Talk:Gamer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Moved from the article

One common stereotype of the gamer psyche usually pinned on the adolescent or post-adolescent male: usually a high school or college student, who sits staring at a computer monitor almost constantly with a bag of chips and a can of soda. His only friends are those he meets on the Internet, except for those he invites to have LAN parties or role-playing game sessions. He is assumed to speak online in "1337" (pronounced "leet") a "language" made up of characters and numbers that resemble letters. The stereotypes often have elements in common with those of geeks, nerds, sci-fi fans, cult television fans and losers. They are also perceived as having social inadequencies and greater than usual intelligence. The distinguishing factor of a gamer is their avid interest in games.

(Note: there are many different types of stereotypes about gamers, the one above is merely one of the more common ones.)

See also: Hacker, Script kiddie

It might be possible to cut this down into something worth keeping, but I doubt it. -Sean Curtin 23:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, a anti-gamer sticks to one game, one console. a gamer is a person addicted to games. Plus, I hate the use of "anti-gamer", Someone is either a gamer or not one.

This article seems to talk about the history of PC and Console games a lot more than it does about gamers. Could this be addressed? Making the differences between addicts and 'hardcore gamers' more prominent might help some, I was under the impression this was more about casual gamers. The history of the gaming systems/styles should be elsewhere, no? -Anon 19:53, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)

What to do

I think it could keep "Celebrities". Everything below that is a good start on a separate article for "Video gamer", "Video game player", or something similar. (I know plenty of gamers that don't play video games very often if at all.) Parody 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree, this is a pretty terrible article. The Gameplay vs. Graphics section made open judgements about the rights and wrongs of certain views - a violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy. Without those NPOV comments, very little was left. Artichoke84 10:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's going far enough. This article should read "#REDIRECT [[Game]] {{R from agent noun}}". Percy Snoodle 14:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Gamer Vs. Player

Shouldn't the term be Player, we don't call people who read books Bookers we call them readers.

No, we provide definitions for the terms, not terms for the definitions. -- c0bra 23:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I would have to agree with C0bra. The term "gamer" is already established among the gamers. -- Whane 00:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Gamer is a widely used and well known term within the Gaming community. It is its own subculture. And, incidently, I do not think it should be merged with "Video Game Player." Lots of people play videogames, not all of those people are gamers. --Naha|(talk) 13:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


I removed Female Gamer from See Also. A female gamer is a gamer who is female. Enough said. --ScarletSpiderDave 14:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it's been added back in, and I noticed the Girl Gamer page was nominated for deletion, but the result was no consensus. I guess it's here to stay. --ScarletSpiderDave 09:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology?

I'd love to see some more info on this page. What communities first started using the term "gamer", and when? Where did it come from, what did it originally mean? Would be nice to link to some more sources related to this, I'll add any I might happen to come across. radimvice 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Glitcher?

I've never heard of the word "glitcher" being used to describe people who like finding glitches in games. This seems like a neologism to me. The demiurge 03:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Me neither, but a quick google search does reveal the word being used in this contect. It needs a decent reference though. Marasmusine 07:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing:

"Several of the all-time bestselling computer games (e.g., Myst, The Sims) targeted casual gamers."

The above is totally inconsistent with what the preceding sentence says about what casual gamers are. Of course, that description is pretty vague and certainly unsourced, and the list of categorisations on this page are questionable and definitely incomplete to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.7.133 (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Glitcher!

You would be correct in assuming that it is a neologism! It is a term that has arisen over online gaming platforms within the last five to ten years I'd imagine. A person would not normally hear the term used unless they were part of the glitching "scene". The term was created because the term 'hacker' more often refers to pc gamers as opposed to console gamers; also "hacking" connotes an act that is not standard or "legal" (example: reprogramming a game to allow a player to walk through walls, or something). "glitching" is less derogatory because it places the blame for the advantage players gain by glitching on the game programmers. (simple explanation: a hacker has created the flaw in the game that is giving them an advantage and is therefore responsible...a glitcher has simply found an existing flaw in the game and used normal control functions (jumping, shooting, driving vehicles, etc.) to gain access to an advantageous spot, and is therfore "just playing the game" *this issue of glitching legality is under debate amongst gamers*. As far as references go...I have none except my gaming experience and my word as a glitcher, I know it's not good enough, but glitchers like to remain underground due to their nature and the public opinion surrounding them...so you don't find alot of solid references. I'll look for some reference that I can cite. WikiDaily 01:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=glitcher WikiDaily 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Powergamer

Added new needed category. Jason Parise 20:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo kid syndrome?

