Talk:Endgame: Singularity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overall reception is unsourced synthesis[edit]

The article currently makes the claim that the game “received overall favorable reception,” citing two reviews that make no such claim. If we’re extrapolating overall reception by looking at individual reviews (even if it were more than two), that is synthesis. In order to make a claim about overall reception, we need a source that itself makes a claim about overall reception—if a review or other article used the words “critically acclaimed,” or if it had a high Metacritic score, for instance. If we only have x sources individually giving favorable reviews, all we can say is that the game received favorable reception from x reviewers. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article in general seems to have an overreliance on synthesis. A properly sourced article does not expect the reader to connect the dots between unrelated sources to draw a conclusion that we state as fact. If we want to say the game was made in a week for PyWeek, for instance, we need a secondary source (“secondary” because people lie about and exaggerate their own accomplishments all the time) to state the game was made for PyWeek. None of the sources here make such a claim, not even the game’s own website. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, do these sources sufficiently establish the game’s notability? It would be nice if we had more than two small specialty sources discussing the subject. I’m not even sure JayIsGames is reliable; according to our article about the site, it’s a once-man operation, and I can’t find any staff names listed on the site. Play This Thing at least has an editorial team, but that’s just one reliable source discussing this game. Are there more? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that TVTropes is not a reliable source. Do not cite it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you like to complicate things: we still can use it as reception, as reception is per definition don't need reliable sources. Please don't remove it in the reception again. Shaddim (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Criticism makes numerous references to the need for reliable sources. Yes, we need reliable sources for this section I have no idea where you got the idea that we didn’t, but it wasn’t from this project. Also, note that we do not mention TVTropes on every (if any) media product they discuss. Nor should we. Coverage in a wiki is not noteworthy. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree in your interpretation that user generated content is per se not noteworthy (about reliable, I might consent). Don't you see what big problems this raises? Shaddim (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it noteworthy? Not its mere existence. If there’s anything else, please share. Especially if it’s a third-party source that could be cited instead. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That it is reception of a WP "noteworthy enough for an WP article" site. Find better reception and we will extend and balance it further. Shaddim (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
also, Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article so you cite the wrong policyShaddim (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Noteworthy does: Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.. I said nothing about notability. And TVTropes isn’t an example of “reception,” or at least not one that’s accepted in Wikipedia. Literally every game, TV show, movie, etc. with a Wikipedia article has a TVTropes entry made by fans of that thing. None of those articles mention that fact. If you think the existence of user-generated content about this subject is noteworthy enough to mention due to some unusual circumstance, please explain. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The broad scope of TVTropes is an argument FOR TVtropes not against. User-generated content is not "filthy" per se, it was just (sadly, over ambitious) defined as "unreliable" as source for notability. Show a policy which claims that TVtropes reception is unacceptable in WP. Recpetion is about how the public, press, specialists and, yes, the users respond to a topic or utilize a topic. So users clearly part of reception. Shaddim (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you can find a secondary source discussing how the TVTropes community received the game, have at it. But without that, you’re giving undue weight to pointless trivia. Saying it has a TVTropes page about it is about as useful as saying “It exists.” But if you insist, we can ask at WP:HD or something. (Edit: WP:HD#Mentioning a TVTropes entry.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are really excessive. Where is here undue weight? Undue weight would be weight 0, by removing it. And as already mentioned multiple times, you are invited for balance the weight by bring more. Which you failed up to now consistently. Also, as we discussed already: primary, self published sources about their own opinion are (naturally] very fine. (seriously, how can this even be debated?) Shaddim (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want more to be brought, you can go ahead and bring more—but you don’t get to demand that I or anyone else do it for you. See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES#Frequently asked questions. You want the claim to stay, so it’s up to you to find the source. I say it’s undue weight because it doesn’t matter that it’s on TVTropes. If your only argument is that it’s the best we can find, maybe the game just isn’t WP:NOTABLE. Maybe we should try submitting it to WP:AFD and see if anyone discovers a bunch of reliable sources we’ve missed. I asked about notability near the beginning of this thread, and no one offered any, so I don’t know. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mix up arguments meant for notability with content policies as you please. Beside, nice move now to call for the nuclear option, great work here co-author. I hope you feel powerful and great, while bringing WP backward. Shaddim (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If your idea of bringing the project forward is to add non-notable subjects, I humbly suggest you start or join a Wikia or other wiki-powered project. And I’m serious—if these are the best sources we have, as I suggested at the start three days ago, then we have not established the subject’s notability. But I’ve known it to happen for AFD nominations to get an influx of new sources (and thus be kept), so that may be an option. If you have any better ideas on how to find more good sources, I’d be happy to hear them. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you keep on throwing the (empty) buzzwords "notable" and "reliable" around... which are only of secondary or tertiary importance for the core, main goal of Wikipedia to create "the sum of all human knowledge" in "verifiable, accurate form" Shaddim (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if that’s how you feel, I suggest you direct your efforts toward a Wikia. There is no requirement of notability or reliability unless you want there to be, on a wiki you control. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently it seems more that you try to control what is in and out, using your understanding of the weakly defined concepts "notability" and "reliablity", originally meant for very specific cases: "reliable sources" for preventing biased opinions in sensitive topics articles, and "notability" for preventing that every pokeman has its own article. Sadly, some felt the urge to apply these specific tools to unsuitable and a growing number of other use cases. Shaddim (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As previously established, I disagree with your interpretation, as do a consensus of other editors. If you think your decisions here would enjoy consensus if we seek broader input, then please do so. But if you’re trying to persuade me that we don’t need all our sources to be reliable, or that we don’t need article subjects to be notable, or that this is the wider consensus when no one agrees with you, I’m afraid you’re wasting your time. To me, if you add new claims without support from reliable sources, you’re not improving the article. But for the record, I would be happy to be proven wrong if you garner a consensus. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated linking to this sub-policies (which have circular references) doesn't enstrengthen your case. The consensus is already establishsed with the 5 pillars. As I laid out already, I'm compliant with it. You have failed up to now to respond to that or position yourself in regard to it. Shaddim (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That’s… not how consensus works. Unless uninvolved editors tell me I’m in the wrong here, there’s really no point continuing this discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But his is how policies and discussion work. Also, consensus is not when someone tells you are right or wrong (that's court), consensus is when all participants find voluntary a suitable agreement and position, meaning, no one "tells" anyone anything. Shaddim (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the interpretations you’ve given fall outside of existing consensus. Not the consensus you perceive based on your interpretation of policy, but the consensus of other editors agreeing with something that you do not, and disagreeing with something that you insist on. The only way to move forward with this discussion point is to open it up to wider discussion, so if you want to continue, please do that. Otherwise, we have no consensus to include a wiki as a source, and no consensus to include the many things unsupported by a source. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse me of being outside consensus. Fine, so do I with your position (while unlike you, I positioned myself to 5P, you didn't). So what now? Consensus could be if we would find a position inside the policies we both can agree on. Can we find such a position? Shaddim (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you forget that earlier WP:HD discussion? My position on this is with that consensus, while yours is opposed. I fear the two sides may be irreconcilable. And I don’t think we can get anywhere on this with just the two of us. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
????consensus? You really read in such undue weight in this small escapade triggered by you? It means not much that you were able to rouse another exclusionistic motivated author there... It might have been already differently if I would have been present the case there from my perspective, for instance presenting you disrupting WP and constructive work for days already by hammering on details, ignoring the pragmatic and important WP:IGNORE rule. In the end, rules are only means to achieve an better WP, not important by themselves. Shaddim (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three of four uninvolved editors were against your position. If that’s insufficient for you, shall we take this to WP:DRN? Or what’s your recommendation? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation. This would have been different, would I put it there. Also, don't disrupt WP to your point by continously escalating and wasting everyones time. Shaddim (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Same IP user on a public computer.) We have a dispute here. Presumably, we would both prefer it be resolved. I proposed taking it to Dispute Resolution, which seems perfectly reasonable. Again, what is your recommendation if mine is undesirable? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced anymore that a "definitive" resolution is either possible or desirable. Obviously we are in the domain of policy interpretation. You follow one school, I follow another one. I can understand where you are coming from but think you are excessive. You think I'm sloppy and putting to much responsibility in the authors hand. I think both positions are inside the policy realm and should be both possible side by side, escalating will end up with either more distracting and/or even worse policies. the answering of the question "who is right" is not worth the damage this could cause on WP. Shaddim (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on your Talk page, as this seems off-topic here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora[edit]

