Talk:Adventure (1980 video game)/Archive 2

Wrong release date
I'm not going to jump in and edit the article itself here since I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure (based on catalogs Atari published in 1980 with this game listed as "Coming Soon") that the game was released in 1980, not 1978. The picture label cartridges have a 1978 copyright year, but I believe that's a typographical error. The text labels (which predate the picture labels) say 1980.

--

Warren Robinett, the creator of the game, writes that the game was published in 1978 on his own web site.

http://www.warrenrobinett.com/adventure/

I personally played the game in a house my parents sold in 1979 (I have a picture of my brother and I playing it), so I am sure it was released before 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zouve (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that the date on Warren's site is a typo. In this interview he clearly states: "I handed over my finished code (with the Easter Egg in it) in June 1979, and quit. The game was released for the christmas season in 1979." --Marty Goldberg 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the evidence cited above, Adventure was awarded Best Innovative Game in the Arcade Awards 1981 of Video Magazine which, "reflects accomplishments during the 12 months of the preceding year", ergo 1980. This is referenced in the first issue of Electronic Games, Winter 1981, page 38&39. Since all arguments in favor of the 1979 date are rooted in personal memory, I'm editing this in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derboo (talk • contribs) 05:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Turns out I'm not, as the site's code is much too convoluted for me. Well, time will tell if this is ever picked up on by any code-magician, or if Wikipedia keeps another piece of information founded on personal memory in ignorance of actual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derboo (talk • contribs) 05:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) A magazine giving an award for performance over the previous year in no way states a release date. It "reflects accomplishments during the preceding year", i.e. its performance on the market for that year. 2) That's a missrepresentation calling it based on "memories", the date is referenced by a direct interview with the author not Zouve's memories (which are wp:or).

For all we know, It's based on the creator's personal memories until he comes up with actual documents. From the quoted source: "I don't know exactly. About a year, maybe less. I handed over my finished code (with the Easter Egg in it) in June 1979, and quit. The game was released for the christmas season in 1979. I went back to my hometown in Missouri for a while, then traveled around in Europe for a while. When I returned to California in the spring of 1980, I think it was known by then. At least by summer 1980, it was known. I went out with some of the Atari game designers one night for pizza and beer and told them about how I did it."

He doesn't even seem to be confident about the release date. He says he left Atari before the game was published, then left the area and country (though without exact dates for each). Even "christmas season" is a vague term to begin with. The Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_season says: "It is generally considered to run from late November to early January".

As for the Awards as evidence: The passage quoted above is poorly phrased for the sake of variety inside that article. On all other occasions it's more specific: The same issue also prints the 1980 awards ("The first set of Arkies was announced in February 1980 and covered all hardware and software produced prior to January 1, 1980"). From Electronic Games January 1983, concerning the 1983 awards: "a title must have become available between October 1, 1981 and October 1, 1982 to be eligible this time". It's also only one of three pieces of evidence cited (after the copyright date on the damn box, which can be viewed at mobygames.com, and the mentions as "coming soon" in 1980 Atari catalogues). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.233.56 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I learned today about the ref improve tag, so I applied it. It's still highly unprofessional and immoral to leave release date information that relies on a single primary source that a.) discredits itself willingly as unreliable and b.) contradicts itself between 2 different publications; against 1 secondary source and 2 primary sources that have been brought up and that have not been discredited. But I'm still technologically impaired, so I still can't fix it; at least now there's some kind of warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derboo (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's inaccurate, they were discredited above. Regardless, additional sources added. That was the wrong tag to use here as well, that's usually used when there's just 1 or 2 references in an article which is of course not the case here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

None of them were discredited. One was read wrongly (granted, due to lack of previously-stated information concerning the nature of those awards), the other two weren't adressed at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Refimprove : "This template indicates that the article needs additional inline citations. This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations." -> The description doesn't talk at all about an absolute number, and when the cited sources are inappropriate to certify a fact, then they are insufficient. Merriam webster: Definition of INSUFFICIENT
 * not sufficient : inadequate ; especially : lacking adequate power, capacity, or competence

About your "new" sources: citation 2 : Article apparently not dated, site copyright 2010 -> after the 1979 date was added to Wikipedia. citation 3 : Content not dated, site copyright 2009-2011 -> after the 1979 date was added to Wikipedia. citation 4 : First published 2009 -> after the 1979 date was added to Wikipedia. citation 5 : Copyright 2009 -> after the 1979 date was added to Wikipedia. citation 6 : Copyright 2001, and thus the only citation that has even the slightest worth in determining this issue. But if that particular publication is to be considered a reliable source, then it also has to be used to "correct" the release dates of the Atari 2600 games Haunted House (1981 instead of 1982), Superman (1979 instead of 1978) and the name of the hero in the original Donkey Kong as "Mario Mario" instead of "Jumpman". And that are only the cited + the following page. No doubt if you'd READ the whole book, you'd find at least a couple hundred new facts that obviously need to fix other, now obvious falsehoods in Wikipedia all along.

Concerning sources 2 through 5: Are there no regulations/guidelines to protect Wikipedia from such positively stupid/borderline malignous abuse of recursive quotations? Any WORKING guidelines about the validity of sources at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derboo (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, here is a new source, from the United States Copyright Office. Date of Publication: 1980-06-29. Could now someone who sees through the convoluted code of the page finally fix this, especially the many fake sources for the supposed 1979 release. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SAB1=adventure+atari&BOOL1=all+of+these&FLD1=Keyword+Anywhere+%28GKEY%29+%28GKEY%29&GRP1=OR+with+next+set&SAB2=&BOOL2=as+a+phrase&FLD2=Keyword+Anywhere+%28GKEY%29+%28GKEY%29&PID=WtoVKNwjnSyDle0kvjBLsdLD2D7EH&SEQ=20120714064856&CNT=25&HIST=1 Derboo (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That copyright is not for the game, but for a printout, if you actually read it.--Asher196 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, regular copyrights for the actual release of games have a videocasette of the game because you're copyrighting the audio-visuals. See Asteroids and many of the other games both coin and home. Unless it's other materials, such as the box or manual that's being copyrighted. Air Sea Battle for instance was all three at once). Realsports Soccer is another example of a filed printout of the code that's being protected after the actual release date. Again, as previously stated, nothing new has been presented nor were the attempts to discredit based on publication date of the article in any way seriously valid or the continual grandstanding in the tone of Derboo's writing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