I'm intereseted in something the media occasionly calls nintendo kid syndrome. It is when kids become highly focused on gaming, to the exclusion of social development and other such things. They may buy a basketball game as they like basketball, but would not even THINK of playing it in real life. Those kinds of things. I would appreciate any referance resource you can send me. Corrupt one 23:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The symptoms seem to match Asperger syndrome (AS), meaning there may be a link between them, if it is NOT a type of AS itself. Corrupt one 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Um...

Please note, that the terms here are really generic, and therefore, doesn't have any citation yet. This is retired entirely from common knowledge, to say so, and is highly generic, so to the reader, please don't get based only in the facts written here.

I'm sorry, but these two sentences are stupid. Should it be removed or rephrased?

Nevermind, I decided to remove it as rephrasing it didn't do much. Farslayer (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Phrasing

There seems to be quite a bit of presumptive and biased language being used in this article. For instance, saying that the large majority of hardcore gamers are obese and subject to poor health? Not only uncited, but generally unsupportable given that being a concentrated gamer does not correlate with negligence of one's health. -- Hidoshi (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-electronic games

Even though role-playing, tabletop, and board gamers are (very briefly) mentioned in the article, they are still treated as a secondary topic to video games. In my opinion, the article should either be expanded greatly in regards to non-video gamers or possibly even split into the separate articles video gamer and gamer (which could link to the full video gamer article within a subsection). - Atomskninja 11:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I've got to add my voice to this. When I hear "gamer," I normally think of hobby gaming enthusiasts first, be they players of CCGs, RPGs, obscure board games, or minis; video game enthusiasts come second. JSarek 09:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with the above. The article is overly focused on video games to the exclusion of other types of games, whose players are just as prominently known as gamers. —Lowellian (reply) 11:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Average Gamers?

People who don't play casual games but don't spend all their time being geeks and playing and reading about games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.175.152 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No way. That makes no sence, and there is no referance. Corrupt one (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

n00b section vandalised

The noob section doesn't read write so i'm going to edit it for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.201.210 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity

Being what one could call a gamer myself, I can kind of see where the article is meaning to go. My problem is that it seems like it's missing something. Does it maybe seem less objective than necessary? I can't quite see how, but it seems incomplete. 98.230.221.68 (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As it's such a broad term, the article is just functioning as a jumping point for more specific gamer articles. But on the whole, they lack content. This can be improved by finding books or magazine articles on the subject and use them to build up some prose. Marasmusine (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gamer. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gamer. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gamer. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Gamer tag

I think the headline for the section Gamer tag should be changed to Handle, as Gamer tag is usually associated with Xbox Live's Gamertag system, and the official term for a callsign/username/etc. is the user's handle. If handle is not a better term to use mainly, then username is also a better choice than Gamer tag. Wohlerbear (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree insomuch as gamertag is a term that is distinctly attached to Microsoft and Xbox Live, but I don't think Handle is any more appropriate a term; Handle is a term I would much more readily associate with CB and HAM radio culture than gaming. I feel Screen Name is more appropriate. More importantly, "screen name" redirects to "User (Computer)" which has a subsection for screen name. Why is there no specific page for Screen Name? Meowtiger (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Newbie - requires definition

The section of the article defining newbie is one of the most edited sections of the article. I think a single definition should be decided on and a hidden comment inserted in the article directing editors of the newbie section to this talk page before they edit it. As far as the definition goes, I support the current one - we don't really need a section differentiating newbs and noobs. The article for newbie certainly doesn't. I'm reluctant to insert a hidden comment declaring that the definition is dictated by consensus when no consensus has been made yet, so I could use some discussion. —LedgendGamer 01:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We can go wherever the reliable sources take us. So far I've yet to find anything comparing the two terms. Telegraph.co.uk suggest "noob" as "a derogatory name for someone new to a particular task or community", quoting the Global Language Monitor. I've been reverting a lot, because it just seems to have been anonymous editors coming a long and making arbitary distinctions and spellings. Marasmusine (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Forbes article probably also useful. It makes the distinction, but - yikes - also defines them as neologisms, which we are supposed to avoid. Marasmusine (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Added New Subtype of Gamer