No reliable source mentions both this game and the Pandora. The game’s website does not mention the Pandora, and there was no official release. From hobbyist comments on the forum thread, the game reportedly does not work on the device. Not to be hostile to it, but I’ve never even heard of the Pandora. Why does an unofficial release on a hobbyist device merit a mention here? How is it noteworthy? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ports are a form of releases and inclusion of releases is recommended by WP:VG/GL. Shaddim (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not even a port. It was already available on Linux from day one. And “some guy made it run on his device” doesn’t really qualify as a release. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a port to a totally different hardware platform (as also software platform). And this exactly the definition of port with a following release. Shaddim (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The software platform is Linux, isn’t it? That’s what our Pandora (console) article says, at least. That’s the same software platform the game started on. And I’m pretty sure user-made ports never get mentioned on WP unless they’re somehow notable in their own right, like Christian Whitehead’s unauthorized port of Sonic the Hedgehog that Sega later acquired (which, by the way, was notable even before Sega got involved). But I’ve seen nothing outside of that forum about this game running on Pandora, and it seems like the game itself is barely notable enough for an article, if it even really is. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linux is not a platform but a toolbox to create platforms. Also, x86 is vastly different than ARM. I presume you are not in the computing domain. Shaddim (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no discrimination for or against user or commerical created stuff in WP. They both are notable the same. Shaddim (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right—they both have to actually be noticed by sources before we can report on them. I have seen no sources for the Pandora release. Have you? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I linked them. For non-controversial, not personal facts, primary sources are fine when verifiabiltiy is fullfiled. Don't be excessive. Shaddim (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the primary source is an actual publisher, sure. But not if it’s some dude on a hobbyist forum who’s completely unrelated to anything. Once again, if you don’t think mine is the consensus view here, I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "actual publisher"? Stop discriminating and being biased against WP policies. Shaddim (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean some entity with an established reputation as a publisher. As in, publishing games. For these purposes I would consider EMH Software a publisher, even if they only self-publish their own games. Is that guy on the forum affiliated with EMH? Who is he that anything he does merits mention with no other sources corroborating it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Pandora community an established independent party, took it on themselves to port this game and publish it. The same for Ubuntu, Debian etc Shaddim (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Where’s the non-forum source? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drop your overfocus on tertiary aspects.... 13:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Get your priorities straight. We need a source or we can’t include it. Or we could, but it would have a [citation needed] tag indefinitely, as there doesn’t seem to be any coverage out there in the past four years, and none forthcoming. There just aren’t any sources for it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Put your tag there, I can't stop you. Shaddim (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay elements and goals[edit]

Figured we ought to discuss this on the Talk page rather than through edit summaries and wikitext.

@Shaddim: The JayIsGames review does not discuss the game’s resource systems, progression, obstacles, or endgame in any kind of depth. A Wikipedia article really should never go into more depth than the sources do. If I missed something in the source that supports anything in the article, please quote it here, like so:

The objective is to take over the world—this "take over the world" simulation game.

