finer points of Wikipedia yet, but there's no injustices going on here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

it was careless on two levels: first, it was the eradication of work of a new author, I can only guess but I think it took him hours. this was eradicated in 3 min (by looking on the history then), which discourages him/her I guess forever -> shouldn't we try to improve ? shouldn't we not try to support and encourage new authors? Second, this eradication was done with glaring errors: reliable sources were eradicated, which supports the notation of being a careless work too. Shaddim (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, and nobody's saying OpenRCT2 shouldn't be swept under the carpet as if it doesn't exist; even just one mention should give the project its due amount of attention. It's obviously not being spotlighted of course, but it's not breaking the focus of this article either. See movies that are a part of a franchise and the article has the sequel covered in a section. FosterHaven (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Shaddim: You seem stressed. Take a break if you must, but for the sake of at least trying to calm this discussion, please understand that RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 fans are not the only people reading the page, despite what you would think. We as Wikipedians aren't here to just look for arguments for the sake of wasting time. We just don't want something given weight out of the sake of providing "development material" as you claim it is. Put yourself in the perspective of someone who is just looking up RollerCoaster Tycoon 2, only RollerCoaster Tycoon 2, and without any idea of its current community, or what's going on here at this article. Wikipedia is linked to Google, so if they find that infobox in the article, they'll be driven away from Wikipedia since it provides a link to a website and the effort to "keep the game alive" is inadvertently perpetuated. This is the "stomach feelings" we have. RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 is not a family of games either, it is one game; this unofficial project-- while improving on the original-- is still not and will never be the original game. OpenTTD is not Transport Tycoon, and if you notice how much coverage OpenTTD is getting in Transport Tycoon's article alone, then you'd understand why we want to remove the infobox. The work done by that editor resulting in "some measly merge that didn't benefit them" can be harsh, but sacrifices like these are always made. It's happened to me too. FosterHaven (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fosterhaven, I'm indeed stressed...and I appreciate your initiative to calm down this discussion. But, I would not agree in the conclusion that I currently try to push some inappropriate content: quite the opposite. I believe that the naive, normal reader, as you described in your example, would be highly interest in the information about the continuation of RCT2 by the community. And I clearly dont beleive that they would even driven away on the sight of an OpneRCt2 infobox, quite the opposite. I believe the arrivale of openRCT2 was a breakthrough for the existence of RCT2, even the survival of RCT2 of uttermost importance, and therefor for the article. I indeed believe that the question official/non official plays no role for content inclusion for wikipedia, which seems here, all smoke screens etc removed, the core issue. Many authors believe unofficial content is per se not noteworthy. Which I disagree, I think WP's mission & content is independent on the question legality or approvedness. And I believe it could be possible that impact wise openRCT2 got more importnant than the original.. I think it is currently not far away from that status. Shaddim (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Yeah. You're not wrong to say that OpenRCT2 is continuing RCT2's legacy, and that these new unofficial projects deserve to be talked about. But again... it's not RCT2, and that's what we want to focus on here. Wouldn't you care about the origin of OpenRCT2? Where it came from? That's why this article exists in the first place; OpenRCT2 would be nothing without RCT2. The article for the original Doom does not have two infoboxes for both the original game and id Tech, it only has one, because the article is titled "Doom (1993 video game)" and id Tech is covered in a section. Even if OpenRCT2 is new and improved (and open-source), it's still not the original, and we can't treat it that way because then it would clearly be biased in the interest of this new project, which goes completely contrary to our goals as a neutral encyclopedia that also aims to document things from an inherently historical perspective.
On the other hand... OpenRCT2 didn't get its own article because it was too early for publications to cover and recognize it, meaning it couldn't get its own article here (it obviously did, but someone noticed, and flagged it accordingly). But that earliness means OpenRCT2 can't have its own article yet; it needs time. We need recentism to play in its favor. Publications shedding spotlight on it will finally give credibility for that article to be added back, on the grounds that it is actually notable again. When OpenRCT2 gets a boom in attention from outlets, it will finally deserve its own article. That's when the infobox can be added back (to that article at least), and everyone will be happy. But right now? Basically nobody's covered it. Very few reliable sources have been found to constitute a full article, and that's why it was merged here. So just give it time. That time might be quite a while, seeing as OpenTTD took six years to become a full remake at version 1.0.0, but knowing the fans of this game, I also suspect it won't take nearly as long. Like the recentism essay points out, "proper perspective sometimes requires maturity, judgment, and the passage of time." FosterHaven (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem with this argumentation in general. While there is coverage for OpenRCT2 there could be more (while "Basically nobody's covered it" is an exaggeration). Also, I'm a strong supporter & contributor to strong history chapters in articles, I would not brush the RCT2 origins under the rug but I'm well aware on the importance of the origin. But the flip-side is RCT2 lives now on mostly through the efforts of the community and OpenRCT2, which is in the current aggressively reduced form of the article IMHO not proprtionally to its importance represented. But I'm very willing to step here back and wait for better and more coverage if properly argued. But I'm very unwilling to step back if "fellow" authors push their gut feelings in front and apply careless and unbalanced content destruction by reverts without proper arguing and policy backing. Shaddim (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose including separate infobox. I feel like I'm piling on at this point, but I suppose more opinions is better for consensus. It's not appropriate to have additional infoboxes in an article, unless a good reason is given, such as being part of the series or guidelined/common practice. OpenRCT 2 being an unofficial game, I don't see how it warrants this article needing prominent changes to accommodate it (especially since this isn't a series article). The prose should always cover the information anyway, or it's not important to begin with; so not having an infobox does not "lose" any information. OpenRCT 2 should not be treated as the series member unless reliable sources say so. With the amount of information, a separate infobox is just undue attention beyond what reliable sources have covered. I also agree that, from reader's perspective, the infobox also marginally disrupts the flow, though I wouldn't say that's a major concern as we have infoboxes and infobox-like things all over the place. I don't find the counterarguments very convincing either that consensus-based "removal" of the original article has to somehow be remedied on this page, especially since we are keeping the reliably sourced content. (Disclaimer: saw the discussion linked in WT/WPVG.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• sighh offical / unofficial means nothing in WP. Please show the policy that we bow down to external definitions what is "official" and what is not: we do not, by principle and very good reasons. Independence. (And by fact, OpenRCT2 IS series member... that reality does not bow down to your defintiion is the problem of your defintion and not of reality) Shaddim (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Linking "End of Life" or "Orphaned Works"

