Talk:Madeline (video game series)

Creation of video game series article
I just wanted to let everyone know that I have created a very rough copy of an article on the Madeline video game series. I wanted to let you know due to our discussion on the talk page for Madeline 1st and 2nd Grade Math. It is still very rough and needs a lot of work (I have submitted a request for c/e through the copyedit guild), but at least there is a start. Would be cool to one day get this up to GA status (or maybe even FA status after a lot more work has been put into it). Aoba47 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work czar  00:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very nice. :D--Coin945 (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It still needs a lot of work to even get to the GA level, but I hope that I made a somewhat decent starting point for future development. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, you two put in a ton of work in the last 16 hours- nice job! A couple pre-GA comments:
 * I converted the timeline to the Video game timeline template, which is in order, not blurry, and easier to edit.
 * Cheers--Coin945 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First sentence of "History"- when was Creative Wonders founded?
 * ✅--Coin945 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The games in the "Titles" section should be linked (not just in the timeline template)
 * ✅ I originally designed this page so that all the other pages for the individual games redirected here (as I was uncertain about whether there was enough material to warrant the individual games having their own articles). However, I do agree with you and added the links (and I kept the red links for the two games without a page). Aoba47 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of the references need polishing- you have some fully formed (like ref 1,2) and then some that are bare urls (ref 3) or an ALLCAPS title (make it title case) without a publisher or author (ref 12).
 * I think this has been done, but please let me know if references needs to fixed further. Aoba47 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is really, really solid though! You should be proud. -- Pres N  14:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments PresN. Working with has been the best collaboration I've had on here so far, and I hope it continues into the future. PresN, is there any chance the combines power of WP:VG could get us access to the four books in the Further Reading section and the four in the Bibliography section? There's some important info there (especially relating to the corporate structure of the Madeline franchise which at the moment is a little bit obscure).--Coin945 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I just want to raise one point for you to think about the future. Please properly fill out the references when you put it in. I am trying to fix all the references right now, but please try to be better about this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The page has a disclaimer at the top that it uses mdy structure and American spelling. Please follow this in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's good to hear from your! A few things in response: As I mention below, the nitty gritty of citations is not my strong point; I saw you start fixing them and was going to help you but 1) I don't want to cause edit conflicts (when two people hit "save" at the same time) and 2) it is very late where I live so I'm off to bed. I am Australian so I used British spelling from force of habit; I will keep this in mind in the future. The Free Library is not a publication; rather it is place where 20 million articles have been collected and stored. Also, Mobygames isn't a reliable source.--Coin945 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, I am fixing all the citations now. Just want to make you aware of it for the future. Also Mobygames is a reliable source to my knowledge. I have seen it used in featured articles like this one (The Adventures of Tintin) so I assumed it must pass the test of reliability then. However, I can always find a source to replace it. Thank you again for all your amazing research! Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope that I did not sound too negative in my comments above, as I also really enjoyed our collaboration for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You can expand those "Further reading" citations and post them at WP:RX. I usually help there myself but I'm busy lately czar  22:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. ever used that service before! Also, please can you explain to  about WP:VG's relationship with Mobygames? While I thought it was 100% a no-no (as seen at WikiProject Video games/Sources), (s)he makes a good point, in that the Tintin article uses the site quite a bit as a source. Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for future reference, I am a guy. Thank you for the suggestion. If possible could teach or show me how to expand the "Further reading" citations. I never properly learned how to cite books and things of that nature, so I would greatly appreciate the information. Using WP:RX is a great idea. I have never used it before, but I am more than willing to learn. I was confused about Mobygames since it is a featured article that uses the site repeatedly (I think around ten times or so). If needed, I am sure I can find a replacement for this source somewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to know. I'm a guy too. :D. I have a Wikipedia program that does it for me automatically called ProveIt. I recommend looking into it. I sent WP:RX a message about the sources, but honestly, I think the article is extremely comprehensive and we could always look into those sources if and when we go for FA. But I'd rather collaborate with you on something else, like my Arthur (video game series) article, or Carmen Sandiego (video game series), ClueFinders, Clue (video game) The Oregon Trail (video game series), The Magic School Bus (video game series), or something else that reminds us of our childhoods.--Coin945 (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome! I would particularly like to work on either Carmen Sandiego (video game series) or The Oregon Trail (video game series) as those were two big parts of my childhood. However, I am probably going to take a break from doing super heavy work on here (like creating a page or something of that nature) as I have a lot of stuff to do outside of Wikipedia, and this project took a lot out of me. I agree that I think this article is extremely comprehensive to the point that it fulfills the GA and even the FA criteria for comprehensiveness. I will try to c/e the article over the next couple of days to fix any errors. Thank you for letting me know about ProveIt. It would be really awesome to get this up to FA level. I bet a lot of people would be surprised to see this on the main page lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * (A few responses to requests above.) Kind of messed up that Tintin uses those sources... I left a note on its talk page. That response and the links on WP:VG/RS should explain Mobygames w.r.t. Wikipedia and reliability. For citations, try this: Software and CD-ROM Reviews on File, Volume 14 →  It's a journal/magazine because it is a periodical (volume # corresponds to yearly release). Pages in a volume usually stack continuously, so issue #4 in a volume might start at page 400. If you republish the volume (say, a full year of the periodical) as a single volume, the pages are usually in order. For the citation above, you can also look up the issue number, length of article, ISSN and OCLC numbers, etc.  czar  17:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. I will replace the Mobygames with a more reliable source as soon as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The search for sources
These can be used to buff up the article--Coin945 (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help with the article. I believe we have all the sources that we need for the "Critical reception" section. I am going to try and track down some more sources for the "Common elements" section and the "Commercial performance" subsection (though I am not sure if I can find sales for games as old as these lol) Aoba47 (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done with the article for a while. Together we've exhausted pretty much all of the available sources without buying books/scholarly articles/etc. to access sources that we only have snippets to at the moment. In particular the corporate structure of the Madeline video game series is confusing to me... this will need to be sussed out. I highly recommend getting access to Interactive Publishers Handbook (1996). Doing the nitty gritty of citations is not one of my strong points, but because of my work a huge heap of new information is now in the article. :D--Coin945 (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your help. The corporate structure of the Madeline video game series is surprisingly complex and deep (which is a good thing since it means the article can be really deep, but it does take a lot of work). I think it is okay for GA, but I agree that it needs more work to get to the FA level. I will definitely try to get access to Interactive Publishers Handbook (1996) to improve the article in the future. It would be really cool to get this all the way up to the FA level. You done a lot of amazing work on this article. I owe you a lot for all of your help actually. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ^_^--Coin945 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Title
I recommend changing the title to "Madeline video games". I haven't read the whole thing, but unless you have sources that discuss this as explicitly a series, they are really just video games in the Madeline series, so "Madeline video games" is more recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), per the naming criteria (article titles policy) czar  16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I have changed the title as you mentioned above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Images