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is not correct, the game is not about World takeover (while the game style is similar). The tropes webpage, while also not explicit, has it better. Shaddim (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was an example. Here, let me start you off:
  • Transcendence is a goal of the game—source quote here
  • Technological singularity is a goal—source quote here
  • Immortality is a goal—source quote here
  • “CPU” and “money” are resources in the game—source quote here
  • Bases cost money—source quote here

You get the idea. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are excessive. Please do it if you feel the urge this level of detail is required. Shaddim (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We make these claims in the article. I can’t find support in the source you cited. I’m only asking you to show me what you saw. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are excessive. Even if I would bring a source, you could than challenge the exact formulation. It seems, you want reduce all articles to be formed from copies of citations... which bring us nearby copyright infringement. And the exact composition could be then still challenged as synthesis... so we better stop the project. Shaddim (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not excessive. This is Wikipedia. Is any one of these claims mentioned in the cited source? It does say “you’ll need money” in the early game, but unless I’m mistaken, that’s it. I can’t find anything in there about research, research subjects, unlocking technologies, the general public… I could go on. This stuff needs to be sourced if it’s included. At this point it seems like original research.
Here, I’ll just focus on one: Where does the review say anything about CPU making things go faster? Does it mention that? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly excessive, hammering on details, and missing the big picture. "the AI performs online tasks for money, uses the money to create distributed servers to spread itself and researches new and better technology to secure" "Your first CPU cycles should thus go into performing jobs to enable you to grow further. " Shaddim (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TVTropes is not a reliable source. And where does it say anything about speed? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I told you, you will hang up yourself on formulation details. And reliability is not binary and for such weak details TVtropes should be suitable. Shaddim (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a single discussion in the history of Wikipedia where there was a consensus that TVTropes was suitable for a single detail, I will give you a dollar.
This isn’t a “formulation detail.” This is lying to our readers. We claim that adding CPU to a task makes it go faster. We claim that JayIsGames says so. This is a lie, because the site says nothing even remotely close. It is a simple and completely unsupported fact. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really like to think in fixed binary categories.... So, again, it comes down to "quotation monkeys" as you won't accept me as author reformulating the pretty misunderstandable formulation by Jayisgaming to the more reader compatible "more CPU, faster". Horrible OR? You don't think this excessive? Shaddim (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s absolutely OR. There’s no mention whatsoever of the effect of CPU in that source. You’re coming up with it out of nowhere. Or I’m mistaken and you’re neglecting to point out the pertinent line from the source. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, you just apply excessive, unreasonable standards here to minor irrelevant details. You strangle the small freedom of WP author of reformulating and putting things in balanced context for the readers. We need this freedom. And the answer here is reformulating in consensus with co-authors not the crying for even more sources. Shaddim (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It’s the most basic standard of WP:Verifiability. You say the CPU resource is used to make things happen more quickly. Okay—verify that. Does JayIsGames or some other source claim the same fact? If it’s not original research, the answer should be yes. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I showed you, you preferred to be stubborn. Shaddim (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbornness has nothing to do with it. In the quotes you offered, I saw nothing to support any claim of any effect of any varying amount of the CPU resource. I don’t know how I can possibly be any clearer than that.
Are you getting your details from actually playing the game itself? Please take the time to carefully review WP:No original research. If the game (or a manual or anything) explicitly explains these things in text or in speech, we can cite that (and if you could provide quotes, that would help). But if you just learned through playing, you’re writing from your own personal experience, and that is original research.
Like I said below, if you have any disagreements about what original research is or whether it’s acceptable in articles, please take it up with other experienced editors, perhaps on WP:NORN. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it has. And with excessivity. Also, being a "well-knowledgeable" author about a topic, does not make everything OR. In the extreme form you want to see OR applied, a well-knowledgeable author needs to be excluded from contributing from articles due to OR... this can't be the goal. OR is an risk but only a risk, and putting minor formulation sharpenings based on research is NOT OR. OR is if new theories and interpretations are created and brought in by single authors. Again, this policy was meant for protecting WP articlies from specific great damage use cases, not to prevent any "formulation work" by WP authors. Shaddim (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That’s it, I’m taking this to WP:DRN. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddim: I don’t know why you neglected to acknowledge the DRN posting, but regarding your edit summary here: If I’m misinterpreting the sources (which, after all, don’t actually say anything about the game’s objectives, unless I missed it), it’s because I don’t have direct knowledge of the subject. If you do, then great, we can use that to help us interpret what the sources say—but we can’t add new information not mentioned in the source. Could have done without the passive-aggressive edit summary, but thank you for more or less sticking to the sources this time. But of course feel free to add more details iff they can be sourced. This article could really use some better sources, if they exist. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YOU misformulated the game objectives, you removed my correct formulation against a wrong one... and now you tell me the sources were not backing up your formulation? What is your point? Shaddim (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is not a “formulation.” The inclusion of information that is nowhere to be found in the sources is not a “formulation.” Please stop abusing this word. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who brought in a formulation which was wrong and not literal taken from the source, so OR (after your definition). So you introduced knowingly mis-information which was even OR. Shaddim (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please justify that accusation. What claims did I add that were unsupported by the source? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile releases[edit]