Please, don't do this. Without a source that can back either statement it shouldn't be done. RCT2 is still for sell on Steam and other digital fronts, so the vendor clearly is still selling the product, which is a part of a product life cycle. As a result, the product is not at end of life, even if they have not supplied new patches since 2011. -- ferret (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We agreed that it is an fact that for 6 years there was no support anymore & the community felt the need to do it themselves. The product is interpreted by the community as in the "end-of support" phase. There are proof-able bugs, which the community felt the need to fix themselves: this is an fact backed by the sources. Until the company does employs new develoeprs who produce a surprise patch, it is without support since 2011. Therefore linking to this page is appropriate. Shaddim (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read the lead sentence at end-of-life (product). Atari SA is still marketing and selling the game, therefore it is NOT at EOL. However the community feels about it, you do NOT have a source that says Atari SA considers the game EOL. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

this can and happens often (or most of the time) independently. End of sale might or might not end of support. The article does not state that this MUST be linked, it is only given in the graph as exmaple. Shaddim (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

also, I disagree with your interpretation on EOL: there is not mentioning or indicating of EOL announcment in the formulation. Also, I would really enjoy if you would start to improve statements and formulations instead of blunt reverts. Could please propose a formulation which does not carry an EOL formulation in your interpretation? Shaddim (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you could start understanding that sometimes the statement is fine as it was, and so a simple undo is all that's needed. The sentence already states the facts clearly, and we can source them as they are. Adding the link to EOL, without a source that states the product is EOL, is original research. The only verifiable fact is that the last patch was in 2011. Atari SA continues to market and sell the product, so it is neither EOL or abandoned. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would understand WP editing as team effort where we work together on fine tuning and improving by reformulations instead of pushing extreme positions through with reverts. No, an forumlation is never "fine as it is ", there is always improvemnt potential. Shaddim (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