 * ,, , please can you assess the newly added images?--Coin945 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pinged, but I'll give my opinion because I'm bored. I see no reason to have the logos of all the companies on the page. It looks cluttered and isn't done anywhere else (that I know of).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments . You are more than welcome to give your 2 cents to improve the article; it is most welcome. I understand your point of view, and want to explain my rationale which is that 1) it helps to add clarity to a dense history caused by a series acquisitions and merges and 2) it adds a bit of colour to an otherwise text-filled section.--Coin945 (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think using an image of three Japanese women in an arcade is very proper in this case. The difference in culture and the age of the subjects are obvious reasons why the image seems unfit, but the use currently seems to suggest that women playing a shooter game in an arcade (twitch gameplay) is somehow unfit and 'wrong'. Either way, I don't see the point. The logo of a company may be fine to use, but I'd like to see it limited to companies that (1) had a clear impact on the game series, and (2) have a logo that is free to use due to its simplicity. Showing the logo of seven different companies that had somekind of influence over the games results in a reader really just ignoring the logos. ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments Mable. I have a few comments in response. 1) I used the image because the critical commentary in the article suggests an innate difference between "girl's" games (skill-based) and "boy's games" (kill-based) for better or for worse, and this was the only one on the Wikipedia page Woman and video gaming so I thought it would suffice. I will change the image to younger Anglo gaymers playing edutainment. 2) and I will reassess the logos in the article.--Coin945 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, this image does look better. Still not 100% sure what it exactly adds to the article, but it's alright. ~ Mable ( chat ) 14:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of the image is to show the types of games (edutainment, skill-based) that the creators and many critics thought were "for girls". That image is probably what was in the creator's minds when they were designing the Madeline video games for their target audience.--Coin945 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This conversation should be happening on the article's talk page so that it won't be buried in a different talk page's history for future readers. Talk:Madeline (video game series) czar  16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Take a read through Non-free content criteria to see the potential use cases and rules for using non-free images (and audio) on WP. We keep fair use images (images for which there is no free use alternative, usually hosted on Commons) to an absolute minimum on WP—usually no more than two or max four per page, and each needs good reason. So the non-free logos need to go (they are just decorative and have no contextual significance), and I'd even kill the other logos for the same reason. Perhaps use a better illustration of a company if you have some reason for depicting them. I'd also remove the girl at the computer. There are plenty of other free use alternative images for that (might need some creativity). czar 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the images in question. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * I'd drop the vast majority of the current redlinks. It's good to redlink items that have a high probability of receiving their own articles, but the sourcing for some of these companies and individuals all but guarantees that they won't have enough material for their own articles any time soon. It's distracting to see so much red when there's little chance of seeing them turn blue.
 * I agree. I have removed the redlinks.