--

The reference given in the article for the release date, Racing the Beam (2009), states that the game was released in 1978, not 1979 like it is quoted as saying. It might be wrong, but it does not state what this Wikipedia-article claims it states. Should the article be changed to reflect this source or should the source be removed? As scholarly work, it is a reasonably reliable source, although by no means infallible. Wikikrax (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd personally go with Robinett's written account + Racing the Beam and change the release date to 1978. Wikikrax (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The print copy of Racing the Beam says 1979. I'm not sure why the Google Books version says 1978. —Torchiest talkedits 04:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'm working with the digital copy Ebrary has. The Google Books version is probably produced from that file.Wikikrax (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It can't be a simple case of typo or OCR gone wrong, if the order of the list is also different.Wikikrax (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. It appears as though there are two different versions, and while I don't see anything indicating that they are different editions, they are definitely different printings, and they seem to have different ISBNs.  I have ISBN 978-0-262-01257-7, which is the third printing.  The copy that can be previewed in Google Books is ISBN 978-0-262-26152-4, shown as a first printing. But that copy shows the same ISBN in the actual text as my copy. On page xi with the timeline, the Adventure and Space Invaders entries are transposed between the two versions.  The only other differences I see on the list on page xi is that my version shows the Atari Pac-Man as 1982, as opposed to 1981 in the other version.  In my copy, it's the last entry on the page. —Torchiest talkedits 16:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * From the sources provided it seems most likely to me that the game was copyrighted in in 1978, released in late 1979, and may have reached full distribution by 1980. The fact of the matter is that sources conflict, however. Perhaps some authors incorrectly assumed that the copyright date is the same as the release date or that the date the game showed up in their local game store was the release date, or maybe there are just loads of typos. It's impossible to say without speculation. Conveniently for us, 1979 falls in the middle of the range of claims 1978-1980 and using it for the infobox summary makes a lot more sense than leaving it as "unknown" as suggested previously in talk. Given the apparent RS-based confusions over the date, however, I think it's entirely proper to discuss the other claims in prose. I think it makes sense to expand the line "The 1979 date is also listed in many other sources[1][2][3][etc]" to something like "At his webpage, Robinett lists a release date of 1978,[1] and early editions of Bogost's Raising the Beam also suggest this date,[2] however in interviews with Robinett[3] and in later editions of Raise the Beam[4] the 1979 release date is given. Sources like Video Magazine have even suggested a 1980 release date, however the 1979 date is listed in the majority of other sources.[5][6][7][etc]". This isn't perfect prose - just something I came up with a 2 minutes, but the point is that all major perspectives should be included and it's useful to point out that there is a bit of uncertainty about the actual release date. This is of course common for games form this era before proper documentation was practiced. -Thibbs (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Conveniently for us, 1979 falls in the middle of the range of claims 1978-1980 and using it for the infobox summary makes a lot more sense than leaving it as "unknown" as suggested previously in talk." - No, that doesn't make any sense at all. All it does is willfully distort accounts for convenience. If accounts conflict on whether a historic person was a communist, a social democrat or a right wing conservative, you don't present him confidently as "social democrat" in the opening statement, either. Derboo (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose I mean that it makes a lot more sense from the perspective of a text that is trying to educate the reader about where the work fits chronologically within the timeline of text adventures, video games at large, and culture in general. Saying that the game comes from the late-70s-early-80s in prose and summarizing this with the most commonly cited figure (1979) gives the reader a lot more usable information than writing that it is impossible to know the true date and failing to present any further information. From a cultural perspective, the difference between a 1980 release and a 1979 release is quite minor compared to the difference between either of those and a 1995 release. Again the key consideration here should be that if we can't agree on a date then we should present all significant viewpoints rather than presenting no viewpoint. -Thibbs (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Where does "failing to present any further information" come from? Of course all VALID sources have to be considered in the prose, that doesn't make presenting one of the standpoints as a factum, while in actuality it is highly contentious and not properly backed by any of the sources, the way to go. Derboo (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And no, it does not hinder the "education of the reader" to present it as a game released between 1979 and 1980 (a 1978 release date is sufficiently discredited in available sources), it improves it.


 * Ah, see I must have misunderstood. I thought you were advocating for listing the game "with an unknown release date" instead of listing it as "released between 1979 and 1980." If you are interested in presenting all significant perspectives then we're in agreement. -Thibbs (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of evidence for release dates
1978 1979 1980 1981 Other
 * Release date - Warren Robinett at Warrenrobinett.com says "It was published by Atari Inc. in 1978"
 * Release date - First printings of Racing the Beam: The Atari Video Computer System (a book) discuss "Warren Robinett, as he designed and programmed Adventure, the first graphical adventure game, for the Atari VCS in 1978" and list 1978 as the date in the bibliography
 * Copyright date - Box and manual bear a 1978 copyright date
 * Release date - Thejadedgamer.net interview with Warren Robinett quotes Robinett: "The game was released for the christmas season in 1979."
 * Release date - Hardcoregaming101.net email response from Warren Robinett quotes Robinett: "I am pretty sure the Adventure cartridge was released during the 1979 Christmas season. [...] My belief is that it was released during the 1979 Christmas season, but I did not actually see an Adventure cart in a retail store prior to Jan. 1, 1980. So I guess I don't truly know for sure."
 * Release date - 1up.com article speaks of "Adventure's 1979 publication"
 * Release date - Hardcoregaming101.net suggests that The Video Game Theory Reader 2 (a book) and Vintage Games: An Insider Look at the History of Grand Theft Auto, Super Mario, and the Most Influential Games of All Time (a book) list the release date as 1979.
 * Release date - Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (a book) states "making 1979 the actual year of [Adventure's] release."
 * Release date - Third printings of Racing the Beam: The Atari Video Computer System (a book) discuss "Warren Robinett, as he designed and programmed Adventure, the first graphical adventure game, for the Atari VCS in 1978" and list 1979 as the date in the bibliography
 * Unclear - The Medium of the Video Game (a book) states that "In 1979, the first all-graphics adventure game appeared" referring to Adventure
 * Creation date - Toadstool.net interview with Warren Robinett quotes Robinett: "[I] finished [Adventure] in Early 1979"
 * Creation date - Atari.com states: "Created by Warren Robinett in 1979 for the Atari VCS"
 * Release date - A May 14th, 1985 copyright (registration number TX0001344614) lists "date of creation" and "date in notice" as 1979, but "date of publication" as June 29th, 1980.
 * Unclear - Video magazine's 1981 awards proclaim Adventure to be the most innovative game of "the 12 months of the preceding year".
 * Date of first advertisement - InfoWorld only began to run advertisements for Adventure after June 1980.
 * Date of first advertisement - Hardcoregaming101.net lists 7 newspapers (Daily Herald, Altoona Mirror, Twin Falls Times, Winnipeg Free Press, Madison Capital Times, Santa Fe New Mexican, and Salina Journal) that only began to advertise for Adventure after June 1980.
 * Date of first advertisement - Atari Age scans of Atari's software catalog show "(coming soon)" in 1980 and this message only disappears in 1981 scans of the Atari software catalog.
 * Hardcoregaming101.net article mentions many dates between 1978 and 1981 and comes to the conclusion that the jury is still out.