Since being a woman gamer warrants a unqiue section, I added Adolescent gamer. TheRedEagle (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Adolescent gamer

As no source was given for "Adolescent gamer" as a separate type of gamer apart from being a demographic, I removed the section. Please provide a reliable source giving it as a separate "type". Alternatively, why not create a "Demographics" section? This and other information can be put there. --Muhandes (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Amusing article

So now there are defined 'subcultures' of people to define what are basically individuals who casually play computer games and those who invest their whole lives in it to the point where they have little to no social life other than through 'Gaming'? I think it is hilarious there's even a separate page on the 'Girl Gamer' as though it’s some kind of strange phenomenon females play games extant to ‘normal’ ways of playing computer games as though it were an entirely male dominated hobby. This article should be about two paragraphs long really, the rest should be shuffled off into various psychology pages. People who invest all of their lives playing computer games isn't really notable beyond beyond a sub-section in each of the aformentioned page that disscus human psychology. I suppose this is the internet though, guess who will gain consensus, certainly not the published literature reading world when they have reference to any form of internet-based cod journalism at their disposal. ISBN book numbers seem to be verboten to those who edit here. 78.150.193.182 (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging several of the gamer type pages to this page

I don't really think it is necessary to have pages for girl gamer, and hardcore gamer. I have proposed that they be merged with this article. --XeF4 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment you are probably not aware that there already was such a discussion for girl gamer. There wasn't a discussion about hardcore gamer as far as I recall so this can serve as that. I took the liberty to change your suggestion, but please notify relevant editors per Help:Merge. --Muhandes (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: I noticed there was a failed merge discussion for Hardcore gamer as well, but this was for a merge to the, now deleted, Types of gamers. --Muhandes (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems like the original poster did not notify anyone, and in fact only editing for that single day. I'm not even going to close this since discussion didn't start, but I'll remove the tags. --Muhandes (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential source

Jane McGonigal is getting a lot of press coverage on the topic of gaming. Her book Reality is Broken may be a decent source for expanding article content if anyone has access to it. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

when was this term introduced?

I was a gamer in the 1980s, but no one called us gamers then. When did the word take root? Kingturtle = (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Without extensive research, at least 2000, according to The Wiktionary entry. —Ost (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't verification, but the Google Ngram view shows a modern-usage spike at about 1976 for "Gamer" and 1984 for "gamer". Marasmusine (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about the Gaymer section

It is troubling that the only information about "gaymers" seems to be written by a single individual Alexander Sliwinski and that the only coverage is two studies by people trying to get into grad school and not actual professional surveys and someone who is filing for a commercial trademark for a website. One of the surveyors that we are supposed to take as a fact states that the most basic premise of the survey the design itself was flawed. Active Banana (bananaphone 09:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The citations I added were only cursory. For your first objection, it doesn't take much effort to find other authors. Here's one. As for your second objection, both surveys were described as academically approved; in any event, all that matters is that they were reported on by secondary sources. Here and Here are more critical pieces from Kotaku. Marasmusine (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
At the same time, I'd rather see a separate section on gamer demographics, and have this information included there. Marasmusine (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry undid some vandalism a friend did on this computer 72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The article introduction is wrong (use/mention error)

Please refer to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use–mention_distinction

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The topic of this article is not the term gamer, but human beings who play games. The introduction should be rewritten. --95.34.149.224 (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Arabic Term for Gamer

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%91%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8

ar:حرّيفة اللعب — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maherelsayed (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone got this done. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems with "Types of gamers"

This particular section of the article just seems so unprofessional and un-encyclopedic to me. I don't know if I should edit it myself though, since there's a lot I'd like to see changed, including the deletion of several categories.

-Gamer demographics shouldn't be in this section.

-Newbies aren't a "type" of gamer like the others, its a description of one's skillset for an individual game. Whether or not one's a n00b varies from game to game.

-Mid-core seems most definitely like a neologism. By description, this seems like the same thing as a recreational gamer or "rec gamer," which I'm fairly certain is a much more common term.

