Talk:Mighty Jill Off

Why Harvey James' blog is not an acceptable source

"Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." Wikipedia:NOR Filibusti (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

May I ask what content is original research? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SPS#Self published or questionable sources as sources on themselves - Please refresh yourself on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please "refresh yourself" is unnecessary, please remain civil. I think the guidelines contradict themselves here to some extent, but the policy you refer to seems as if it should be used for exceptions and not as a rule. Harvey James' blog post is original research - because, as I quoted above from the WP:NOR, his blog is not a WP:RS.Filibusti (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There are five criterias for fulfilling "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves". It is not unduly self-serving; it does not mention, or at least is not utilized for, third parties; they are all relevant; there is no doubt as to the authenticity; and the article is not carried by this one source. Your quotation from WP:NOR deals with content added by users without any basis. Reliable sources is specified so that people do not use forums or random blogs to validate the original research. This case is an obvious exception, because Harvey James fulfills the rules of "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves". You may have your interpretation that all content must be sourced by reliable/independent sources, but I interpret it as ensuring that people are aware that any source can not be used to validate the content added. The WP:V is more important to the inclusion of sources than WP:OR and, as such, trumps it in this case. If this contradicts WP:OR, then it cannot be applicable. Harvey James clearly does not fail it, and if he cannot be used as a source for his work on this game, then the entire section of WP:V that covers that is unusable for anything. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "WP:NOR" differs from the one stated. It's really black and white in this case (if we're just looking at that guideline) - "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources". Harvey James' blog is not a reliable source. I don't know if there's any WP policy on what to do when these two policies seem to contradict each other, maybe we should try and find one?Filibusti (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR links right to WP:V, one section above the section I cite. If the two contradict each other, then we should consult the more relevant policy of WP:V, which directly addresses and confirms that self-published sources may be used for their own content as long as it is not self-serving. As the content is beneficial to the article's conciseness, WP:AIR allows me to ignore WP:OR in favour of WP:V. There is no perceived damage to the article's content for including the content, so I am confused why you prefer OR to V. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindenting) And WP:V links to WP:OR! Neither link implies the other guideline is more important. I think the intent may well be to allow primary sources only when they are actually published in reliable sources. I can't say for sure though. Personally, I think the superfluous text does hurt the article because it's basically fancruft and not relevant. I also fail to see what WikiProject Aircraft has to do with anything? ( ;) I get that you must have been referring to another page but I don't know which) Filibusti (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing that WP:V editors are not aware of WP:OR. I am arguing that WP:OR editors are aware of WP:V, and vice versa. Your argument is that WP:OR is black and white, without explaining why my explanation of the mention of reliable sources is not an acceptable interpretation of the policy. If anything is black and white, it is WP:V. It specifically states that they may be used - really, there's no interpretation of this policy to be done on it - it's clear what it means.

And I'm lost as to what is superfluous about it - and the absurdity that someone involved in something that he created constitutes a fan is beyond absurd. Fancruft is superfluous content added by fans. Explain to me why Miyamoto's words on his works aren't fancruft, please. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you failed to address what I think seems like a good possible interpretation: "the intent may well be to allow primary sources only when they are actually published in reliable sources." Using the word fancruft was probably misadvised. Filibusti (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In either case, we should probably ask for a third opinion. Filibusti (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't because WP:V says "self-published sources". The section never once even implies that a reliable source has anything to do with it. In fact, the section itself is about sources that are not considered reliable sources. The title itself, with no room for doubt, tells us that your interpretation cannot be right. It is specifically about self-published sources. Please explain to me why a reliable source is necessary by the rule that doesn't mention reliable sources once. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources are reliable, and can be used to source articles. Third party sources are only needed to establish notability. I don't think you should be coming in and proposing articles for deletion, and arguing with established editors about guidelines when you just joined less then a week ago. You obviously do not have a complete grasp on the rules, and should wait to do such drastic things. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Blake, you're 18 years old (I'm older) so I don't think you should argue with me without a full grasp of life. <- sounds quite ridiculous, doesn't it? Either way, I've actually been editing Wiki on and off for the past 4 years, thank you very much. Did you actually read through the parts I posted from WP:OR? Can you explain the contradiction? Filibusti (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Throwing out age means nothing. Not sure why you did. --Teancum (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to explain something which does not exist. You have not explained why my interpretation, which eliminates all contradictions possible, and as such, that is how I explain it away. It is more likely that my undisputed interpretation of that section of the OR policy is correct than there existing a contradiction. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, WP:OR says the material is not OK for inclusion, WP:V says it is. If you can't see a contradiction, you must be blind. Should the clause in WP:V be read as an exception to WP:OR? Hard to tell because it doesn't say! I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that we should ask for a third opinion (I know there used to be a forum for this here on Wiki, can't seem to find it now though. Can you find it?). Filibusti (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I to understand that that third person who just gave his opinion did not constitute a third opinion? Regardless, I explained that the most likely situation is NOT that the two major policies that have stayed this way for very long, but that your interpretation is wrong. I explained that it uses the phrase "reliable source" to dissuade people from using an unreliable source to validate original research. Without an applicable reason why my interpretation of this is not likely, I interpret it as such. Accompanied with the policy that allows me to ignore any rule that prevents the improvement of an article, I can ignore WP:OR in favour of WP:V. And if you want to argue why the information from the self-published sources on the creation of the game is trivial or fancruft, explain to me why it is any more so than if, say, Shigesato Itoi, renowned essayist and one of the most famous in Japan, can be used as a reliable source where anyone involved in this game cannot be (without an explanation that shows blatant bias against independent video game developers). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since a third opinion was given I'll just say this is an acceptable source per WP:PRIMARY as one of the main designers of the game. The only thing that would be necessary to comply with policy is a secondary source which confirms his role in the game's development, thus solidifying the primary source. --Teancum (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Reception in the BDSM community

