Talk:XMG Studio

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

What is cut and pasted from a source in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awoods88 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no promotional content in this article, if so please identify, Thank you Awoods88 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I count twelve games you're trying to get people to buy, down from the original seventeen. Qworty (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll cut a broader swath: I don't see an imperative for either the 'Games' or 'Awards' sections, which are nearly devoid of reliable sources--we have no way of knowing, for instance, if any of the agencies granting the awards are themselves notable--and appear to exist purely to promote the company and its products. I'm not writing this to encourage Qworty or anyone else to cut these sections, but to make some attempt to clarify the difference between an encyclopedic article and a press release. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's talk about it, then. Should we just remove those two sections, by consensus? Qworty (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not much help--I'm having dinner and then calling it an early evening, but here's my take: the games and awards that rely on questionable sources, or refer to awards whose notability is not clearly established, can go. The content supported by reliable sources (at least one game was reviewed by USA Today, etc) stays, and can be folded into the body of the article, rather than under a separate list collection. Other thoughts? 99.136.254.88 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable to me. I'll take a closer look later tonight and then make the appropriate edits. Qworty (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


These awards should be allowed to remain in the wiki article , they are all supported by legitimate sources and verify that XMG did earn these awards. These Sources directly support the information as it is presented in the article. If not in a separate "achievements" section then in brief paragraph.

Awoods88 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It contributes to the credibility and the notability of XMG Studio Awoods88 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Please see WP:PROMO. Thanks. Qworty (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


        • XMG did in fact win these awards, which are all legitimate awards from notable agencies, each award is accompanied by a reference that is independent of XMG and reliable and verifies that XMG won the award and what the award was for. Furthermore the proposed contribution containing the awards content is written from a neutral point of view and is simply stating the fact that XMG has earned these awards. Many wiki articles contain a list of awards, achievements or honours the topic of the wikipedia article has earned ( Movies, authors, books etc.) and therefore XMG article can contain a list of verifiable awards it has earned, if it include verifiable references and is written from a neutral factual perspective . Please see Gameloft which is a notable mobile game developer with an awards/achievements section. Awoods88 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]



I propose a "Games Developed" Section should be added to the article , Please see Glu Mobile , Tag Games, Superscape, Punch Entertainment for wikipedia articles on Mobile game companies that contain Lists of game developed.

Games Developed should only contain the game name and the year it was released:

  • Cows vs Aliens: Barnyard Blitz (2012)
  • The Angry Billionaires (2012)
  • The Music Biz (2012)
  • Travel Detective (2012)
  • Ghostbusters: Paranormal Blast (2012)
  • Fashion Star Boutique (2012)
  • Drag Racer World (2012)
  • Totally Amp'd! (2012)
  • Powder Monkeys (2011)
  • Degrassi (2011)
  • Cows vs. Aliens (2011)
  • Inspector Gadget's MAD Dash (2010)
  • Little Metal Ball (2010)
  • Style Studio: Fashion Designer (2010)
  • Drag Racer: Pro Tuner (2009)
  • Pandemica: AR Shooter (2009)

Awoods88 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, this unsourced stuff is promotional. Also, it never matters what might exist in some other article. Please see WP:OTHERCRAP. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you address the achievements and awards section arguments I made above as well please. Also a simple list of games developed is not promotional, A game developers wiki page should have a list of the games it has developed, as a publishing company may list the books they have published, a movie company may list the movies they have made, i know this relates back to whats on other wikipedia article does not matter to this one but I think the point is still relevant because if a movie company lists their movies, a book publisher their books, then a game developer should list the games they have developed. There is sources for these games including reviews and articles on the games from reliable sources. My argument is that we allow the list of games to be contributed if it remains neutral ( just title and date released) and is accompanied by a source or reference from a verifiable source external to XMG such as a article from a credible source or a review from an established reviewer. It is not promotional, it is factual that XMG developed these games and relavent because the article is about a game "developer". Thank you Awoods88 (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That just isn't so. Book publishers shouldn't be listing their books here or movie producers their movies. Wikipedia DISCOURAGES these lists, and when we become aware of them, we try to get rid of them. Please see WP:TRIVIA. Qworty (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. Inclusion of such lists is inevitably promotional in effect, and is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. As for awards, proof of their notability would come in the form of third party mentions, as in coverage by reliable sources rather than direct links to the award-giving parties, which are essentially press releases. While discussion is preferable to edit warring, the persistence in this vein follows a final warning to the user re: promotional edits. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have not made any promotional edits since being warned. I have proposed contirbutions on the talk page, that I believe will improve the XMG Studio Wiki page such as games developed and awards they have earned from credible sources, which are both relevant to a Game Studio Wiki Page. This is what the talk page is for and I encouraged discussions on the matter from other editors and I am allowed to continue to do so. I appreciate Qwortys feedback and any other editors who wish to particpate. Thank you Awoods88 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, per WP:RELIABLE, the above links are not reliable sources, and themselves establish notability neither for the award nor the recipient. As for the other articles mentioned, looks like they could use some de-puffing as well. Do you continue with the expectation that the guidelines will change to suit you? 166.147.120.150 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I ask that given the context of your account's history: literally dozens of edits that were copyright violations and overtly promotional in tone. With that backstory, this discussion hardly constitutes a fresh start. 166.147.120.159 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XMG Studio. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XMG_Studio&oldid=1208539777"