The above is intended to serve as a summary of the evidence for all of the different dates. I find this to be a more compact and less confusing organization of the relevant info. Please add additional evidence to it if any exists. I think this could serve as the kernel of a good RfC if it comes to that. -Thibbs (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My 2¢ after spending way too long poring over databases: use 1979 in the infobox, add a footnoted note, if necessary. Build the article out and actually have a section on development and release, in release mention any of the most reliable secondary sources and feel free to cite how they may disagree. Our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth. To be crystal clear: this means using the books with vetted editors, and samples from Robinett's mouth directly that abide with self-published sources criteria. It isn't necessary to use HG101. (Feel free to move this entry to the latest thread, if need be.) Eye close font awesome.svg czar ♔  16:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Some comments to the sources: Video is even more vague with the awards. The definition "the 12 months of the preceding year" was given for other years, but remains unspecified in this case. On 1981: The catalogs cannot be used to support a 1981 release date, because they are only dated to the year. All the data claims is that there was some point in 1980 when it was not yet released. Derboo (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Atari catalogs are as usable as any of the other advertisements of course - that is to say that they are unusable to establish a release date. Basically these reflect the timing of the marketing for the game, not the release date. The two are tangentially related and may coincidentally match, but then the same is true for the manufacture and copyright dates. -Thibbs (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are to play the game of counting claims that don't come with any scholarly justification whatsoever, here's another one that says 1980: Herman, Leonard: PHOENIX: THE FALL & RISE OF VIDEOGAMES Third Edition First Printing June 2001 ISBN 0-9643848-5-X "CHAPTER SEVEN 1980 (...) The home version of Space Invaders was released in January 1980 with so much publicity that the result was just as Kassar had predicted. (...) Following Space Invaders, Atari released Adventure." (game titles are italicized in the original text) Derboo (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't play those kinds of games at Wikipedia. See WP:NOTAVOTE. -Thibbs (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, the article on HG101 is not self-published - neither Robinett nor the author are the publisher (to not go into the fact how ridiculous the publishing criteria are when applied to video games history, because "established publishers" have no mechanisms in play to secure reliability). Derboo (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out in talk at WP:VG that you yourself appear to be the author of the HG101 article, however, Derboo. As such it's not entirely appropriate for you to be promoting it yourself. See WP:COI. -Thibbs (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And the statement in Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative still relies on a logical fallacy... Derboo (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is your personal interpretation. I disagree. -Thibbs (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No it is not personal interpretation, and if you disagree, then you are mistaken. The author takes a 1979 completion date and concludes with a 1979 publishing date, which is not a valid conclusion. A 1979 publishing date does not follow from a 1979 completion date. Derboo (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not given the information you have. But you're not the author of that book. You don't know how the author concluded that 1979 was the release date. Speculations that the author has illogically based the release date solely on the completion date is just that - speculation. As I pointed out earlier, this is a demonstration of the argument from ignorance fallacy. -Thibbs (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not a speculation, it's in there in the text. The author explicitly says: "But the actual code was finished and turned over to Atari in June of 1979, making 1979 the actual year of release." The sentence structure is not "A is true and B is true (according to the research I did but do not specify)". The structure is "A makes B", but a correlation does not exist.Derboo (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be assuming that the sentence is intended as a closed logical proof. If, however, the logical proof is broadened to "A and everything previous to A makes B," or indeed if the sentence is actually written in the vernacular instead of for the logician then it's quite possible that there is information that the author hasn't provided that has led to the "making" of the 1979 date for her. Unless you have positive evidence of an absence of logic, it is fallacy to infer the absence of evidence. Are you in fact aware of any evidence that the author has for some reason based the publication date solely on the completion date? It would be a rather remarkably illogical conclusion for anyone who has been a party to the publication process. As it happens Judith Butler is a published academic author and might well be relied upon to differentiate between the date of creation and the date of publication considering that she has gone through the process several times herself. Did she use a confusing construction in explaining her research on the publication date? Certainly. Does that lead to the inevitable conclusion that she illogically based the publication date on the creation date alone despite her own publishing experiences? Not (for me) without some kind of affirmative evidence. -Thibbs (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you're the one who is speculating that the author might not have meant what she wrote. I'm only discussing what's there in writing, and that is an invalid statement. Derboo (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I assume she meant that the actual year of release is 1979 just as she wrote. I'm not going to speculate about the unwritten logic behind this clear claim. As I pointed out, it's not impossible that there is logic behind her conclusion and in the absence of affirmative evidence of her misunderstanding of the creation-to-publication timeline or something like that I'll just rely on her credentials as an academic to support her claim. -Thibbs (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll note as well that this is rather a distraction. The claim in the article is not based solely on Butler's article and it does not sink or swim on whether Judith Butler is logical. Additional sources would be more helpful than speculations on the thought processes of the authors of the sources currently listed. Are there more sources floating around? -Thibbs (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "I assume she meant that the actual year of release is 1979 just as she wrote." That is not what she wrote. But let's simply rely on her credentials as an academic to cherry-pick fragments from an incoherent statement, I guess that works too. Derboo (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your overall point is lost on me I'm afraid. What do you seek to achieve by discrediting the Butler source? Are you trying to demonstrate that there are conflicting claims regarding the release date? I think that much is quite evident from the chart above. Are you suggesting that we should be using one of the other sources instead of the Butler source? Which one would you prefer? I don't feel like the speculation about how Butler came to conclude that 1979 was the release date is helpful in achieving a resolution to this long-running issue. -Thibbs (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "What do you seek to achieve by discrediting the Butler source?" I seek to achieve an article that doesn't rely on an invalid source. Here is one author that has made stated an explicit reasoning for the conclusion. That makes the fundamental difference between a mere claim and an explanation. However, when that explanation is evidently wrong, then the source cannot be considered reliable on that matter. I don't think the opening statement and info box should have any citations attached to them directly (and ideally say "1979 or 1980", or some equivalent notation), only bringing in sources in "History and design", where it is possible to elaborate on the issue. My view is that a balanced reporting requires both direct statements from Robinett (the initial one proposing 1979 and the qualifying one that the former is based on assumption), a mention that the 1979 claim is actively disputed by a source that has put forth actual (though inferred) evidence, and a breakdown of all available valid secondary sources that make claims that unquestionably refer to the publishing date (which does not include Butler, Loguidice/Barton or Wolf, but the last printing of Bogost/Montfort, Hermn and 1up.com). Derboo (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with using the most recent Bogost/Montfort source (I think that's what you're saying, yes?). The Wolf source is unclear so I wouldn't have a problem nixing that either. I've been unable to verify it, but my understanding from the HG101 article is that Loguidice/Barton actually does present a release date. If so then I don't see why we should cut it. The 1up article definitely presents a release date so I don't see why we should cut that either (actually I'm unclear if you're saying to cut it or not). I have no idea what the Hermn source is and we can let others decide on the inclusion or exclusion of the Butler source. I agree with using the quotes from Robinett, though I still would like to hear outside views on the HG101 source since it was evidently written after a dispute on this very page and some people might find that to taint the source's reliability. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, that was a typo, should be Herman - Herman, Leonard: PHOENIX: THE FALL & RISE OF VIDEOGAMES, I posted the quote a bit further above. 1up.com is among my "to includes"; Loguidice/Barton only has the date in brackets when talking about a different game that is then put in relation to Adventure, I would not consider that sufficiently specific but YMMV. Derboo (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issue with including Phoenix: The Fall & Rise of Videogames as a source. I'm pretty sure it's been cited here at Wikipedia several times before. I can't comment on Loguidice/Barton source without actually reviewing it. -Thibbs (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy ready so I cannot cite the correct page, but I was reminded that Replay by Tristan Donovan contains a mention of the game in Chapter 7: Pac-Man Fever with the release date given as 1979, so if someone got the book and is inclined to check, that could be added to the list. The passage as a whole is a paraphrase of Warren Robinett's statements, though, so that should be mentioned if it is to be used as a source. Derboo (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There may also be something in Retro Gamer if anyone has a copy. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a look through WP:VG/RL. There's a good article on the Colossal Cave Adventure in Issue 31 (which I have access to, but which doesn't mention the vaguely-related Atari game)), and it looks like it possibly has coverage of the Atari game (the topic of this article) in Issue #115 (25 April 2013). Sadly the most recent issue I have is #102... If we can find anybody who has #115, though, that would be a good lead. Retro Gamer are usually pretty careful in tracking down and covering information discrepancies like this. -Thibbs (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So, to sum up the convoluted split discussion between here and the bottom section of this page: That... looks like 79 to me. With the addition that the development section should mention that there are sources that say contradictory dates, and there is evidence that heavy advertising didn't start until mid-1980. I'm not sure what the argument is about- Derboo thinks that all sources after 2009 are inherently unreliable and the authors unqualified? Honestly, given that the HG101 article is a hatchet job against Marty Goldberg, and that you repeated elide around the fact that you're the author of that (non-reliable) piece of work (you refer to the author in the third person several times), I'm inclined to discount your (unsupported) opinion- you have no proof that the otherwise reliable sources are based off of the Wikipedia article, you just say that they are. I'll also mention that in the below section you state quite firmly that your HG101 article should be used as a source- indeed that it's the best source ("It's also the only source outside of previous interviews that demonstrates scholarly consideration of the release date"); the fact is that HG101 is a situational source that can only be used if the author themselves is notable, and Sam Derboo is not notable. If I threw up an article by PresN on the site, it wouldn't be an RS either. It's especially ironic, given that you try to claim that your source is fine, while disparaging the work of a video game developer who is a writer for a magazine, a published author of a book on video game history, and a large part of several video game history websites. Marty Goldberg is a reliable source- Sam Derboo is not.
 * For 1978 the only evidence is that the name was copyrighted then (meaningless), that in one of several interviews Warren Robinett said 78 (but contradicted himself later), and that in the first printing of a book it said 78, which was corrected in later versions.
 * For 1980+ we have another copyright, and advertisements that say coming soon and contradict each other
 * For 1979 we have at least 5 books, two interviews, and atari.com