Would anyone minding writing up 1-2 sentences how the game was recieved there (if at all)? Being part of said community, the game went by me without noticing until I stumbled upon it in Super Meat Boy, which quite frankly puzzled me a little, considering the general art and story design, which is funny without ridiculing anyone. Quite honestly all of above was the reason why I came here in the first place, to find it wasn't mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.193.59 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's been any response from reliable sources covering BDSM - generally because I'm not aware of what BDSM sites are reliable. :p - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Kinda true ... only site that would be semi reliable would be the German "Sklavenzentrale" which has a semi-decent forum that could act as a source. Sadly that page has an abysmal overall design and no search function. Only other possible "worldwide" source I'm aware of would be "Fetlife" (which is pretty much facebook but pervs, but occasionally has decent articles), but couldn't find any mention of the game there either. That's why I asked if it was even recieved at all in the community as a whole (as far as one can say). Guess this answers my question ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.215.252 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mighty Jill Off/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AddThreeAndFive (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I couldn't find any spelling or grammar errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good lead, no needless profanity, no weasel words. Everything looks good.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There's plenty of references.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Everything that needs to be is sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None that I found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Needs more on gameplay.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A nice, concise style.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit war.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All the images have proper copyright notices.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The captions and images are appropriate.
	7. Overall assessment.	Based on comments below, I am closing this as "not passing" for now. I understand the nominator has been busy IRL, and that's fine; if you get around to expanding the gameplay section, you can renominate it and I expect it will pass. – Quadell (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

In my opinion, this is close, but has a few remaining weaknesses.

• The lede should summarize all sections of the article. But it barely mentions art design, and does not mention follow-ups. See WP:LEAD for more.

• The "Gameplay and scenario" section is very short, compared to the abundance of information in the art design section. I have not played the game, so I can't say for sure, but it seems like more information could be added. Are there multiple levels? What are they like? Does it side-scroll? Are there named enemies, or merely "spiders"? Etc. Any more you could add here would help.

All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to this ASAP. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To add onto what User:Quadell stated, I also think the "Gameplay and scenario" section is fairly short. I too have never attempted a Good Article review, but I have done extensive reading on the criteria for such and the guideline to follow. This seems to be the only weakness in this article, and once fixed looks like it should be able to attain Good Article Status. Mordecairule 18:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecairule (talk • contribs)

Due to the long time this has been open, I'm closing the nomination. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence from lead

"She also made the game difficult to fit in with its BDSM theme". Can anybody tell me what this sentence is talking about? I'd like to rephrase it so it's clearer, but I can't decode it in order to do so. It reads somewhat like a cutup of two unrelated sentences. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It basically means that the level of difficulty for players while they are playing the game is higher to make it feel relevant to its BDSM theme; so, in effect, she made the game's difficulty "punishing". - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yeah, a stragically placed comma would've done me a world of good there. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mighty Jill Off/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 19:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Review by Judgesurreal777

Let me know if you need clarification or help with my notes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	What is the reliability of One Switch as a source?
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pending
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Are there any concept art images?
	7. Overall assessment.	Article now well deserving of a GA symbol!

• As New Age Retro Hippie seems to be MIA for the past while, I'm going to take over for him in fixing the issues. --PresN 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Removed the oneswitch source (the info was covered in the other citation); Added a bit to the development paragraph; Doesn't look like there's any reception for the jill off harder edition out there from RS's; added a concept art image- I think it might even be the one that actually directly referenced in the article, but it's hard to say. --PresN 20:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent job! Our nominating wikipedian owes you a barnstar, I'll be watching! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mighty Jill Off. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817173014/http://harveyjames.livejournal.com/74943.html to http://harveyjames.livejournal.com/74943.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817173117/http://harveyjames.livejournal.com/76939.html to http://harveyjames.livejournal.com/76939.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817173058/http://harveyjames.livejournal.com/76055.html to http://harveyjames.livejournal.com/76055.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mighty Jill Off. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120731052405/http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9036826 to http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9036826
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805051456/http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=3&cId=3174065 to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=3&cId=3174065

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)