Talk:Action Button Entertainment

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action Button Entertainment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 23:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Failed because I don't like you. Sorry.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Just kidding. I think it's pretty close; just look at these comments:

• "Their games are consistently simple in their aesthetics and controls" - Possibly POV; I'd shroud this in something to the effect of the developer designing the games to be that way.
• "mocked up" - What does this mean?
• In TNNS's section, why is Pocket Gamer's reviewer first just called "Pocket Gamer" and later "Pocket Gamer's Mark Brown"? I'd use the second of those first and refer to him subsequently as "Brown".
• Why don't Ten by Eight and TNNS have some kind of images?
• Why doesn't the studio itself have an image?

This should be most of them, but I'll be back later. Tezero (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Back. More:

• Videoball's section needs more of a traditional introduction like the other three have rather than jumping straight into the gameplay.
• Ten by Eight looks like it could be expanded with regards to reception.
• I would stick all four of the games as subheaders under a level-2 section titled "Games" or "Titles".

That really is it. I'll put the article on hold. Tezero (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero, ah, I suppose you don't have to like me, but I do hope we'll be able to work together in the future. I believe I've addressed the above—take a look? As mentioned on the Ziggurat talk page, Rogers is sending in-game assets soon—caught up in E3 and whatnot this week. czar ♔ 01:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll trust you to get those assets when the time comes and pass the article under that premise. If there's something you want to collaborate on, I can do that, although I don't notice our interests here overlapping that much within WP:VG. I'm not even sure whether I don't like you or anyone else, but that doesn't matter. The page is ready. Tezero (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New sources

• http://cjonline.com/life/arts-entertainment/2014-09-14/topekan-finds-career-video-game-developer-ziggurat

czar 19:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

LLC in lede

@Czar: To avoid an edit war, let me be clear: Both articles you linked (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) and Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names) both only discuss the title of the article. And that is completely right, I wouldn't move the page to Action Button Entertainment LLC, that wouldn't make sense. But neither of the two loses a word about using the full (in this case legal) name in the lede and infobox. Especially the latter includes examples that speak against your saying. See for example FIFA and McLaren, both of which put the legal title first, and append the short name if necessary (for FIFA, the short-hand is an acronym and thus differs length and word count, and is not directly included in the full name, wherefore it is mentioned after the full name, while the common name "McLaren" is already included in its legal title wherefore it does not have to be re-stated, as would be in this article). Given this, your argument is not sourced through either linking, and the omission of the LLC does not improve the article, so I'd kindly ask you the place it back where it belongs. Lordtobi (✉) 20:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding to my above statement, Wikipedia:Official names#Where there is an official name that is not the article title clearly states "[The official name] should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicized.", and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)#First sentence (which you linked to) reads Regardless of the article title, the first sentence of the article should normally begin with the full legal name of the company" Lordtobi (✉) 21:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Tobi, this is not the first time you have referred to letter of law where common sense alone would be sufficient. All advice on the lede says to introduce the article accessibly—there is no need to put LLC, Inc., etc. in the lede when the company (especially a small business) is not known in sources by the extra initials. czar 22:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that your opinion now equals common sense, which then outweights guidelines? Sorry, but that is not everyone's point of view. Three letters and one space do not make a lede more or less accessible, but leaving them out would simply be omission of detail, as small and uncrucial it may be, but my opinion is that it should be included, while the guidelines linked only underline it. Furthermore, I don't think that people set up this guideline to purposefully go against common sense, but decided upon by consensus. Lordtobi (✉) 19:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The first sentence of the lede is the most sacred part of the article, and it is not necessary to pay tribute to official titles when they do not reflect how the source is commonly known in sources. If consistently recalled with its suffix in sources, add it where necessary in the article text. Also there was no need to add similar suffixes to all of the other entries in Category:Independent video game developers. czar 16:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)