Talk:Thatgamecompany/Archives/2013

History of thatgamecompany's Games
Since it's four in the morning, I can't think much of fixing it up to look better. I'm thinking that the history of their games should be part of history, but then that would mean that we would have to break up the current History part and give it it's own sub-section, i.e. history of the company. Another thing we could do is have this be it's own section, but I just want to know what others think, because I'm just one guy here. And please don't just delete that information, as if it has to be deleted, we can surely switch around some of that information into "History" or something else, so my time hasn't been completely wasted. (I'm talking to you, ChimpanzeeUK - Trivia "If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined.") Amish Gramish (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Robin Hunicke -> here)
I propose that Robin Hunicke be merged into Thatgamecompany. Ms. Hunicke seems, to me, to be insufficiently notable to merit her own article. The issue is somewhat complicated by her photo having recently been named a Featured Picture, but that (in and of itself) shouldn't be enough to justify keeping a separate article, as opposed to incorporating the photo (and some of the text) from her existing article into the company's article. Comments? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with merging her here, and doubly disagree to merging anywhere. She has been a designer and producer for several games for EA- and only one unfinished game for TGC. I also think she's notable enough for an article- I'm seeing 11 sources there even after you drop the ones about her games, the TGC ones, and her personal page. I've also seen a couple other interviews with her that aren't used on that page. -- Pres N  16:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say oppose, because she is both notable on her own and thatgamecompany is not the "parent" article for her, as her career and involvement is not limited to this company. The picture is nice, but irrelevant as with or without it, she passes GNG. I see several decently detailed secondary reliable sources. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the cited sources appear to be dead links — can anyone else verify whether they can get to the "Game Design Workshop 2009" or "Experimental Gameplay" sites? If her ties to thatgamecompany aren't that strong, and if additional good secondary sources can be added (possibly replacing some of the existing sources), the case for keeping her existing bio would seem stronger.  I, personally, am not yet fully convinced that Hunicke is sufficiently notable per WP:PEOPLE to merit her own article, but I realize we need a consensus here and not just one editor's view.  I think I may also bring up the question at Talk:Video game producer and Category talk:American video game designers, in hopes of getting more of a perspective from editors who are dealing with lots of articles similar to this one.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 17:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe take it to WT:VG as well, you'll be more likely to get a larger group. -- Pres N  19:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those links were definitely dead; I've replaced them with ones for the 2011 GDC but one of them sill surely die again when the 2012 one rolls around; we'll need some archivelinks if the sources remain as given. -- Pres N  21:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the merger. I think her notability both in general and in the industry is established through reliable and verifiable sources - having been featured in Gamasutra as a notable woman in game dev, Edge as one of the hot 100 developers, and being nominated for awards by the IGDA and BAFTA.  I would recommend though, putting the merge template on that page to help spur discusson here and getting a clear consensus one way or the other. Nevermind, I'll do that.  -Addionne (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merger as well. Robin has only worked on TGC's latest game, Journey, and one little game she worked on, Steven Spielberg's Boom Blox is likely more famous/popular than any game by thatgamecompany.  She's also performing the same role as she did on both Boom Blox games.  It would be much better for her page to be incorporated with one of those games.  (Also, Kellee and Jenova are the main TGC members thought of when thatgamecompany or its games are brought up, so their pages would either have to be merged or incorporated in the TGC page as well.)  Amish Gramish (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also oppose any merger or edit that would cause her page to be deleted. She is an award-winning game designer and was named by Gamasutra as one of the top 20 women in games in 2008 ( http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3589/women_in_games_the_gamasutra_20.php?page=7 ). I am also a professional game designer and can confirm her notability within the industry. She should absolutely have her own page, and it would be great to see "women in game development" as a wikipedia category in general. Gryphoness (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, this discussion died 6 months ago, so her article isn't going to get merged anywhere. She's certainly notable enough for her own page- maybe I'll work on it after Journey drops next month. -- Pres N  22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Name
I am just wondering why it says ThatGameCompany. I have never seen it used as "ThatGameCompany," and I cannot find anywhere that lists it as "ThatGameCompany." I am going to change it in a couple weeks if no one gives me a response. Amish Gramish (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I found that it has to be Thatgamecompany, but the capitalization of the "G" and "C" in the name don't make sense, and CamelCase doesn't apply to this name, as nothing in the middle has been capitalized. Because of this, I'm going to correct, to as much as I can, the name of the article. (thatgamecompany would be the most correct, but in accordance of Wikipedia's rules, I will just change it to Thatgamecompany) Amish Gramish (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was written ThatGameCompany because it makes it easier to read and easier to understand how the word it meant to be read. I'll get a second opinion on this before I change it back. Cheers.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to make things up on Wikipedia. That's not to say there's no room for creativity, but it doesn't extend to inventing a capitalization that no one else has used.
 * WP:MOSTM says:
 * CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable (emphasis mine)
 * Here, you seem to be missing on the first criterion — the CamelCase version does not appear to reflect general usage. --Trovatore (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. Some notable sources (such as Gamespot and CNET) have referred to it as ThatGameCompany but yes, I suppose it doesn't really constitute "general usage".  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 10:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gamespot has also referred to them as thatgamecompany a few times I think. I guess it depends on the writer and who's editing it. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just how PriceWaterHouseCoopers is written like that on Wikipedia, so it's easier to read. Oh wait, it isn't. It's written as PricewaterhouseCoopers. PricewaterhouseCoopers Amish Gramish (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)