And, of course, there is the perpetual elephant in the room- these kind of nonsensical, contentious debates about one specific number in an article? They never happen in Featured (or even Good) articles, oh no. They are, without fail, the purview of mediocre little articles like this one- haphazard Start or C-class wretches that need a top-to-bottom rewrite to go anywhere. The amount of effort that went into this debate could have transformed it into the third GA of a 1970s (hah) video game out of the current 717 VG GAs; instead, it's just a tempest in a talk page. -- Pres N  04:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey hey hey, now, I've been working on this article on and off for a year. You should see it before 2013. I am aiming for GA in the near future, so I'd like to get this mess cleared up. Thanks for your comments. —Torchiest talkedits 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose to pick up the mic after PresN dropped it, I don't think there's anything left to discuss here that hasn't been already summarized., I do hope you'll stay around. There's a lot of really important work to be done in this area—obviously there's the original research and the truth, but there's also writing for the top Google hit using only what the vetted sources said. If you are interested, I highly recommend the article I linked before on the Haymarket riot and Wikipedia and truth (original research). And , let me know if you need any database search backup czar ♔  05:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for disparaging the article, ; you're right, it was much worse before you started working on it. I just get really angry whenever I see a really long argument about a release date or which region the lead image should be from (for example) on an article that's not at least at GAN. -- Pres N  06:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @, it's okay, I know what you meant. I just felt like squawking a little. ;) I agree stuff like this is way out of proportion to the actual importance relative to the article as a whole. And, what do you mean by database search? —Torchiest talkedits 14:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * news and article databases, for old coverage in major sources—I can access quite a few czar ♔  15:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, PresN and Czar (interesting article, by the way, Czar - I'm frankly surprised the author was so good-natured about it in the end). Anyway I agree with PresN that there's no need to go overboard with this relatively trivial issue. As Derboo in the HG101 article pointed out earlier, we're talking about a difference of mere months here. So I don't think there's a pressing need (for example) to change the article's title from "Adventure (1979 video game)" to "Adventure (1979 or possibly 1980 video game)". And there's not really a compelling reason in my view to tinker with the infobox either. I do think it's appropriate to cover the copyright date, creation date, release date(s), and advertising dates with sources. So I think that the line "In a 2003 interview, Robinett recalled the release date as being Christmas 1979.[4] The 1979 date is also listed in many other sources.[16][17][18][19]" should be expanded to something more like "In a 2003 interview, Robinett recalled the release date as being Christmas 1979.[4] The 1979 date is also listed in many other sources,[16][17][18][19] however sources including Warren Robinett's webpage suggest a 1978 release[37] and the game's 1985 copyright lists a release date of June 29th, 1980[38] (a date that has been cited by Herman in Phoenix: The Fall & Rise...[39]). By 1980, advertisements began to appear for the game in a variety of newspapers[40][41] and by 1981 it was listed as available in Atari's catalog.[42]" Something like that. -Thibbs (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think your suggestions are good, and I'll try to write something like that into the text in the next few days. —Torchiest talkedits 14:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"and there is evidence that heavy advertising didn't start until mid-1980." There is evidence that advertisement dated 1980 stated that the game was not out then. "Derboo thinks that all sources after 2009 are inherently unreliable and the authors unqualified?" No, Derboo thinks that sources after a certain opinion has been popularized through a statement that was since revealed as having been made from faith and demonstrate not the slightest amount of scholarly research on the matter are highly compromised in their reliability concerning THAT SPECIFIC MATTER. There is no "undue weight of truth" here, this is one of the most basic, essential requirements of the scholarly method. "and that you repeated elide around the fact that you're the author of that (non-reliable) piece of work (you refer to the author in the third person several times)" There is no "eliding around the fact" - the name is attached to my every post here. It's a stylistic convention. "I'm inclined to discount your (unsupported) opinion- you have no proof that the otherwise reliable sources are based off of the Wikipedia article, you just say that they are." No, I don't say that they are based off the Wikipedia article (OR the statements by Robinett, which I hope I never forgot to include, but if I did, my bad). I say the sources give no grounds to speculate they are not. "It's especially ironic, given that you try to claim that your source is fine, while disparaging the work of a video game developer who is a writer for a magazine, a published author of a book on video game history, and a large part of several video game history websites." A writer for a magazine, a published author of a book on video game history, and a large part of several video game history websites who fails to produce any viable evidence for his stance when prompted. There is no "hatchet job against Marty Goldberg", the article specifically states that he is known for better work. But in this case, no work to disparage has even been demonstrated. For the record, I've gotten in contact with several authors of the quoted books to try and find actual evidence, but so far no one could cite any. (Though the time passed since their work is an issue in many cases, this problem would not exist if anyone had ever laid down a scholarly examination of the issue.) Curt Vendel said that sufficient evidence could not be found (his book only mentions Adventure in relation to a later game, no release date mentioned) "And, of course, there is the perpetual elephant in the room- these kind of nonsensical, contentious debates about one specific number in an article? They never happen in Featured (or even Good) articles, oh no." The hope would be that "good" articles shouldn't need them? Derboo (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"but there's also writing for the top Google hit using only what the vetted sources said" I have no interest in "writing for the top Google hit" or propagating faith statements based on "vetted sources" for which no valid vetting mechanism are in place, thank you very much. I'm also not interested in truth, and I don't know why that keeps coming up. I'm only interested in evidence and in scholarship. Derboo (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Breakpoint