End of support and end of sale are aspects of the product life cycle. It is very apppropriate to link to fitting pages. Please propose a better link and/or formulation. Shaddim (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Counter request: Please provide a source that Atari SA considers the product end of support. WP:BURDEN is on you. The date of the last patch is not proof of EOL. Even ignoring WP:OR, making these kind of links (EOL, orphaned), when the product is clearly still on the market, seems deceptive and as if you are attempt to drive the reader from purchasing RCT2 to instead get OpenRCT2. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

already given, last patch from 2011 despite well known bugs. Counter accusation: do you try actively to hide that a product for sale is without support? Shaddim (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've literally just refuted what you're claiming here when I asked for a source, so I have no immediately reply. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

your interpretation of EOL is YOUR interpretation alone: you claim as long a product is sold it can't be EOL and therefore without support. Which is bogus as the very existence of openRCT2 shows. RCt2 has no support for years, you can't deny that. Again, give a better formulation and link or I will try again. Your passive blocking is not productive. Shaddim (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation... It's WP:V. There are no sources saying its end of life. There are sources showing the last patch. And so that's the only fact we can state. My recommendation is that you wait for other editors to weigh in now. -- ferret (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to refomualte again, as you seem unwilling to provide a forumation. Shaddim (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shaddim, it's simple. You've got to follow WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, WP:V, and WP:CONSENSUS. If someone challenges your wording/link choice, the burden is on your to prove your point by reliable source verification and garnering a consensus. The content isn't to be added unless you've got a consensus to re-add it, per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Get a consensus, or drop it. I agree with Ferret here. Prove your point outright with a source, or find a compromise wording/linking. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"challenge" is a too euphemistic forumlation for blocking without a strong policy backed reason. Back to the facts: we have sources for the fact that for 6 years there is no offical support for the software. We have sources that there are bugs. We have sources that the community felt the need to create support themselves. They created it. Now I want to help the reader understanding the issue of software maintainance (or missing of) better by linking to a fitting article. Objections to this point? Shaddim (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

While a way worse page for readers than End-of-life (product): Product support does not carry the association Ferret reads into it. Objections for this link aim? 16:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Everything you want stated in the article is already there, and sourced. The issue is trying to add in the linking to a concept that cannot be sourced as applying here. You say strong policy based arguments are required, and that's exactly what's being argued: That the link to end-of-life fails WP:V and is WP:OR. Do you not understand that these ARE policies? When you list things like "we have sources for X, Y and Z, so W must be true", that is practically the definition of OR. As for linking product support, this isn't valid either. You're trying to make the statement that product support no longer exists. While no new patches have been made, Atari SA clearly still supplies the patches and maintains support documentation for the game. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You keep on pushing baseless accusations. What I linked now has nothing of "EOL" anymore in text. You just don't like YOUR text being "challenged" by an reformulation. Eat your own revert medicine. Again, WP is an team sport it should be not about "I'm right and I can push my formulation through as "right""' Shaddim (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You're editing against the consensus view of 4+ others and accusing me (And the others who have edited) of not working as a team. In effect, you're the only person pushing for a fringe view (I.e. you believe you are right and will continue to push your "formulation") and won't WP:drop the stick. -- ferret (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ferret's concern is that you can't provide a source that justifies the wiki-link you keep trying to use. That's a policy-based concern - WP:V being the core policy here. Even beyond that, you're getting into semantics. "Challenge" is just the usual term used, but conceptually, its really wehnever someone has a good-faith concern about your challenge, of which ferret's concern is obviously of good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand the semantics of "challenge", yet there are many possible forms of challenging. A reverting /deletion "challenge" is the most harmful and at the sametime laziest form of it. We should forbidd it or at least make the usage harder. Due to its effortless is totally overused and leads to several bad outcomes for WP: driving of authors (the author of the openRCT2 page) and content away. Shaddim (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you understood, you wouldnt still be arguing. Unlike everything I just linked you to, that's nothing but a personal philosophy, of which no one is required to adhere to. If someone has a good faith concern, you need to address it and only move forward if you have a consensus. Period. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I just want to bring this to attention: "I want to help the reader understand the issue of software maintenance better by linking to a fitting article." There is an entire wiki for troubleshooting games, called PC Gaming Wiki, with one of their goals being to help players overcome problems, (what I've interpreted as "the issue of software maintenance") and previously in my experience it's been a great resource for doing just that. It has pages for both RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 and OpenRCT2. RollerCoaster Tycoon 2's page explains "OpenRCT2 is working on fixing the dated [engine's] shortcomings" in the lead section. This is important to note because their goals are to inform users of solutions. (I've talked about this before.) And with that, I'll say that the goals of PC Gaming Wiki are not Wikipedia's. Here, we write facts. PC Gaming Wiki will have whatever they need to help players. Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) cater accordingly.

