Talk:Media Molecule

Disputed Speedy Deletion
The article for the company Media Molecule is IMHO notable because it is: Felsir 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A first party developer for Sony Playstation 3: there is a list in Wikipedia with 1st party developers on it, to be complete- this one should be included.
 * 2) The company is founded by people with big names within the game industry.
 * 3) The last Game Developers Conference, Media Molecule generated a lot of attention by their newly announced game LittleBigPlanet. This has a large portion of the game audience focused on this new company.
 * 4) Many game industry resources mention Media Molecule (IGN Gamespot Gamesindustry.biz amongst others - which seems to be a requirement for notability).
 * 5) It is referenced in other Wikipedia articles Special:Whatlinkshere/Media_Molecule(so there must be more interest in a Media Molecule article).
 * While I would not put much weight on points 1,2 and 5, I accept the other two for removing the speedy tag. But media buzz and announcements alone may not be sufficient to keep it. --Tikiwont 12:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The game LittleBigPlanet has been acclaimed by many as "the reason to buy PlayStation 3" and as such the sole developers of this software are not unremarkable. 82.41.251.79 14:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability for a company should not be confused with notability for a product it makes. That said, when there are articles for multiple titles, it seems to me that an argument could be made to keep a small article on the basis of navigational purposes. There is a temptation to add filler, though. A company with multiple notable titles is more likely to have substantive independent coverage that is focused on the company itself, but such coverage is not a given. I've notability-tagged the article in hopes that sources can be tracked down that show that a proper treatment of the subject is possible. Dancter 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Monkeystone Games (notability comparison)
Just wondering, does this compare to Monkeystone Games? I mean there weren't any legendary game titles from Monkeystone, it seems the company's notability draws from its' founder John Romero. So that article is only used as navigational hub for Hyperspace Delivery Boy!. Is it me or is the Media Molecule article as notable as the Monkeystone Games article? (I don't want to 'try to force' this Media Molecule into Wikipedia, but I want to understand how this company that gains worldwide attention fails to be notable.) Felsir 07:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm actually pretty optimistic that this article can pass the criteria, but I try to be objective in the way I treat the various articles I write on. My tagging should not be considered a "prelude to a deletion nomination". What I'm trying to say is that a certain character of coverage (which I'm referring to as "notability") is preferable to ensure the ability to appropriately cover a particular topic on Wikipedia, which I tend to favor strongly over Secondary notability criteria|secondary criteria for inclusion. All the sources I've seen so far focus on LittleBigPlanet, which actually doesn't do much to help expand this particular article.
 * As for Monkeystone Games, I wasn't aware of company or any of its games, and I haven't attempted any research, so I really couldn't say either way. It's probably important to point out that notability is not fame nor importance, so the fact that I'd never heard of the company before wouldn't necessarily preclude notability. I may look into those articles later, and tag them if I'm having problems establishing their notability myself. Dancter 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware that fame is not equal to notability, it would be a very small encyclopedia if the criteria was that everyone should know about it before it can be included. So I understand that if you've never heard of Monkeystone Games is has nothing to do with its' notability.
 * But if the primary criterion is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, wouldn't it mean that if for example IGN, Gamespot and GameIndustry.biz all have articles published about Media Molecule would establish the article's notability? By that same criteria Monkeystone Games is notable:, ) Again, I'd like to understand the way this works Felsir 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To a certain degree, I'm still developing my understanding myself. My concern with the sources you've provided is the following text from the guideline:
 * "Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary."