 * I've been staying away from commenting on this one, but after doing a little more digging, I feel I should jump in. First of all, I endorse nearly everything Derboo has said.  I am not enamored with his apparent smear campaign against Marty, as I find him to be a thoughtful researcher that strives for accuracy and bias-free reporting of events, but he is quite right that the secondary literature is not well-researched in this case.  I am always disturbed by the inclination of certain editors of wikipedia video game history articles to take the word of often haphazardly researched books containing facts that are easily disproved.  I am well aware of wikipedia's policies on verifiability versus truth and reliable sources, but I would argue that a source that contains inaccurate information is unreliable on its face regarding the inaccurate information.  The authors of these works do not have access to special secret insider sources that we wikipedia editors cannot find ourselves regarding Adventure.  The one person who does have access to such sources, Curt Vendel, is on record stating that his internal company documents do not shed any light on this issue.  What we do have is a lack of any advertisements for Adventure in 1979 combined with a Sears Catalog listing that states it is new to the catalog for Christmas 1980 and an advertisement I have just uncovered in the June 1, 1980 edition of the Santa Cruz Sentinel listing Adventure as a "new" game.  That is also the first month that an ad for the game appears in InfoWorld magazine and the month claimed by the 1985 copyright registration.  The only primary source that indicates a 1979 release date is Robinett himself, and he has admitted that he only knows that he submitted the finished product that year and merely speculates that Atari released it for Christmas 1979.  As he no longer worked at Atari when the game was released, he does not qualify as a reliable source on this matter, and the authors of the secondary literature that have taken his word for the release date should really be ashamed of such shoddy scholarship.  The currently available evidence is overwhelming that the game was released in 1980, most likely in June. Indrian (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"As he no longer worked at Atari when the game was released, he does not qualify as a reliable source on this matter, and the authors of the secondary literature that have taken his word for the release date should really be ashamed of such shoddy scholarship." I'd like to qualify this a bit - if someone writes a book about something completely different, that mentions Adventure as an aside to relate it to another games and briefly put the year in brackets, like Vintage Games does, it would not be fair to demand a tremendous amount of research from the author, and most release dates of games are usually just assumed to be accurate as they appear in online databases. To a lesser degree that also counts for Racing the Beam, as it occupies itself with the technological achievements of the game (although a bit more weight lies on listing it in a bibliography, but we also know that the authors have put thoughts into the revision). The fact is, none of the sources, except those that directly quote Robinett, are ABOUT the release date, nor concern themselves with it in any scholarly way, but that's just what they are. I consider taking such extremely peripheral sources as reliable evidence (and unshakable evidence, it seems) for a controversial issue the problem, much less the sources themselves. Also, I would not cite the Sears catalog as evidence - it is likely to refer to the Sears Tele-Games rebranded version, which probably appeared later. Derboo (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll be the first to admit that the circumstantial evidence in this case is strong. For what it's worth, I lean toward the 1980 release date myself. But that's totally based on my own personal synthesis of the circumstantial evidence offered by Derboo and others. What can be said? It's compelling evidence for a researcher to see that all advertisements for the game emerge in mid-1980. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a researcher's blog. As editors we really aren't supposed to be donning the researcher's hat even if the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. We deal in claims here, and specifically in claims from reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The evidence we consider goes to whether the source is reliable, not whether the information is correct in our estimation. As editors we are encouraged to assess the reliability of sources, however the determination of reliability can't come from a comparison of the author's conclusions to some personally known Truth. In determining an otherwise reliable source to be unreliable based on the fact that the author's conclusion differs from our personal interpretations of the circumstantial evidence we have uncovered, we create a false dichotomy. We would be treating the matter as if it were one where two reliable sources conflicted when in fact the second (and conflicting) "reliable" source is only we, our unreliable selves. As editors we are also allowed to exercise carefully considered discretion when it comes to differentiating between the significance of multiple sources with opposed claims. With sources of equivalent reliability, the Wikipedian way to resolve opposed sources is to present all significant views, and to only dismiss those fringe views whose coverage would be undue in relation to the topic as a whole. I totally sympathize with the idea that brazenly portraying dubious information as Truth is misleading, but Wikipedia should never be doing more than presenting it as the (lowercase) truth of the reliable majority (hopefully attributed). The theory underlying this is that the reliable majority is usually correct, and for individual editors to try to present novel interpretations and extrapolations is to invite error. Even if these novel ideas are excellent and scholarly and important, Wikipedia simply isn't the place to be presenting them. Wikipedia must never become a forum for original theories and discoveries or its reliablity would cease to rest on its sources and instead come to rest on the scholarship of its editors. This would spell the end of Wikipedia as we know it. Other venues are actually designed for this purpose, however. Many gaming websites offer free blogs for members. Some gaming journals allow the submission of articles and papers from readers. Etc. If it's any consolation, I think that the presentation of non-True claims is important even from a Single Known Truth perspective. It's important to take historical note of major misconceptions as well as to point out the Single Truth. By clearly attributing the false ideas of the reliable majority Wikipedia presents important background information that will be greatly informative to later researchers when the Truth finally emerges and gains historical favor. Cold comfort, perhaps, but there it is. -Thibbs (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And there's more to determining the reliability of a secondary source for a certain detail than counting the number of books the author published. Scholarship is not made by name, it's made by method. Detail is highly peripheral to the overall purpose of the source? Reliability goes down. Source shows no evidence of scholarly assessment of the specific detail? Reliability goes way down. Source shows evidence of being chiefly shaped by a POV account, which is on record as not being an eyewittness account and thus unreliable by its own admission? Reliability is lying flat on the floor. You can have a hundred sources by "reliable authors" claiming with no evidence that the earth is flat - all it takes is one scientific demonstration of the contrary to completely shatter the reliability of all the previous unjustified claims. A "reliable" claim to the earth being flat simply cannot exist anymyore. It's not quite that scientifically clear-cut here, but a reliable claim that Adventure was released in 1979 cannot be made without presenting any shred of evidence. I repeat myself, Truth never factored into any of my arguments. What I'm saying is that all cited sources have been demonstrated unreliable (on that specific detail, mind you) by the weight of evidence. Derboo (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The speculation that all purported RSes are wrong and that your own private research is correct is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. It's as simple as that. If we have contrary claims published by third party sources of equal reliability then we can cover both claims. If we have contrary claims published by third party sources of clearly superior reliability then we can talk about exercising editorial discretion. That's what it boils down to. -Thibbs (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I never made a statement about any of the sources being wrong, all I say is that they're not reliable, and that the concept of reliability that is suggested here is horribly distorted. There is no speculation about anything being wrong at all, reliability is all I'm taking about. Any claim for which no valid evidence has ever been produced cannot be a reliable claim (and if evidence against a claim has been presented, as it is in this case, that claim becomes an extraordinary claim and is in even more dire need of evidence to be considered reliable). The concept of reliability that is assumed here is simply inappropriate for any discussion at all, let alone for an encyclopedia. When this concept is held up as a standard, Wikipedia is not a work based on reliability, it's a purely faith based work, and calling anything that is compiled by such "standards" an encyclopedia is simply a preposterous lie. Derboo (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With the one exception of the 1985 copyright filings, all of the support for the 1980 release date is circumstantial. You've done a good job of using this circumstantial evidence to bolster the 1980 date and you have pointed at a variety of things to knock down the credibility of the traditional RSes who as a clear majority support the 1979 date. Evidence of unreliability has come variously in the form of their modern date, a perceived lack of logic, and a failure of the sources to provide rigorous methodology subsections and elements of a formal proof that you (and other primary researchers) could scrutinize. But these failures and shortcomings do not actually support the 1980 date and they are in fact only failures and shortcomings if you are to assume that they got their information from Wikipedia, they are confused about the publication process, and that their lack of published methodology or proof is evidence that they lacked methodology or proof. These are some pretty big assumptions. In assessing the reliability of the sources you have to consider whether or not they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As you've already acknowledged, we aren't supposed to be assessing their reliability by comparing their results to the Truth. So your personal interpretations of the circumstantial evidence in the form of magazines without advertisements on key dates and award ceremonies granting prizes on key dates, as compelling as it honestly is, doesn't really touch on the question of whether the sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If we had other reliable sources that made claims contrary to those of the listed sources then we could compare between them and determine which claims are better supported, but if you yourself represent the only authority making the contrary claim then you're improperly setting yourself up as a source of equivalent strength. In this case there is really pretty scant evidence for the 1980 date - the only affirmative article of evidence is the copyright filing's claim. We can't very well use the absence of advertisements and synthesize this with the likely dates of certain awards ceremonies to support an affirmative claim of a 1980 release date. Even laying out the facts in such a way that the reader is guided to some novel conclusion would violate WP:OR. Noting that there is some ambiguity and citing a few neutral RSes in support of all significant dates is OK, but it's not OK to speculate that all RSes are unreliable and that the only thing that is reliable is that which supports our personal interpretation of the circumstantial evidence. -Thibbs (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no effort to "sweep under the rug the notable fact that the majority of traditional RSes agree on a date", but a consistent effort to sweep under the rug the notable fact that the matter of this argument is extremely periphal to most of these works. There's also a consistent effort to put claims into my mouth that I don't make. "then it's eminently reasonable to present both dates" Yes, of course it is! I do not propose to report that the game was released in 1980, nor did I ever propose to not present both dates. All I propose is "1979 or 1980". What I oppose is the presentation of the 1979 date like an established fact in the headline, info box and lead-in. "non-peer-reviewed" Funny you should assume that, while simply assuming (based on faith again?) the printed sources are, and furthermore assuming that they are peer-reviewed on matters of historiography and dating, which many of the sources are not even concerned with. "the fact that certain magazines are lacking advertisements prior to a certain date" It's the fact that several reoccuring advertisements not list the game prior to a certain date, but almost all start listing it from around that certain date, and that there are dated advertisements that claim the game was not released at the date of their publication. which is much stronger evidence than the preceding misrepresentation makes it out to be. "through private (unpublished) emails between the blogger and the game's creator" All published interviews are based on previously unpublished conversations between the interviewer and interviewee. What is your point here? "that the creator is "pretty sure the Adventure cartridge was released during the 1979 Christmas season"" And once again, distorting