Ferret makes a good point. I ask that you not give OpenRCT2 more attention than it needs here. It shows that you're advocating, which is a conflict of interest. FosterHaven (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This makes no sense: our whole goal as WP authors is bringing facts to readers in an understandable way. Describing things in context. In functional context, factual context, in historical context. When we have context (e.g. WP pages on software maintainance) for an topic, we are strongly encouraged using it. What I'm suggesting is describing things in context (e.g. liniking) which is what we should do as good WP authors. What Ferret is doing and his accusations and indications, I see little of "good faith in that". This whole throwing unbased accusations around is just a smoke screen to distract from his blocking and "I don't like that". Shaddim (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Bringing notable facts by way of third-party reliable sources, of which this subject mostly fails. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you talking about? We have several reliable sources about OpenRCT2 which is all about the missing software support of RCT2 -> bug fixes, missing features, limitations. I have no clue what is your problem that you actively want to hide the fact that there is no serious software support anymore but is needed so much that community started to do it themselves by the painful process of reverse engineering. This is very well backed by the sources?! Shaddim (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You continue to state this, but I've yet to see a single good source that specifically only talks about OpenRCT2. All of your stated "sources" simply give it a passive mention when talking about the original game, and/or links back to GitHub. I've said this multiple times, you're the one who chooses to ignore it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Break

I'm pretty happy with the current article state (Which 4 different editors have worked towards), in the current revision. I think development section can use a fair amount more expansion, but everything appears to be properly sourced right now. -- ferret (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This is nice that you feel this way, but you can't stop the progress and development of WP or an article by your declaration?! "I believe it is great now: hands off everyone" Megalomania.... Also, this was also never about being things unsourced. What a glaring mis-representation. Shaddim (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a declaration that changes should stop (I very clearly indicated expansion was needed). But the general discussion is 100% about things being unsourced. You refuse to see it, or you do not understand the language other editors are using. I can't tell. -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I also can't tell if you really can't admit that our aggressive debate is not about missing sources but about due weight and represntation. Accusing other authors we disagree with of not "having sources" is a standard, cliche move to deprive them of creditablity, but is such an overused technicque that I can beleive that you keep pushing that with a straight face. Shaddim (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, can you, right here, list off the exact content with the exact source that you want to add? Because every variant you've proposed so far has been lacking in one way or another when it comes to sourcing, nor has anyone else come to your defense on any proposals. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

luckily, WP is not a democracy. Facts are not defined by majority or vote. We have that in the policies, you might remember. Shaddim (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me quote the interesting part of Sergecross's comment that you ignored: can you, right here, list off the exact content with the exact source that you want to add? Because every variant you've proposed so far has been lacking in one way or another when it comes to sourcing. Can you? Will you? --Izno (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question at all. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

there is no lack in sourcing at all (I think most sources now used in this domain are from me), there is lack in compromise willingness & open mindness. the facts are there, but some authors decide to close their eyes and to enforce their limited vision, unwilling to move. Shaddim (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I asked either. Read my question. I'm saying present it again right here, exactly what source verifies what content you want to add here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion from WT:VG