-Pro-gamers should be merged with hardcore gamers, with the former being a subset of the later.

-Neither girl gamers nor gaymers seem to be relevant "types" of gamers. Being a casual, rec, or hardcore gamer are descriptive of your gaming habits and preferences, while being female or gay are most definitely not. Allowing non-game related "types" of gamers opens a pandora's box of pointless descriptive terms attached to being a gamer like "American gamer," "teen gamer," "Christian gamer," "hipster gamer," ect.

Thegargoylevine (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources provide; the current sections are verifiable. I've never heard of "rec gamer" before (and it doesn't appear to have reliable sources), "casual gamer" is the common term; and "Mid-core" is certainly a neologism, but it is well established with reliable sources as a distinct group so it should stay. As for "pro gamers" and "hardcore gamers", they are defined differently, even if they have some overlap; pro gamers do it for the money, while a hardcore gamer can be a complete hobbyist.
You're right about some groups being defined by skill and dedication and others by demographics; that would merit having separate sections, maybe copying a summary from Video_game#Demographics (and User Muhandes agreed here, so we have consensus). I wouldn't mind including a group like "Christian gamer"; it would fit as long as sources report it as a well established demographic. "American" or "hipster" gamer, not so much, as they're unlikely to have been described as a specific group. Diego (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Thegargoylevine, I don't like how the list of "gamer types" is set up. The fact that most of the article is made up of these definitions of "types of gamer" that so many nerds argue about bothers me. I think it would be just as valid to replace the whole "Types of gamer" section with simply "Types of gamer: everybody"
The article should be about gamer culture in general, not a list of overlapping gaming subcultures. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The gamer type ideology is indeed very particular and might be too specific and unnotable for Wikipedia. Moreso considering that sections like those on hardcore and newbie gamers lack any notable sources, and some links are dead. --Ljkx (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardcore Gamer (See Also Gaming Addiction)

This doesn't seem to keep in line with Wikipedia's Neutral viewpoint policies. Being a hardcore gamer and being an addict to games are not the same thing. Gaming Addict should be its own classification and not piggybacked off of Hardcore gamers. 76.170.170.58 (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Types of Gamers filled with stereotypes

This seems very un-professional to have an article full of stereotypes.

Really? Girl Gamer? Gaymer? We shouldn't categorize people on their sexual preference or what organs they have below the belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.30.243 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't categorize people, reliable sources do that; we simply follow suit. Girl Gamer and Gaymer are the two best sourced sections, linking to studies based on surveys of those groups of gamers. Diego Moya (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Side gamer

Has anyone heard of side gamers? I've removed this unsourced addition: Diego (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of it before. Not that that should matter, of course - I think the lack of citations makes its removal justified. Related: the whole "types of gamers" section is pretty embarrassing - it seems to be of questionable use at best. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Side gamer

A side gamer is a highly skilled user who plays many different types of video games without really caring about rankings, achievements, competitions, popularity, and such. Side gamers don't play to compete with each other, but simply because they love gaming from the depths of their soul. Side gamers, as well as Hardcore gamers, extend gaming into their lifestyle, expending significant time on games but, unlike the others, they like to play and complete as many different games as possible, not only focusing on a few ones. Also, Side gamers generally prefer playing in single-player mode, they're extremely wise about gaming culture & history, and they play both mainstream, rare/unknown, indie, and retro games; regardless of review scores and popularity. Side gamers generally don't want to "master" their games but just to complete them as fast as possible and move on to the next game.

General quality of article

C an I just note... that this article is rather terrible?

Aside from dealing exclusively in extremes, there is no citable source for pretty much anything on the page. It needs a complete rewrite. --203.184.21.75 01:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Marasmusine 07:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Maybe could use a rewrite, but this article describes something that few formal studies have been performed on, therefore speculation and personal experience is a requirement. Jason Parise 20:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Agreed on the article needing a rewrite. It's not up to the quality you'd expect from an encyclopedia. W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.109.66 (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

-- I agree with the article needing a rewrite. The bulk of the article is made of generalizations of various "groups" of gamers, and overall seems to be something I'd see on Reddit or a Facebook meme than on Wikipedia. It just seems so unprofessional. Thegargoylevine (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