 * This isn't as much a problem with the sources for Media Molecule (though even in those, the coverage of the company is somewhat peripheral, relating more to the LittleBigPlanet project in particular). It's much more of a problem for the sources cited for Monkeystone Games, as they contribute hardly anything beyond the content of the press release they're based on. I would consider those "media reprints".Dancter 06:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you - the guidelines seem to be leaning towards Monkeystone being less notable than Media Molecule, if opinion had to be based solely on the cited links here. I'm sure though that Monkeystone received plenty of press coverage at startup because it was founded by John Romero for example this article:'Monkeying around with Monkeystone' seems to focus on the company and not so much about the games it makes. Felsir 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media Molecule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214223923/http://director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2009/1%20Jan/Media_Molecule_62_6.html to http://director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2009/1%20Jan/Media_Molecule_62_6.html

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) 15:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Founders note
I still feel like the note regarding founders needs amending, starting with the sourcing. It is not necessary to include fourteen source for a single claim, as per WP:CITESPAM. Even if you wish to show that a large quantity of source only name four founders, in the eyes of an outsider, you could have (by chance or on purpose) inserted only these specific 14 sources that say this, so it makes no difference whether it's 14 or two. Additionally, none of the sources used actually say that the credit of Reddy as a founder is erroneous, rather the opposite. The source from Mm's official website (an official, first-hand account of the events) should generally suffice, as it includes the full timeline, including Reddy joining after the foundation. In an ideal situation, there would be no need for the note at all, with both the lead (briefly) and the body (in detail) explaining the 4+2 founders situation and Reddy's joining thereafter, without needing to specifically point out that Reddy did not co-found the company. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think in this situation it is necessary to have a large number of citations in the efn because 3 reliable sources incorrectly state that Reddy was a co-founder. These being: The Sydney Morning Herald, PlayStation.Blog (Which was even written by a Junior Community Manager at Media Molecule) , and TechRadar (The Latter of which are listed at WP:VG/RS). Doing this prevents any confusion to the reader or to editors who may expand/rework this article in the future. In this situation, I do not think this falls under WP:CITESPAM as I am not placing these sources across multiple articles in order to promote certain journalists/authors - I am only using to verify content. I am guessing you mean WP:CITEOVERKILL which is an understandable principle, but an essay nevertheless. Regards   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, CITEKILL was the guideline I wanted to link to. However, I have to disagree that readers might be confused if only the body went into this much detail on the issue. If it said that A, B and C founded the company, and D joined thereafter, D is clearly not a founder in the usual sense. The three (and further) sources that name Reddy as co-founder were likely provided with a statement that she was a co-founder, but meant in a way other than we use the term (similar to the Tesla, Inc. situation). Just linking to these sources and then saying that their claims are erroneous is also not verifiable. Yet, this is not much of a problem since we have the proper account available on the official website (six founders, of whom four in creative capacities, with Reddy and others joining later), which ranks higher. As an easy solution, you could reorder the body so that it begins only with
 * The date, which is not important for the context of the remainder of the section, could then be moved to its chronologically correct position. This part of the body could flow along the lines of
 * The sentence "Reddy is occasionally regarded as the fifth co-founder." could be left out entirely if it is, as per your analysis, erroneous, or left as is if we make sure that their definition of "co-founder" does not conflict with ours. Consequently, and because Reddy as key person should be mentioned in the lead, the introduction could summarize this part as
 * The infobox could remain as is, although, by verifiability, Lee and Hardwick could also be added. This, combined, leaves little room for ambiguity or confusion and makes the oversized note completely obsolete. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 22:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I got caught up editing some other areas + COVID-19 hitting the UK. Most of this looks fine. Though we should omit Hardwick and Lee as co-founders. And Reddy being studio-director is not first paragraph lead-worthy. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Lee and Hardwick were both part of the founding team, even if not in creative capacities. Hence, I'm not sure whether they should be placed in the infobox or not. However, the way I phrased the body sentence above, which mentions them directly in connection with the founding, should be fine. As for Reddy in the lede, the sentence could be moved down a bit, but her being the studio director for over a decade should warrant inclusion. If you're fine with these changes I'll implement them right away. I might also throw in some general c/e as was requested in the GA review. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 07:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We could shrink the efn note to simply:
 * This means that we will not list them as founders in the infobox but the efn can be placed in the infobox. Since most RSs do not refer to Lee or Hardwick as co-founders this seems like the best solution. The rest of the changes look great but if are going to remove most of the efn please do not remove refs which are not used elsewhere just simply comment them out so I can use them at a later date. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 13:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make is that we should strive for a wording that does not require the note at all, as it adds no context, just information that the body appears to fail to mention. The main points (4 "principal" founders, two further "minor" founders, Reddy joining later) are addressed in the wording presented above. Smith's quote that there were "four or five or six" people doesn't help, as there is no mention of who those "four or five or six" people are; it might cover Hardwick, but more likely covers Reddy, but the context just isn't there. If we nail down the four founders in creative capacities as the "principal" founders, it would be sufficient to only list them, but listing the other two also wouldn't hurt. This is the decision we should me ake. Regardless of which option we chose, a note should not be necessary, as the body should contain the necessary detail.
