Talk:Wabbit (video game)

Video games Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Cake Mania (series) (0 participants)
Omocat (4 participants)
Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2: Myths and Mortals (9 participants)
SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation) (9 participants)
Stick Soldiers (2 participants)
Rick Jay Glen (4 participants; relisted)
Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (16 participants; relisted)
Atlus USA (15 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as unsuccessful, nominator was not able to address issues raised in the review.

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the 1982 Atari video game Wabbit is considered to be the "first console game with a named playable female character who isn't off-screen." Source: https://www.polygon.com/2021/2/11/22273073/ban-tran-atari-2600-wabbit-first-female-character-video-games-playable-history-apollo

Reviewed: Reviewer has less than 5 DYK credits and is exempt from QPQ.

Created by DocFreeman24 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough: - Has a stub template at the bottom of the article. At 1800 characters this isn't much over the 1500 minimum. Fleshing out the details a bit more would be good.

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral: - See the hook comments.
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems: - Reliability of sources is an issue. AtariAge is a forum, so not reliable (see WP:UGC) even if the user is claiming to be someone involved in making Wabbit. I don't see why the GameFAQs content is not user-generated either, or if it's written by staff it would still need professional standards of fact-checking. Video Game Critic is by an amateur programmer, I believe, so not the professional standards needed for significance of critical opinion. Removing this leaves rather dubious the notability of the video game. I can see that sources may exist but be hard to find for a 1980s game, but maybe someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games would have advice or copies of relevant 1980s video game magazines.

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - I'm really not a fan of the "quote from nowhere". If you quote someone you should name them in prose. Every time I read "is considered to be", I yell considered by whom? out into the ether. In this case it seems the claim is a bit strong too, as there's Ms. Pac-Man, Score and maybe some games lost to history. This doubt should be noted in the article, otherwise we're non-neutrally overstating what is just one interpretation.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, Thanks for the review. Your criticisms are generally valid, other than the "stub" comment which I disagree with but don't think is worth debating given the other issues. I'll continue to improve the article but I don't think I'll be able to address all of your issues given the sources that exist. So, if you want to just go ahead and fail the DYK, please feel free to do so as I won't be offended. Regardless, thanks again for taking the time to review. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DocFreeman24: thanks for the nomination nonetheless, and I hope the comments are useful for improvement outside of DYK. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DocFreeman24, DYK does not run stubs. Therefore, in future please remove stub tags before nominating here. Schwede 66 17:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66, I didn't add the stub tag and, as I indicated above, I disagreed with the "stub" characterization, particularly given the fact that the article met the minimum length requirement. DocFreeman24 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DocFreeman24, looking at the article history, when the stub tag was placed, it could be argued that it was a stub at that time. What I'm trying to convey to you is that DYK does not run stubs. So at the time you nominate the article, it should not contain a stub tag any longer as it will not be promoted to Wikipedia's homepage in that state. Therefore, it is your duty as nominator to remove the stub tag when you put a DYK nomination forward (and not just to disagree with the fact that it's there). DYK is a rather rules-based process and any reviewer should pull you up on the presence of a stub tag. Going forward, please remove stub tags before you nominate an article at DYK. Schwede 66 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66, that is fine. Going forward, if someone adds a "stub" tag to an article that otherwise meets the DYK rules, I'll remove it so that this isn't an issue. DocFreeman24 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: It is the practice in many projects that editors do not adjust the ratings of an article themselves. Under our DYK supplementary rule D11, If an article otherwise qualifies for DYK, it is not a stub, and any stub tag should be removed before promotion. Promotion, not nomination. It is up to the reviewer to remove the stub tag, not the nominator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]