 * I'd also take a read and copyedit for jargon like "field tester parents"
 * Revised this.


 * A bit too much quoting. Everything that can be paraphrased should. Direct quoting is primarily for when something would be lost if the quote were not used directly.
 * I have removed some quotes, but let me know if more should be removed or if there is a particular section that needs attention.


 * For some tips on avoiding "X said Y" Reception sections, see User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections
 * I have attempted to do this, but let me know if the section needs more work. I have always found that resource from Mike Christie to be very helpful.

czar 19:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. I have tried my best to respond to them, but please let me know what more should be removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * One thing I noticed is that often the name of a reviewer/publication/developer employee/publisher employee/etc/ is repeated multiple times throughout the article. This was necessary when we were writing it because we'd lose track otherwise, but now the article is more set in stone, this should be fixed.--Coin945 (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , can you access if the way I cited the end and opening credits of various games is correct?--Coin945 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend using cite av media, which does all the heavy lifting of formatting. Most important in citations is consistency—the style should be consistent across all credits citations, if not all citations. For an example of the template in use, see Mischief_Makers. czar  04:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Madeline at the 3rd annual Children's Interactive Media Festival
At the third annual Children's Interactive Media Festival, a panel entitled Case Study: Vortex Media Arts' Madeline, From Development to Ship was moderated by Richard Kahlenberg on March 16 at the Academy Theatre. This event was founded by Eileen McMahon. Perhaps a recording or transcript from this panel can be tracked down...?--Coin945 (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying the deleted passage
Hi, I see you deleted a highly informative passage without a discussion, so I decided to head to the source in question and copy-paste verbatim the information I used as the basis for what was in the article. I trust that this provides sufficient evidence for the claims made in that passage.--Coin945 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"Mattel has become a master at marketing software for girls. Not only do its Barbie titles dominate the top-five rankings, but it also produces the next five top-selling games--four of which are based on the storybook character Madeline that Mattel picked up when it bought Learning Co. last year."

"Few companies have managed to turn girls' software into a profitable business. The notable exception is toy giant Mattel. Last year, the El Segundo firm recorded a clean sweep of the 10 most popular titles for girls, attributed largely to the popularity of Barbie."

"Rank Title Units sold Revenue (billions)
 * 1 Barbie Riding Club 288,384 $9.1
 * 2 Barbie Nail Designer 229,316 3.9
 * 3 Barbie Photo Designer With 203,145 12.9
 * 4 Barbie Magic Hair Styler 156,456 4.7
 * 5 Barbie Detective 132,446 4.3
 * 6 Madeline Preschool/Kindergarten 119,721 2.6
 * 7 Barbie Cool Looks Fashion Designer 116,635 4.5
 * 8 Madeline Thinking Games* 106,392 1.7
 * 9 Madeline Thinking Games Deluxe* 102,164 2.0
 * 10 Madeline Classroom 1st/2nd 101,331 2.2

Source: PC Data Inc."
 * This source is restricted so I could not verify what had been written. I still cannot access the source but common sense indicates that

a single game could not generate $2.6 billion dollars. Do the math for Madeline Preschool/Kindergarten with sales of 119,721 and revenue of $2.6 billion would mean a unit price of $21,717. That's my issue.Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm... That's a very interesting point and poses a conundrum. I can see two solutions. First, the source incorrectly said "billions" when it meant "millions". Second, that the Units sold figures are actually in "thousands". I have a feeling one of these options must be the case and I get the feeling it's the first, given the general sales statistics of the other edutainment games I've researched. What do you propose we do?--Coin945 (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Coin945 With sales in the millions our example has a unit price of $21.77 which sounds more likely. The problem is that your source doesn't say this. So this material, and the source, have to be removed from the article unless you can find another source that supports your suspicion. I'll leave this to you. Twofingered Typist (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Problems with sources
Although this article has lots of sources, many of its statements are nearly impossible to verify; most of the sources are apparently inaccessible to the average reader, hidden behind websites requiring registration or a subscription.  Mini  apolis  20:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you so much for copyedit this article!! I would not say "most", but yes, some of the sources are unfortunately hidden behind paywalls: part of this is due to be using my university database to gain access to sourcing. But additionally, Highbeam (which was an invaluable source to me) closed its doors rendering all its links dead. Sometimes over time links can become dead and need to be cached through the Wayback Machine. Due to there being over 200 sources, it's been a while since I've gone through it source by source and checked them all. At the end of the day, though the urls of some sources are inaccessible via hypertext, all the citation information is there so one could theoretically gain access to it in any number of ways and check the information. But point taken.--Coin945 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)