the message and purpose of the conversation by sweeping under the rug the important part, the creator's clarification that he is not an eyewitness to any evidence for the game's release. Derboo (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As an aside: While I strongly support representing both dates, I claim that if all "reliable" sources that just barely mention the release date are to be presented, it has to be made clear in what context the claims are made. When the author does not make clear what is actually claimed (Wolf), it has to be noted as such. A casual mention in brackets (Loguidice/Barton) also has to be noted as such. Only sources that actually concern themselves with the question of the release date (Parish, Herman; only perhaps by conclusion from the fact that it was corrected between printings Bogost/Montfort, but stuff like that's original research and frowned upon, I hear) can really go without qualifying remarks. And I still cannot get over the ridiculousness of citing the nonsensical Butler claim for the matter-of-fact styled statements, which is also paraphrasing a POV account no less. Derboo (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh crap. Sorry, I actually changed the entire content of my previous note about an hour before your post since I thought it could be taken as insulting to your off-wiki work. I think my new (as of 22:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)) note is clearer about why it's ineffective to use personal interpretations of circumstantial evidence regarding content to try to discredit a source's reliability (i.e. its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Sorry about the confusion... -Thibbs (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason I added that "ridiculous" source is because of your relentless insistence that all sources published after the 1979 date was added to this article are prima facie invalid. While you continue arguing about what amounts to a few months difference, I have been trying to improve the article. Thibbs is right. Everything you have presented is circumstantial, not clear cut, while the majority of sources saying 1979 simply state that is the year of release. I have already added a bit about Atari saying "coming soon" in 1980. —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 01:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, feel free to ignore anything written in response to the parts you removed/changed significantly. I've got one addition/clarification to something you've added: "But these failures and shortcomings do not actually support the 1980 date and they are in fact only failures and shortcomings if you are to assume that they got their information from Wikipedia, they are confused about the publication process, and that their lack of published methodology or proof is evidence that they lacked methodology or proof." Lack of verifiability is an enormous shortcoming in and of itself when there is evidence that works against a claim while no evidence has ever brought forward to support the claim, no matter what happened inside the head of the author of a source. The only assumption I ever formulated was a hyperbolic, facetious one ("Which without further insight should give them about a 90% chance that such a minute, seemingly trivial detail as the game's release date was either taken directly from Wikipedia in the first place or directly from statements by Warren Robinett himself") to highlight the problem with an utter lack of verifiability, but I was (and am still) under the impression that it was instantly recognizable as such, both because of tone and for pulling something as precise as a percentage out of thin air. Yes, we have no grounds to assume the references are circular, but we also have no grounds to assume they are NOT circular. That's the problem here. Also, even when strictly reputation-based "reliability" is your thing, there are problems: Yes there are several academics among the authors, but as far as I can see none of them is a historian, and assuming academic historian peer review took place for populist works of game design studies or sociology is another huge leap of faith to make. I repeat again to make sure: I do not propose to not represent the sources at all (except for the nonsensical claim), but they have no business being attached to matter-of-fact styled statements, only explicitly as citations of individual claims. Derboo (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "while no evidence has ever brought forward to support the claim" - What about all of the direct claims in the sources above? That's the kind of evidence we're interested in at Wikipedia. Comparing the facts that the authors present against the facts that our own investigations turn up is considered to be original research at Wikipedia. "Yes, we have no grounds to assume the references are circular, but we also have no grounds to assume they are NOT circular. That's the problem here." - I keep telling you that this is not a problem. The assumption is never that reliable sources skim Wikipedia for their research. I frankly can't imagine a truly reliable source consulting Wikipedia unless it was to report on Wikipedia itself. If no sources were considered reliable unless it could be proved that the authors didn't consult Wikipedia in their research then encyclopedic coverage would come to an end for topics arising after some time around January 2001. This speculation concerning circularity is completely unfounded as far as I can see. If you have any evidence at all then please share it. "even when strictly reputation-based 'reliability' is your thing" - It's not my thing. It's Wikipedia's thing. See WP:RS from which I can quote: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." The system at Wikipedia is carefully set up for maximum safeguards given the fundamental condition that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Since anyone can edit this encyclopedia, that means that even children and complete fools can edit it. The near-total deference to reliable authority acts as a safeguard. If a complete fool can show that his fool idea is supported by reliable authority then it can have a place in Wikipedia. What's not allowed is for the foolish or indeed the clever to introduce original ideas that they have developed by careful analysis of primary sources. Even though Wikipedia fails to set the record straight when brilliantly executed amateur research truly warrants a revision of history, it is protected from the introduction of unvetted speculation, non-neutral theories, and dubious amateur scholarship. All in all it's safest this way. -Thibbs (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "What about all of the direct claims in the sources above? That's the kind of evidence we're interested in at Wikipedia." Claims are not evidence, and claims without evidence are weak claims, no matter who makes them. When claims are reported, they need to be reported AS claims. In an article about the geography of the planet earth you can have a history section and cite thousands of claims from history that state the earth is flat, what you cannot do is call the article "Geography of planet earth (flat)", and you cannot put a column in the info box that says "Shape: Flat (ref nonsensical babbling that contains the words earth and flat in the same sentence)", because they're claims not supported by evidence. That's all we have here: Claims not supported by any evidence whatsoever. "It's not my thing." I should clarify - with "you" I meant to refear to Wikipedia in the generic second person. "I frankly can't imagine a truly reliable source consulting Wikipedia unless it was to report on Wikipedia itself." I cannot, either, but a truly reliable source is invariably a source that brings up evidence. A source that doesn't cite evidence can never, not in any way, be truly reliable. Got more comments on comments, but gotta go. More later... Derboo (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Geography of planet earth (flat)" would be an appropriate title and "Shape: Flat" would be an appropriate infobox item if that was the general consensus of the reliable sources. If this claim was to be challenged properly, the evidence we would look for is statements by generally accepted authorities that the Earth is round, not extrapolated evidence from the accounts of world-traversers or snapshots from the Moon or complaints that the sources hadn't provided you with their calculations for you to critique. Primary analysis of this kind may be extremely compelling (as in the round-Earth example) but Wikipedia's RS policy is very clear on this point: "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." We're covering old ground over and over again on this issue. I keep telling you that editor-interpreted primary source material cannot be used to establish facts and can't provide the rationale for burden-of-proof-shifting speculation regarding the academic shortcomings of ostensibly qualified scholars. And you keep speculating and pointing to primary source material. I think this has gone on for long enough to be honest. I suggest taking the question to WikiProject Video Games' Reliable Source board or Wikipedia's General Reliable Source Noticeboard. -Thibbs (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's necessary, I'm sure it will be a complete waste of time. Judging by the comments produced by the people who followed your call here, I'd probably still consider you a rare reasonable voice here. I'm just gonna have to live with the fact that Wikipedia keeps being all about blind faith in reputation (or even just blind faith in published print works, which is even worse), not ACTUAL reliability. It's more than enough that I feel compelled to keep replying to every comment here, like this: "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." This is not an opinion matter. It's an evidence matter. Opinions are not evidence. "that means that even children and complete fools can edit it" Complete fools can get academic degrees and get books published, too (no, I'm not suggesting that any of the source authors is, please never misunderstand/misquote me on this one!), it's a bit harder for children I admit. But that's all neither here nor there, because a child or a complete fool presenting actual evidence is infinitely more reliable than the most renowned scholar on earth making unsubstantiated claims. Derboo (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But hey, at least the Butler citation has been "downgraded" a bit, which at least is some improvement, I guess. Derboo (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well yeah I don't know what to say. Ultimately it's all based on a set of assumptions and broad approximations of reliability. As a rule should Wikipedia put blind trust a group of writers with academic degrees and published books or should Wikipedia trust its own editors to be competent to correctly read and interpret primary source material? If accuracy is the goal and Wikipedia lacks the resources to credential and fact-check all of its 21 million editors, then the community's decision to blindly trust the academic world makes some small degree of sense. There's very little nuance to the reliability rules, but some would argue that that's what it takes when you're dealing with massive crowds of people with very strong opinions on the Truth. -Thibbs (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, something I've overlooked by Torchiest: "The only reason I added that "ridiculous" source is because of your relentless insistence that all sources published after the 1979 date was added to this article are prima facie invalid." But the use of additional, superfluous sources to create the false impression that a claim already in the article was backed by further evidence was what escalated this dispute in the first place. And even if you ignore the fact that it makes a nonsensical conclusion, the Butler source at least makes clear where all its actual information comes from (statements by Warren Robinett) and proves in itself that it's redundant to include, because we already had a testimony of Robinett's belief. The other sources are not prima facie invalid, they are invalid because on close examination they give the reader no choice but to speculate - assuming they go back to Robinett's testimony is speculation (once again, the "taken from Wikipedia" thing was rhethoric hyperbole), but assuming they did anything else is also speculation. I also repeat: I do not claim they're invalid to be cited as claims, only that they are invalid to back matter-of-fact styled statements. "I have been trying to improve the article." I appreciate that, and I've been noticing the improvements. I've been doing that, too, though more indirectly (I'm not going to touch the edit button on this article). Down below there's still one more contemporary review quoted to include in the article. "Everything you have presented is circumstantial, not clear cut, while the majority of sources saying 1979 simply state that is the year of release." Yes. It's circumstantial evidence vs. no evidence, and I'm not even trying to establish the version with the circumstantial evidence as "Truth". All I'm saying is that it's a farce to confidently proclaim the version for which there is no evidence (by evidence I mean evidence, not unsubstantiated claims) available. Marty Goldberg mentioned a copy of a so-called "internal ROM release list" (whatever "release" in this context means) on WP:VG. He really should publish it (preferably a facsimile/scan and not a transcript), then it could actually become of use in this matter. "While you continue arguing about what amounts to a few months difference," I am not concerned with a few months difference. I am concerned with proper sourcing of information. That said, I accept now that Wikipedia as an institution is only concerned with faith in reputation and autority, and when in doubt gives a damn about real evidence, and I'm going to let it rest. My concerns have been heard, and I'm confident you're determined to make it the best it can be under these circumstances, which is more than I expected would ever happen back in 2011/2012. Derboo (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