comment: I urged Ferret to provide alternative better linking aims for a software which has no official support. We have pages. He insisted that there is no link by aggressively reverting instead of aiming for a compromise or reformulation. Shaddim (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, and WP:NOCONSENSUS, ferret was completely in the right to do this. This is not a valid criticism of his actions. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need a wikilink there anyway? As I stated in the edit summary, 99% of games end up like this a year or two after release, yet we've never considered them to be "end of life" or an "orphaned work", which is reserved for more non-gaming software. An open-source recreation of a game is still a game, and we shouldn't be using irrelevant terminology because of that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, with software, we should never assume that a lack of patches or support implies that end-of-life is reached. We need affirmation of that (such as with Spacebase DF-9). --MASEM (t) 21:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Even games such as Half-Life 1 recently received a small patch, so a long period without patches doesn't automatically mean it's unsupported. The original RCT2 is still being sold on Steam as well, which means his arguments are also false, as a product still being officially sold with profits going to the publisher can't be in any way orphaned or at end-of-life. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've been arguing and trying to convey. -- ferret (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

and this is what I'm arguing against: obviously there is not serious enough support any more, or OpenRCT2 would not have been started! I don't think this is a fact which is debatable. So we are, practical by the consideration and actions of the community, in the phase of End-of-support. And it doesn't matter of it is announced or not announced by the producer. Last semi-serious patch was 2011. That hypothetical in the future a magical official patch might appear doesn't change the fact that the product is NOW without support: try out to reach out to them and ask for an specific bugfix, you will receive silence. If you are hung up on the term EOL, I already gave in, and proposed as compromise other pages as target. Also, that it is still sold, while having not serious support is a break in the software life cycle which should be pointed out. Shaddim (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• EOL is normally handled by citing the last update as covered in a reliable, secondary source at the end of a paragraph, with no declarative statement on its current state. Unless a secondary source declares the support "dead", we have no need to do so either. And needless to say, that type of conclusion would be original research on our parts. If you think it matters that the game is at what you consider end-of-life, get a secondary source to cover it. Otherwise, we can safely say the subject isn't of importance to secondary sources or WP.  czar 23:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Official support as recent as 2014

I'm not going to make an edit in regards to this yet, but came across this posting on Steam: Additional European Languages Now Available!. In July 2014, an update for new languages was released for RCT2, showing that ongoing support from Atari has continued after the last patch from 2011 listed in Atari's knowledge base. Note that the Steam re-release was in May2014, and while no change log or details of changes are listed in the announcement, a repackaging as a deluxe edition for Steam is also an indication of on going support and marketing. -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Made some tweaks and added the addition of new languages to Development section. -- ferret (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

misleading & OR: this is just a bundle, not serious software support. Selling != support. As you said yourself there there is no changelog and annoucment of fixes or extension, so just speculation by you. (And if you look at the version number it is the same) Shaddim (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the release not having any change log or notes, and because it was speculation, that's EXACTLY WHY I didn't include it in the article. Because I don't add OR. However, it is a 100% fact that the vendor continues to release updates, however minor, and that EOL has not been proven with a source. -- ferret (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I already said, that if your problem is EOL (whcih you define as "no sale" which I think is wrong), I gladly will link to a more specific "(no) software support" wikipage. And about updates: this is a bundle. Which is an instrument for sale, and not software support. The reason why the languages were included later only, is mostly likely license / publishing rights related and not technical. Shaddim (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Currently at least three editors are opposed to that type of language. You'll just have to wait until and if something changes about the consensus. -- ferret (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

what do you mean "this kind of language"? Wikipdia is not about vote counting: if we have reliable sources for a fact in can be included. (Also, consensus is NOT majority vote...currently there is no consensus) But we can discussion formulation... and here I urgue you again, make a constructive proposal. Shaddim (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made (and implemented) several constructive proposals. The issue is that you refuse to see that several editors disagree with you that reliable sourcing exists for the links you want to add. This is the core issue, not the formulation of the content but whether it is validly sourced or not. We are not "vote counting", and you need to stop accusing us of that. Several editors say "This is not in the sources, it doesn't pass WP:V", while you (and you alone) argue the opposite. Your interpretation of the sources is simply wrong here. The article already validly covers why OpenRTC2 was started. Adding additional links that suggest claims about the vendor support of RTC2 or its copyright status, without sources that back that fact, cannot be done. Since we are at an en-passe and the various editors involved do not appear to be changing their positions, your only option really is to drop it, or ask for uninvolved editors from WT:VG or maybe WP:RFC to weigh in. -- ferret (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

