Talk:Formula One (1985 video game)

What to do with my knowledge?
I have been learning alot from researching wikipedia, and I know I need to add plenty more references all through out the article text from the sources I have, and some things might even need to be removed because I was writing this article mostly with the experience I had from playing the game back in the day, and "original research" and "primary sources" are not allowed in wikipedia.

That actually leads me to a question... Seeing that sources for video games from the 80's are scarce, if I publish my own review about the game somewhere (say mobygames for example), that means I can't be the one to use it here as it would be considered original research, but would someone else be allowed to edit the article based on my review? Would it be a reliable source?

The thing is that I know many things about this game (from playing the game, which is original research) but I don't think anyone ever published about it. For example... the dynamic weather changes during a race follow a simple pattern like "Sunny"<-->"Cloudy"<-->"light raining"<-->"heavy raining". If the weather is cloudy I know that it can only evolve to light raining or to sunny, it never skips over to heavy raining. (This is an over simplified example, in game there are more intermediate states)

Another good one that very few people know about this game, is that it does have an end. (Although I wrote in the article that it was virtually endless, because I know I can't get any references to it). In expert mode, when the game economy tightens for all teams, and the earnings are based on your results, if you consistently win the races the computer controlled teams get fewer money from their sponsors, leading to a state that sometimes they can only put one car on for race, or even none at all. When a race is about to start and there's not even one team capable of getting a car to race (not even our own), the screen goes black and displays a short message saying that the formula 1 interest has been lost, and then it resets the Spectrum.

This and several other details are stored in my mind, as I played this game for hundreds, if not thousands of hours. Is there anything I can do to bring forth my knowledge? Maybe publish it somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoGenPT (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd have to get it published by a reliable source to be able to cite it here, and I'm pretty sure that Mobygames isn't considered reliable. Primary sources however are usually ok to use, and sometimes are the only way to cite things, especially with many older games which, like you say, often have minimal press coverage. Nice job with the article btw.  Mi re ma re   04:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can cite information from the game guide, if you can find it, as well as from inside the game itself (assuming that the game describes it with text).--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the game never had a manual or game guide, only a few instructions written in the back of the cover, that don't help much. Some of the things in this article were taken from the game itself, like the tracks list that match bit by bit with the official 1984 season, but because I took them from the game itself (I have it running on emulator) and their not specifically mentioned anywhere else, I fear I may have to erase because it's "original research". Anyone knows a website (that would be considered reliable source) where I could submit a review of my own? Gamefaqs maybe? (that's a shot it the dark, I have no idea if gamefaqs is reliable) NeoGenPT (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything "user generated" is not generally accepted as a reliable source, so the likelihood is that anything you get published to a website would be considered "unreliable" by Wikipedia's standards unless you joined the staff of said website.
 * I would say that you only really need inline citations for contentious statements, a list of races doesn't count as contentious in my book but that's just my opinion. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't fully understand the philosophy of Wikipedia, but I respect it. If you take away the fact that the game reviewers work for an organization (a magazine, website, etc), they're just "users" like ourselves. They are human beings that played the games and wrote reviews based on their opinions and research, just like I would be if I did it. But rules are rules, I have no intention to break them. I just don't know exactly where's the boundary between what would be contentious and what wouldn't. If someone challenges something I write I don't think I can say "It's in the game". (primary source is not a valid argument right?) NeoGenPT (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

B-class Assessment
1) The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
 * Fail, gameplay section needs additional references, version differences unreferenced.

2) The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
 * ✅ Pass, although development information could add to the topic, if there is any available.

3) The article has a defined structure.
 * Fail, lead section shouldn't contain references. "Racing Circuits" section could be made into a subsection, and gameplay could be cleaned up to avoid having many short subsections, as I feel it would read better as prose.

4) The article is reasonably well-written.
 * Mostly pass, per concerns in item 3, gameplay section needs trimming and cleaning up.

5) The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
 * ✅ Pass, good usage of images and table.

6) The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.
 * ✅ Pass, although concerns from item 3 and 4 come up again.

Hope this assessment helps, feel free to poke me on my talk page with comments and questions. --Taelus (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Taelus. :) I've been trying to read up on manuals of style and comparing with other articles but there's just so many rules and details that its complicated for someone new to wikipedia to understand what needs to be done. Now when you put it in simple terms like these I understand. Once again, thank you! NeoGenPT (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the version differences section will have to be deleted, as no publication ever compared both versions like this, and therefore there are no references. Anyone can see it, and I even created an image to show it, but nonetheless it would be considered original research. Would there be any way to save this section? NeoGenPT (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, sometimes this can be a problem which stops articles climbing up to higher ratings, as I know of several other video game articles where content is true, yet only forums/blogs/more unknown sources can back them up, which prevent higher ratings. Of course, you could cite the games themselves, but this would raise verification issues. I recommend asking at WP:VG for help with this. --Taelus (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:Looking at the article's pictures, I think that their size should be smaller. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I removed the references from the lead section, shrinked the animations a bit, and set the racing circuits as a subsection of gameplay. With the objectives in sight, step by step maybe we can reach it to B-Class. I didn't shrink the image on the version differences section because it will most likely be removed, as well as the whole section itself, due to the inexistance of references.NeoGenPT (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)