Talk:Day One: Garry's Incident

Quoting from devs/game forum & Forum Deletions
Given that they've deleted many of the original posts that were sourced by other wikipedia editors, I've archived the site, and the new sources, on web.archive.org. Obviously only the current forum front page, and the few pages that I added in that forum are stored there. Unfortunately they don't have the original messages which were deleted, but plenty of sites still link to (where the posts were) and quote them.

Would advise (as they have history) that if you change or add a source on the dev's webpage or the game's Steam forum, you also store a copy at archive.org, so it can be re-sourced if deleted.

Bullblade (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Day One: Garry's Incident Incident
Should we make an article on the incident and its related cases of YouTube copyright strike abuse? —017Bluefield (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't sound like appropriate content forking, as all the topics of the various controversies are covered adequately in this article (and summarized in the separate company article). There wouldn't be enough material to warrant a separate article. If you do have new information backed up by reliable sources, that's great; please feel free to add it and its cited references to this article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number   5  7  22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Day One: Garry's Incident → Day One: Garry's Incident controversy – This article is focused almost exclusively on the controversy regarding allegations of manipulating online reviews, not on the game in a more general sense. Given that the developers only earned $7 million in revenues for all their games combined, I find it unlikely that the game itself is notable and more likely that the controversy is the only thing worth covering (currently most of the article is under the "Controversy" section). However, if someone can think of a more descriptive and neutral title than just "controversy", that would be greatly preferred. CorporateM (Talk) 18:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another possibility might be Day One: Garry's Incident Copyright Disputes CorporateM (Talk) 15:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Article titles use lower case. This article is focused on the controversy regarding the corporation's attempt to use copyright for censorship and only partially on allegations of manipulating online reviews. It is not about copyright disputes. Prhartcom (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In most cases, I prefer the word "disputes", because it does not impart judgement over which party is correct. For example, certainly calling it "copyright infringement" would be just as POV as calling it "censorship". If the POV that genuine copyright infringement took place is a fringe view, than I prefer to explain that in the body of the article, rather than the title or in section titles. CorporateM (Talk) 17:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You have my respect and I recognize your skill in writing neutral POV articles about corporations, which is why I first approached you on your Talk page for your opinion about this article. I think it is possible, however, to carry neutrality and fairness towards a corporation too far. There was no copyright dispute or copyright infringement; it really doesn't sound like you have read the article or understand what really occurred. If you'll actually read and understand it, you'll see that the article body (not to mention the sources) does indeed explain that, not a "fringe", but the entire video game community of players, reviewers, reviewer networks, and industry commentators all unanimously identified what was happening and that it was indeed copyright for censorship as well as a few other controversies, and that the corporation, while at first tried denying it, eventually apologized for it and was apparently driven out of business because of it. This is accurate reporting of reality, not POV. Prhartcom (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Weak Support It is true that this article does not have the usual Gameplay, Development, and Reception section, and is therefore not "wide in its scope" as would be required for, say a GA article. It only covers the considerable controversy caused by the actions of the corporation and reported by the video game community, and therefore should perhaps be renamed to Day One: Garry's Incident controversy (I suggest that particular name because the article title would begin the same as the game title and would be easy for readers to locate, and ends with the simple word "controversy" which absolutely is a NPOV description of what occurred and what the article describes). However, it is not a requirement for a non-GA article to include all of those sections, and if the sources exist, an editor may wish to expand the article—for those reasons the renaming would not need to take place. Prhartcom (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article has a plot, so the controversy shouldn't dominate as a topic. George Ho (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Plot section is just cited to a broken link/primary source (I will delete it now actually). OTOH, if there were secondary sources that discussed the game's plot in-depth, I would support your view. CorporateM (Talk) 00:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Plot is added back with citations. --George Ho (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NVG. "A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer." It certainly has that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an article about a video game that meets the general notability guidelines. As a video game article, it should include information about plot, gameplay, reception, and development if available. The absence of those elements is not an excuse to change the article's scope, but to add them to the article. This may require the controversy to be trimmed to avoid undue weight, or split to a separate article if necessary. Reach Out to the Truth 18:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not convinced that this is a notable game, but perhaps the incident is notable, and the guidelines as they stand do support the notability of the game given the press coverage of the incident. The notability of the incident also seems borderline to me but is not challenged above. Giving them both the benefit of the doubt on notability, the article is and should remain about the game as a whole. If the notability of the game were to be seriously challenged, then perhaps a merge and redirect would be appropriate, but that would require trimming down the content a great deal and I'm not sure where we'd merge to, perhaps Streisand effect? Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Once over
Now that the move discussion has concluded I gave the article a once-over. I checked the New York Times, my library's online resources and Google Books, but didn't find any high-quality sources, which suggested to me that the page may have exaggerated the significance of this game if better sources are not readily available.

Then I started looking at the sources in the article, but more than half of them were forums, YouTube videos, crowd-sourced articles, crowd-sourced review ratings, blurbs or other non-reliable sources. Generally speaking we need press articles that are authored by a professional journalist that works for the publication and can't use any sources that are crowd-sourced.