 * In regards to the GAN review, I will be preparing a draft with copyediting applied and pitching it you and reviewer once it is ready for further review.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 19:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. But I think we should include the Smith stated in an interview that "I am one of the original four or five or six [co-founders], it depends on how you count us" to some degree to demonstrate that there is some uncertainty even from the co-founders as to the exact number of them. I do not think a rewrite is neccessary, at this time, as the only things that still need to be done according to the review is expand the later coverage (Tearaway, Tearaway Unfolded, Dreams) which I should do by next week and add more sub-headings throughout the history section (which can only be done once the former is done). Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree in principle, for reasons stated above, and I still believe that it adds no additional information. However, if you feel like it is necessary, I wouldn't stand in the way of its inclusion should there be a smooth way to add it. As for copyediting, the review states:
 * This is what I am looking at, and some minor issues can quickly be identified. For example, the latter two paragraphs of the first sub-section in history repeat each other a lot and could easily be combined. I figured that, instead of spelling out every point I would want to make individually, it would be easier to create a draft-for-consideration that already addresses them. Whether you would want to carry over any parts (or even just inspiration in regards to the structure) of that draft would still be up to your discretion. The draft is not supposed to be a rewrite. If this is something you absolutely wouldn't want, I will wipe the draft immediately. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 08:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is a fair point, it could do with some copyediting but I do not want too much infomation itself to be trimmed as a lot of the earlier parts of the history have already been trimmed. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. But I think we should include the Smith stated in an interview that "I am one of the original four or five or six [co-founders], it depends on how you count us" to some degree to demonstrate that there is some uncertainty even from the co-founders as to the exact number of them. I do not think a rewrite is neccessary, at this time, as the only things that still need to be done according to the review is expand the later coverage (Tearaway, Tearaway Unfolded, Dreams) which I should do by next week and add more sub-headings throughout the history section (which can only be done once the former is done). Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree in principle, for reasons stated above, and I still believe that it adds no additional information. However, if you feel like it is necessary, I wouldn't stand in the way of its inclusion should there be a smooth way to add it. As for copyediting, the review states:
 * This is what I am looking at, and some minor issues can quickly be identified. For example, the latter two paragraphs of the first sub-section in history repeat each other a lot and could easily be combined. I figured that, instead of spelling out every point I would want to make individually, it would be easier to create a draft-for-consideration that already addresses them. Whether you would want to carry over any parts (or even just inspiration in regards to the structure) of that draft would still be up to your discretion. The draft is not supposed to be a rewrite. If this is something you absolutely wouldn't want, I will wipe the draft immediately. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 08:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is a fair point, it could do with some copyediting but I do not want too much infomation itself to be trimmed as a lot of the earlier parts of the history have already been trimmed. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is a fair point, it could do with some copyediting but I do not want too much infomation itself to be trimmed as a lot of the earlier parts of the history have already been trimmed. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Alex Evans (Video Game Developer)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Alex Evans (Video Game Developer). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 02:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)