First Action-Adventure?
Is this really the first one? Superman Atari 2600 seems to predate this one,according to wikipedia. --85.115.33.180 (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I went back and reread the source, and it turns out I misinterpreted was it said a little.  I've rewritten the text to better match what the source actually says. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I see it was changed back - I still think superman was released first. Its in the atari catalog before adventure is ever mentioned.

Adventure might be the fist popular action adeventure (and good one),but superman was first.213.119.98.217 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a bit complicated. It's possible Superman was released first, but I've read a few sources that indicate that its design was inspired by Adventure, as both programmers were working for Atari at the same time, and Warren Robinett started first. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 20:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132160/atari_the_golden_years__a_.php?page=8

Superman WAS first released,so the statement is wrong.The 2 were closely linked (see article). This link is worth mentioning (Superman was the game Atari wanted,Adventure was te developer his pet project).

I also found one game that had an earlier easter egg (but the statement in the article is fair). http://www.mobygames.com/game/channel-f/videocart-20-video-whizball 213.119.98.217 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary reviews
There are tons of sources from the last decade or two talking about Adventure's history and design, but not really any easily accessible sources from the 1908s. What this article is especially lacking is contemporary reviews. , can you see about dredging up anything like that? —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, you're looking for reviews from the 80s (contemporaneous) not the present day (contemporary)? If you can give me leads for magazines that might work, I can get them interlibrary loaned (ILL). Depending on when you're working on this, ping me again towards the end of May and I'll be able to dedicate more time to crawling the newspaper databases for 80s reviews (it's sort of a difficult name for which to search). Eye close font awesome.svg czar ♔  15:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, contemporaneous is synonymous with one meaning of contemporary, but I guess my usage was a bit imprecise. :P I'm not really sure what types of magazines did coverage on console games from back in the 80s though. I'm more acquainted with PC gaming magazines of that era. I'll have to do some research on that and update here. Searching for "Atari Adventure" should disambiguate your searches sufficiently, I think. And I'll probably continue to work on this on and off for a while yet, so late May should be fine. I should have leads by then. Thanks! —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Popular Electronics 19 from 1981 seems to have a review, or at least some review-like coverage, but all I can get from google books is this fragment: "Adventure" (Atari) does not involve combat or racing against the clock. The royal golden ..." Could also be a text adventure called "Adventure" for Atari computers, though... Derboo (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this helps or not, but the Sears Christmas catalog for 1980 shows Adventure on page 656 and states "New for Christmas 1980".https://www.flickr.com/photos/wishbook/3114585830/in/set-72157608220146364--Asher196 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I mentioned this above, but Retro Gamer #115 (25 April 2013) seems to have a development history for Adventure (not sure which version it is (1979 or 1982 or another), but I'm pretty sure it's not the old 1976 ADVENT text adventure since that was covered in an earlier issue. -Thibbs (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Right. Just realized that this section is about contemporary reviews... Sorry. Carry on. -Thibbs (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * By the Editors of Consumer Guide: How to Win at Home Video Games. Skokie, Illinois: Publications International, 1982. Page 59: "Adventure / / Atari, Inc. / for Atari VCS / $37.95 / $27.00-30.00 / 1 player / Rating: PG / Graphics: 4 / Game Play: 4 / Longevity: 4 / / Like most "storyline" games, Adventure leads you through a multi-room treasure hunt, laced with an assortment of deadly enemies. However, the biggest challenge of this complex game is figuring out what's going on. / / Your objective is to locate a golden chalice, hidden in a maze patrolled by three Dragons and a large black Bat, and return it to the golden castle. Fortunately, however, you will also find a number of objects with which to fight back--swords, keys, bridges, adn magnets. Our main complaint is that most of these game elements are too unpredictable--especially the Bat. Sometimes it will fly by and leave you a key to unlock a castle door and take nothing in return. Other times it will deposit a live Dragon at your feet and swipe your sword--leaving you defenseless. / / Our suggestion, should you choose to accept this illogical mission, is to set aside a great deal of time for joystick experimentation. But even devoted strategists may soon tire of Adventure's excessive trial and error." (slashes are line breaks in the original text, double dashes are long dashes, game title is always italicized. Review scores are out of 10) Derboo (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Video, January 1981, pages 28 and 98, Atari's Adventure - A Game of Heroic Proportions: "But now, Atari, which has introduced so many innovations to the home-arcade hobby, has scored yet another major design breaktrough. Building on concepts first developed for its best-selling Superman cartridge, the manufacturer has produced the field's first--and so far only--heroic fantasy video game. (...) Adventure shatters several video-game conventions. You will never see a commercial-arcade of this solitaire contest, because it has no scoring system and no time limit. (...) Because Adventure is so much more ambitious than the usual home-arcade cartridge, Atari designers have had to cut a few corners. This is particularly evident in the on-screen graphics. The hero is depicted only as a small rectangle rather than an actual figure, and many of the magic devices can be oriented only in one specific direction. Still, it is unfair to compare this excellent game to complicated software developed for powerful computers. Adventure is a bold departure from the usual video game. It's one cartridge that every Atari owner will certainly want to add to his library." (shortened to only include evaluating statements) Derboo (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And, I got google books to extend the quote from Popular Electronics a bit more: "Adventure" (Atari) does not involve combat or racing against the clock. The royal golden goblet has been stolen from the golden castle and you set out to retrieve it. As you travel the kingdom, you seek out objects that can help you in your quest such as keys to open up cas-" After that it looks like the OCR messed up, and we still don't have any page numbers or the exact issue, but at least now there's no doubt that it talks about the right game and it might be worth to track down a library that has a decent collection of Popular Electronics. Not in the country where I live, though. Derboo (talk)