First, you did no constructive proposal or reformulated something i added: you reverted aggressively. Second, why you keep coming back with "copyright"? I never argued or indicated something about copyright? this seems your topic I'm not interested in. If you read something in about copyright: please provide a formulation which avoids this indication. Shaddim (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I dropped a message on WT:VG asking for uninvolved editors to please check the discussion and weigh in. As I said, between you and I, we are at an en-passe. -- ferret (talk)

• Id like to point out Shaddims misuse of WP:NOTAVOTE. You can't just use that to discount everyone who disagrees with you. That would be something an uninvolved person would apply to a discussion moreso, to come to an overall conclusion. Certainly not something to be used who has failed to persuade a single person throughout the discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  no, I pointed out the misuse of consensus: while I agree a minority can't and should not block majority, the majority is expected to go way beyond than just voting the minority down. Consensus takes significant more effort and time than a majority vote system. We have a consensus system Shaddim (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  Im saying you're far too involved in the argument to make an unbiased call on such a thing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  We have a consensus-based system, subject to our policies and guidelines. --Izno (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

unsuitable edit

I challenge this reasonless revert by sergecross: this was not under current debate & it included other fixes also non-controversial. It seems ferret accepted this clarification edit. Serge, could you please refrain from stirring more turmoil? also, others kept editing all the time WHILE being in debate. hypocrites. Shaddim (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You edits changed the wording about "when the last patch was" 2011 or 2014 - which is something that was being actively discussed above. If I'm misreading it, fine, but it looked like another changed not supported by anyone but yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Which would be very fine as we do fact based editing not "majority defines the facts" editing. cheers Shaddim (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

also, your revert was a blunt hammer destroying other stuff... but revert is so easy applicable.... sadly I can't revert your stuff as other people started to edit too despite "discussion" Shaddim (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be based entirely about your arbitrary definition of what counts as an official update though - definitely not fact based. So please, as you've been warned many times before, don't make edits regarding issues that are actively being disputed on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

well, why this does not apply to other authors? hypocrites.... Shaddim (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No one else is editing against consensus. Again, in every single instance, you've garnered zero support, while always having multiple editors against your stance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wkipedia is not a beauty contest, where it is about gathering support & winning majority votes... I think you are at the wrong festivity. Shaddim (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I never suggested otherwise. I think you need to check your fundamental understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. You are arguing with a lot of long-term editors here. That doesn't make us infallible, but no matter how you look at it, the odds are extremely unlikely that not a single one of us is correct except you. If you could pull yourself away and look at this objectively, you'd understand that. But you keep on operating on this bizarre mindset that we're trying to ruin the article or something. Which makes zero sense. Most of us having nothing at stake here. I'm only here because other editors keep on complaining and asking for help with dealing with your WP:OWNership issues with virtually anything related to this game. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

see, and this is the problem with WP: there are currently only the long-time editors left. The ones who survive such an edit war by being confident, that they are right. I'm a long time editor too, but I'm very annoyed that the in-flow of new content of newbies has mostly ended. Like the creation of OpenRCT2 which was a very well balanced article (but still attackable from a formalistic point of view) by an newbie who got detroyed by the so called "experienced editors". Or, here, "it can't be that an article has 2 infoboxes... I have never seen that in my 10 years career on WP, I will not approve" -> what happened on the policy "being bold" and stepping forward for creative solutions? Or when a link is set: "naaa.. commonly we don't set a link in this situation, therefore i oppose this in principle"...*sigh* Shaddim (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT, every other editor (who has disagreed with every single one of your points thus far) is wrong? There were multiple issues with the second infobox being included; being bold doesn't matter if it makes the article worse. Discussing this is becoming a waste of time as you clearly seem to ignore what editors have been trying to say to you. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