How do we know the Android and iPhone releases (in § History) are legit? Have they been sanctioned by the developer? Have they been verified by any third party? They could easily be a cash grab by someone trying to bilk fans of the actual game (you have no idea how often this happens in mobile app stores). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This are all interesting question for an extension. Go forward and extend it. (Beside, the game is open-source....) Shaddim (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can’t extend it without sources. I was asking if there were answers to these questions that were supported by sources. It may be inappropriate to include the info about them. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Inappropriate" means nothing. If the the article's authors agree it is appropriate, it is fine. Shaddim (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth would it be appropriate to include unsubstantiated mentions of clickbait? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth should you calling it "unsubstantiated" have any impact on the article? Shaddim (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated things should have no impact on the article. To clarify, what I meant was this: If we had third-party sources discussing how the apps were faithful ports of the game, we could mention them. If we had third-party sources discussing how the apps were fake and warning people away from installing them, we could mention them. We have no one discussing anything about them, and we don’t even know that they are what they claim to be. There are currently no grounds to include mention of them. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Unsubstantiated" is not an WP concept. The stuff is "substantiated" by sources. Shaddim (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that’s the thing—it’s not. Where is there any coverage of them? Any discussion whatsoever? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are fine for such simple facts. Releases are "notable" by itself due to policy (see avovec), no second, redundant line of "notabilty" needs to be build. Overall, notability should be applied to the creation of an article, not the individual content. But that we had already. Shaddim (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Official releases. Which there’s no indication of these being, unless I missed it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Show me policies referring to "official" (whatever this is). Vice versa, Wikipedia does not discriminate. Shaddim (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reliable third-party documentation of the validity of these ports? Is there any first-party announcement or press release or anything from EMH about these ports? Has a single reliable source noticed that they even exist? If the answer is no, we should not report on it. (And just to avoid confusion—a mere posting or a re-posting of an app store description does not qualify for these purposes. Neither do user-generated reviews associated with such postings.)
If you disagree with me on this, you are more than welcome to ask other experienced editors, who I have little doubt will tell you much the same thing. Until then, or until reliable secondary sources are found, we do not have a consensus to include this information, and so be it if you’re satisfied with that. If you are not satisfied with that, I urge you to ask other experienced editors for their opinions, because otherwise you will get nowhere. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are excessive, for such simple facts not peer-reviewed article or external editorial overview is required. Primary source + WP author's overview is sufficient. Please show the policy which forbids primary sources and which requires always secondary sources. We don't have that now, don't be more catholic than the pope. Shaddim (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

So are we sure this subject is WP:Notable? The only contributing sources are reviews from two smallish game-review sites that primarily review free games. Are there any other sources that could help establish notability? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Endgame:_Singularity&oldid=1203039958"