I really didn't want to edit this article, but it was just too weird and distortive to have a claim that the game received positive reviews in its time, based on the only positive one of two known reviews, while ignoring the distinctly negative counter-opinion, so I put the latter in as well. I also added in the 1up source into reception (where it belongs) to back up the second part of the opening statement. Derboo (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, it wasn't "weird and distortive". It was accurate based on the sources that had so far been found.  It would have been bad practice to make a claim about the game's reception that was not backed up by sources.  But thank you for finding another review. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 14:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Then I guess it was simply an oversight (the review in question had been documented in this very thread right above the one that's been put in the article about a month ago). Derboo (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Other articles
Hi guys. I was reading Mystery House and I was interested to see "The game is remembered as the first graphical adventure game, for introducing computer graphics to the genre". There's no exact date listed there or here as we all probably know, and it looks like they may or may not have been released at about the same time. Or not! lol. Adventure may have been clearly the first, in 1979, but that clearly remains unclear! At a glance, I can't really find a date on the release of Mystery House. I'm just pointing that out, and I don't expect any resolution on it. So with that particular issue aside, I'm thinking Mystery House could be edited to say "first graphical adventure game for personal computers" or perhaps more cheaply, "first graphical and text hybrid adventure game". Right?

Secondly, I'm amazed to not see Adventure listed in Graphic adventure game or Adventure game. So I'm asking for verification that I'm not somehow missing something, because it seems to me that it absolutely belongs there, and that those belong in this article's "see also". Right? A lot of people have done a lot of work on this article and it's been amazing. Thanx. — Smuckola(talk) 16:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Adventure was first created as Colossal Cave Adventure in 1976, but did not have graphics. However, the 1978 Atari VCS version did have graphics, so it predates Mystery House. I checked, and Adventure Game lists Adventure. Did you just miss it? Wikikrax (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Adventure was not the same game as Colossal Cave Adventure (CCA). It was merely inspired by it, as was Mystery House (MH). Adventure is not really the same genre as CCA and MH. I've found an article in the Chicago-Sun Times dated November 20, 1988 that says, "In 1980, Williams hacked out her very first adventure game on her kitchen table using the 48K Apple II computer she had bought her husband for Christmas. Called Mystery House, it was the very first computer game to combine graphics with a complex story line." That would indicate she was coding it in 1980, meaning it probably would have come out after Adventure, even if we assume the release latest date of June 1980. But that doesn't necessarily matter. As the quote says, it's noted as being the first to "combine graphics with a complex story". The wiki article itself notes it as the first graphical adventure game, which essentially is text adventure plus graphics, whereas Adventure is a lot more of an action game. I'd say they can both remain firsts for their respective genres, which have some minor overlap and the same ancestor, but remain distinct. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 14:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK?
Now that this is GA we can make a DYK hook for it, but have to get that started in a few days. I would need to do a quid pro quo (QPQ) DYK for that, I dunno if you have done any before as newer DYK submitters don't have to do that. Either way, highlight this game having the first known Easter egg seems like the way to go with DYK here. --M ASEM (t) 14:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done seven DYKs, so would have to the same, but yes, the Easter egg is the perfect choice for this. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 14:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll do the leg work but will co-credit you for it. --M ASEM (t) 14:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, I already did it, QPQ and all. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 14:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, just noticed. No worries :) --M ASEM (t) 14:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's good to go, but there are four options. Care to chip in your preference? I'm leaning towards ALT3 myself. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 12:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adventure (Atari 2600). 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 tag to http://www.1up.com/features/essential-50-adventure
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428020859/http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Game-Pack-002/00000000-0000-4002-8030-20004d530901 to http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Game-Pack-002/00000000-0000-4002-8030-20004d530901

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

ca.
I'm not familiar with "ca.". What does it mean? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Circa. We don't have an accurate date when this game was released. --M ASEM (t) 16:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we just use the work "circa"? Or add a Wikilink to Circa?  Maybe that will clear up the confusion.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a perfectly accurate date (well year) for when the game was released, but because some "reliable" sources have an incorrect date, we are forced to go with the current arrangement. Using circa 1979-80 does not solve the problem because it implies imprecision in the sources that is not present. Whether a source says 1979 or 1980 the date is always reported with certainty.  To add uncertainty would be OR. Indrian (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why there's a endnote on that date to explain why there's a range that most games don't need, due to this uncertainity. --M ASEM (t) 00:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, but circa is used when someone is estimating a date. None of the sources do that.  They all pick one with certainty.  Even though Wikipedia demands we leave in 1979 despite it being incorrect, we should not use circa and therefore imply scholars are actually uncertain of the date.  The 1979 crowd think their date is correct even though it is not.  Indrian (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd removed the 'ca.' in a previous edit because it looked like a typo' or leftovers from a previous edit. I'm familiar with 'circa' but not seen this short form of that Latin shortform. Readers of history texts may recognise it but it seems unnecessarily cryptic for average readers of a technical text. Plenty of better ways to express this clearly, such as "in late 1979 or 1980". As an aside, fully agree with Indrian's point here that it's misuse of 'circa' anyway. Thanks.ToaneeM (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2023
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. No clear primary topic between Colossal Cave Adventure and this game. (non-admin closure)  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Adventure (1980 video game) → Adventure (video game) – I think this should be moved to just video game, as there's only one other video game just named Adventure, and this is clearly, significantly more notable. The portion of users who would go to Adventure (video game) expecting that is smaller than the reverse, and since Adventure (video game) is a redirect anyway, it may as well be moved. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Strong oppose This seems like a WP:SLOP example - what problem, exactly, is being solved with this move? If there were only 2 articles, I'd agree the 1980 game would easily be primary topic, but "adventure" already has a primary topic. Meanwhile, the ~10 people daily who look for the 1982 game would be more confused. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Opoose Too many non trivial "adventure" video games that would be potential hits to make this game that primary topic. --M asem (t) 17:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The 1982 game is one thing (though enough to mean that this one should get "1980" for clarity), but the disambig page is underselling the extent to which Colossal Cave Adventure is also known as Adventure, so a significant fraction of readers would be looking for that one. -- Pres N  17:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I would absolutely expect "Adventure (video game)" to lead either to Colossal Cave Adventure or to a disambig page.--AlexandraIDV 17:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with the previous arguments here. I'm not sure what is gained by the move. The redirect to the disambig page makes sense to me. <span style="font-family:Gadugi;font-size:90%;border-radius:0em 1em;padding: 0.05em 0.9em;background:#3160B5;"> Skipple  ☎  18:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Colossal Cave Adventure is also known as Adventure, and both are enduringly popular. My thoughts align with PresN's  The Night Watch     (talk)   18:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize that Colossal Cave Adventure was shortened to Adventure. Withdrawn. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)