no, it was way around: all the resistance and reverts were motivated by "I don't like that...thats uncommon"...and than decoyed by unfitting (but effective in distraction value) bureaucratic policy dropping. 101 of defensive editing. Shaddim (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If you are still unhappy on any issue where a broader set of users has come to a certain conclusion, you are always welcome to invite users outside that set via WP:RFC. Be aware that you may be accused of WP:FORUMSHOPing or that you may be told to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Izno (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm unhappy with the process and state but I'm in no position to achieve a change against the encrusted orthodoxy of bureaucratic editors blocking an article. Shaddim (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Shaddim: That's not how Wikipedia works. If you actually believe it to be orthodoxy, or that we are editing with a mind to bureaucracy rather than out of a spirit of improvement, you are empowered to attempt that change. Anything less (besides quietly letting the topic go) is you choosing to cast aspersions on the good faith of every other editor in this discussion; while it is entirely possible that we are not upholding the expected quality standards here on Wikipedia, it is probable that you are simply choosing not to hear us. Given your most-recent comment below in re to Soetermans, I think anyone reviewing this discussion would certainly conclude the latter, rather than the former. This will be my last comment on this topic. Feel free to have The Last Word. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Good Lord, I was checking if there were any new developments from the discussion I also commented on. This is the third discussion, in some way concerning the editing habits of @Shaddim. To me, their attitude is looking to be detrimental to Wikipedia. It doesn't seem they've got a firm grasp on guidelines (or are downright ignoring them) and are very defensive, very WP:OWN-ish behavior. Shaddim, I urge you to WP:DROPIT and familiarize yourself with WP:VG/MOS. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, I have the feeling I oppose ownish behaviour. But this might be perspective. But I will admit that I did the right thing the wrong way. Shaddim (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, you've really got to stop pushing that angle. If this got escalated to WP:ANI (a likely scenario that someone will take it there if all this doesn't wrap up soon) there is just no way that someone is going to look at this situation and say "Yep, these 5-6 editors openly discussing and in consensus of one another on the talk page are violating WP:OWN, while this lone other editor (you), who keeps reverting everyone without consensus, is not showing OWNership traits." Close to 0% chance. The only realistic outcome of that scenario is them also ruling against you, and then you continuing to complain about Wikipedia bureaucracy, corruption, and how no one is ever right except you. Instead, let's please just cut to the chase and wrap things up with all this, as it seems to have devolved down into idle complaints at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I was not reverting. I was reverting the reverts, which is for me a signifcant difference. I'm quite anti-revert. If you look at my edit history, you will hopefully notice that I commonly avoid reverts & prefer and suggest adpation and reformulation, as I believe reverts (beside in case of vandalism) are a harmful tool currently totally overapplied. But I agree, the situation is currently non-productive and therefore I will drop the stick. Shaddim (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Consider that two infoboxes in one article is not something we generally oppose. I've seen enough articles to conclude that for something like this, it should only be as fitting as it needs to be, not out of some reliance on gut feeling that you believe isn't the correct way to make decisions. I'd be willing to believe that you having your own gut feeling that we oppose you and your goals as part of some conspiracy may be a possibility. Working against other editors runs contrary to the process of making articles that has been tested and proven to work here, which is by taking consensus. Complain about Wikipedia's problems all you want, but it makes me wonder why you would ever do it in front of Wikipedia knowing people will obviously argue contrary. It's like whacking a hornet nest and expecting hornets not to come out and fight back. We have rules to throw at you all day because you're not the only editor who's done this sort of thing, and the rules are meant to avoid and prevent instances where people have gamed the system for their own goals. If we disagree with you on how an article should be written, formatted, etc. then what makes you think you can actually change our minds this way? Right now, dropping it is the most effective solution; we're just not getting anywhere. And much like Izno, this will be my last comment on the matter as well. FosterHaven (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You are right, I tackled the situation the wrong way ... as I was really angered by the bad edits and deletions without thought. Eik Correl's infobox misshaping/deletion was an prime example of bad deletion driven editing with way to less time/thought. And then I couldn't believe that other others started to defend that... well. Thanks for your thoughts. Shaddim (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