I realize I probably left a bit of a mess in my trimming. I'll try to circle back to take another look later on. I think all the remaining sources are reliable and I'd like to take a closer look at them. CorporateM (Talk) 23:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * CorporateM, glad to see you have read the article. I'm happy the discussion has concluded in the way that it did; looks like you missed that one. Not sure I approve of all the cutting; I will have to take a closer look at it this weekend. I too am a stickler for policy and guidelines but was inclined to be more lenient on this particular article as the key players included forums and YouTube videos. WP:BIASED is one guideline I could quote. I will leave things for now and undertake a search for more reliable sources soon. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it that way. Consensus must always be respected, but it is not always right. All "Request for Comment" types of processes tend to attract editors that comment at-a-glance, but have not investigated the source material in-depth, nor did I at-the-time. I could also just as reasonably be persuaded that it was off the mark if anyone provided sources that were about the game, but not the controversy. In almost all cases where a company page focuses almost exclusively on controversy, it is an indication of POV pushing, because the cases where it is genuinely warranted based on the sources is rare. Therefore it is only natural for an editor to assume the current page is unreasonable if they are not involved enough to dig for sources and discover whether the page is one of very few exceptions to what a typical page looks like. CorporateM (Talk) 17:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * CorporateM: Even though I am disappointed in your now admitted uninformed reaction to the two articles I showed you, there's still time for you to get caught up. I have done a little digging, looking for reliable sources (see section below). I am still interested in hearing your informed thoughts, as that is one of the reasons I first asked if you would be interested in taking a look at this corporation. My own experience with the Wild Game Studio corporation (ah yes, you deleted that article) and their video game controversy is by reading the industry blogs and watching industry news videos—a year after it all happened. What's going to happen is this: I'll be restoring the prose you deleted from this article as I back it up with the reliable sources below. Prhartcom (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked for additional input at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I would encourage you to wait for such input to come. CorporateM (Talk) 06:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good; yes of course, I will wait for this input. I don't relish the idea of improving this page; it is actually an interesting case in which the remarkably true events were documented in so many unreliable sources as they unfolded. It was apparently a big deal in the industry in late 2013, but the industry is not entirely set up to spread news in the way Wikipedia prefers. It received analysis, but the analysts were not always vetted in the way Wikipedia is accustomed. YouTube videos were made, blogs written, tweets tweeted, but no Wall Street Journal articles or local newspaper columns were created. And then compound that with the underhanded technique one of the key players did by successfully removing much of the online evidence. Prhartcom (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I know this article needs some work. I did some digging for reliable sources.

Here is a reliable secondary source describing the controversy:

Here is another reliable secondary source that describes the controversy; the Know Your Meme website:

Here is another reliable secondary source that reviews the game, going in-depth into the horrid game play:

Here is another reliable secondary source that describes some plot and game play before the game came out; a PC game critique website:

Here is another reliable secondary source that describes the controversy; from an entertainment news website:

These two are reliable secondary source that describes the controversy and then the Wild Games Studio's apology; a video game news and opinion site:

These are the famous primary source YouTube videos released by TotalBiscuit, The Cynical Brit, the first is the video review of the game that started it all, the second is his important explanitory video that unmasked what Wild Games Studio was doing, which reached 2 million views in 72 hours:

Here are the primary source tweets as documented and sourced on Reddit from TotalBiscuit, The Cynical Brit and from soon-to-be discredited response by Developer Wild Games Studio (note lack of article):

Here is the MetaCritic game player User Score of 0.5:

Here is the primary source Steam Greenlight forum where much of the battle took place, but the evidence of has been deleted:

This is primary source Wild Games Studio's failed Kickstarter campaign:

I plan to add all these to the article soon. Prhartcom (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You'll see in the edit-history why many of these were removed; for example there seems to be consensus that Kotaku is not a reliable source. You'll see in the edit history that I researched the author of the Escapist piece and it was just written by an intern software developer (the site has crowd-sourced news stories). A forum should absolutely never, ever, ever be used for anything. The Metacritic score is also crowd-sourced and knowyourmeme is apparently an openly editable wiki (crowd-sourced). Basically nothing that is crowd-sourced can be used. These are not suitable sources for an encyclopedia. CorporateM (Talk) 06:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure about Kotaku. WikiProject Video games/Sources considers it to be a reliable source for news articles after 2010 and that anything that predated that could only be reliable if an established author wrote the piece. Considering the RSN discussion linked was from 2008 the consensus for post 2010 would have had to happen after that discssion. Looking more closely the discussion to promote it happened in 2011 is here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 4. I would not discount it based on a older discussion, especially since that discussion was only between two people--66.130.191.63 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on Kotaku To be fair, I was linked to that Kotaku post by another RSN discussion with a similar outcome. However, the one you linked to is clearly the superior discussion and it looks like the Kotaku pieces above are written by actual editors with the publication. Nice work! CorporateM (Talk) 05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)