OpenRCT2

Despite there being paragraphs of discussion about OpenRCT2's Infobox, I couldn't find a link to the discussion that took place for the merging of OpenRCT2 and this article (I may have just missed it!). If someone could link that discussion and/or provide a summary of it, that would be great. Side Note: I 'personally' believe that OpenRCT2 has expanded to the point where it should be it's own article, and it may be time to re-open the discussion. Cool12y (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:OpenRCT2#Justification for article was the merger discussion. Nothing has really changed, I'm not sure what you mean by "has expanded", as the article barely has a single paragraph. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Just because it has only one paragraph on this article doesn't mean it doesn't have enough information to warrant it's own article. No point in creating one if the general consesus is to let it be. I'll try to add some more stuff to the OpenRCT2 section in this article, for the time being. Cool12y (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"Enough information" is not how we determine notability and creating new articles. Notability is established through indepth coverage by reliable secondary sources. That has been the issue with OpenRCT2 all along. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20030208012442/http://www.gamespydaily.com:80/news/fullstory.asp?id=3400

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

The "Legacy" section of this page states:

Both phases have become popular memes.

This should be "phrases", instead of "phases":

Both phrases have become popular memes. Udders3 (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- ferret (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit reversion

@Eik Corell: – YouTube videos are user-generated content. However, said content needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and in this case, it's abundantly clear that the source's publisher can be treated as a reliable authority on the subject, as much if not moreso than other reliable sources already used uncontroversially throughout the article. Vos has essentially made himself an expert on the game, and multiple reliable sources have treated him as such over the past few years. Here are multiple articles citing Vos' work in OpenRCT2:

His creations – made by taking advantage of his knowledge of the game's more obscure mechanics – have spawned two [1], [2] articles written for Vice's Waypoint and Motherboard. Note that in both articles, the authors Kevin Truong and Wajeeh Maaz rely on Vos for statements about game mechanics. Regarding the Motherboard article, they rely on Vos' information for the headline: "This Is the Most Intense ‘RollerCoaster Tycoon’ Coaster You Can Possibly Build", and in the Waypoint one, they paraphrase him regarding the pathfinding mechanics, showing again that they treat him as an authority on the subject.

Same with Kotaku: [1], [2].

The same happened with Polygon, PCGamer (twice [1], [2]), etc.

This demonstrates that Vos has a reputation among known reliable sources for factual accuracy regarding the game mechanics of OpenRCT2, and therefore, he should be treated as a reliable secondary source about the game just as much as those who would typically cite him. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The source has obviously received recognition and attention from reliable third-party sources, but what irks me is that how or why this specific update warrants singling out. Maybe it is notable or important, but without sources probably along the lines of those already mentioned talking about it, it strikes me as a little gamecrufty, thinking specifically in light of #10 dealing with mentions of betas, patches, versions, etc. I think care should be taken not to assume notability of these kinds of updates because the author has previously been covered, and that's where third-party sources covering it would be nice -- If by itself it really is important, they'll probably be covering it, which I could imagine might happen with this. Speaking of sources, I noticed some of those sources you mentioned don't seem to be included in the article as it stands right now, so whatever happens with the video link, those should probably be added in some way. Eik Corell (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: Taking your concern into consideration, I've re-added the source to an existing statement and modified the statement to make it factually correct. Note that even with or without the Vos source and the new update, this statement that software limitations on parks are "removed" is OpenRCT2 was just not correct, as the limitations are raised, not removed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: However, I do object to your citing of WP:VGSCOPE #10, as it clearly states: "Exhaustive version histories: A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead." Just acknowledging one version that brought a number of large changes to a game on its own isn't even close to the sort of problem #10 tries to address, which is indiscriminately listing every trivial update just for the sake of it (e.g. "1.57: bug fixes"; "3.22: fixed crash when [obscure thing]"). The reason I said a beta build was released and not "In May 2021, OpenRCT2 significantly increased the cap on the amount of guests, rides, park space, and a number of other limits present in the original game" is because it hasn't been implemented into the stable release yet, and so I wanted to come back and edit that out whenever it was released. Talking about how it's in beta wasn't meant to be about OpenRCT2's development so much as it was avoiding technically, albeit temporarily, false information. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can see your point about #10. What got my attention there was that I've seen additions that inhabit a kind of gray area where changes somewhat similar to this are continually added, e.g "on X date, two new tanks were added.", but with only primary sources, the importance of many such additions can be very hard to ascertain. Regardless, this new appended version seems to work better so I'm satisfied with that. Eik Corell (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)