--

Jason - there are a dearth of studies on what typifies games, "gamers", and the people who play them. The work of Jenson and deCastell, Nick Yee, and others, has worked to demo-grify, if you like, ethnograph-ize, and illustrate the gamer-ness of game players. There are more... T.L. Taylor, Nick Taylor... the list goes on. I'm gonna throw a vote in to this necrotized series of comments and say that this article is one of the most replete with original research and speculation I've read on Wikipedia lately... 192.241.57.20 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

PRESERVE

I'm preserving the following content deleted from the page. Although it has been challenged, I'm pretty sure much of it can be referenced to reliable sources. Diego (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Two derived terms are "newb", a beginner who expresses a willingness to learn; and "noob", a derogatory term (an alternate spelling for n00b), though "newb" and "n00b" have become opposites of each other, meaning "newb" is plainly someone who is new to the game (thus having the potential to get better) and "n00b" is a player who both lacks skill and mainly fools around (not wanting to become better).[citation needed]
  • Some retrogamers are in the business of refurbishing old games, particularly arcade cabinets. Some even make their own arcade cabinets.[citation needed]

Original Research

There are multiple instances of original research in the article, and it would be appreciated if you did not remove or euphemize the tag which did not illustrate this. For example, the 'hardcore gaming' section and the 'guilds' section all have unsourced hypotheses and are in effect original research. To prove an edit is NOT original research, a reliable source must be given. The presence of a 'citation needed' tag does not prove that it's not original research, only a reliable source can do that. Tutelary (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As I explained to the user that created it, the tag offers little benefit if all the problematic content is already tagged, and there is a difference between "original research" and "unreferenced": not all unreferenced content is made up by the editor that introduced it. If you think that there's original research, in the spirit of productive discussion and article improvement, I would prefer that you changed to [original research?] those [citation needed] tags for content that you consider as impossible to verify (not merely unreferenced), instead of edit warring over a tag with little or no explaining power. Diego (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Would you prefer if I remove all instances of what I consider to be original research? Tutelary (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If you justify why you think that content is impossible to verify, yes, that would be the best with respect to WP:V. Have you performed a WP:BEFORE search, though, to assess that this content does not appear in any reliable source that you've tried to find? Diego (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:CHALLENGE states that the burden of proof relies on the editor who restores the content, and does not instruct you to do a search beforehand to attempt to verify it. Not to mention it states use a 'citation needed' tag as an interim step. Yet some of the citation needed tags are over 5 years old, and some, at least 1 year old. If it hasn't been verified in that long, I doubt it will get verified now. WP:BEFORE outlines for articles for deletion, not for content. It's similar to trying to use WP:NOTABILITY as an WP:UNDUE when they are different prospects of the site. Nonetheless, I'm removing the uncited and/or original research material now. Tutelary (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
But WP:CHALLENGE *does* require that you assert the reason why you think the content is unverifiable. That nobody has fixed is a testament of the WP:IMPERFECT nature and slow growth, it doesn't mean that the references do not exist. So I ask again - do you have a reason to believe that some of the content you have removed can not be verified in video game magazines? Diego (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Please quote the exact sentence in WP:CHALLENGE that states that I must state why the content is unverifiable. Tutelary (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable". Ok, not "why" but "that" the content is unverifiable. Do you believe that "stores specializing in games often serve as a meeting place to organize groups of players", "noob is a derogatory term" and "Some retrogamers make their own arcade cabinets" are impossible to verify to RSs? Diego (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I've already explained why, above. They have been tagged for over at least a year, and in some of the instances, over 5 years without verification. If you can find reliable sources to verify them, I have no problem with that. Tutelary (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No explanation on how the term "gamer" came to exist

Shouldn't there be some sort of explanation/research section on how this term was coined in the first place instead of just taking it for granted and listing variations ("gaymer") of the term? 178.191.59.106 (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

'Girl Gamer' term

An aforementioned section in case the IP I reverted wishes to elaborate more on their case on why the section does not belong. Tutelary (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Female Gamer - Persistent edit war

Just an observation of the arguing edits in the female gamer section, including some wacky broken non-neutral citations. I've put in a request for semi-protection. NerdwiththehatTalk 16:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The "macho gamer" is the epitome of irony

Not too long a ago, sterotypical gamers were seen as the complete anti-thesis to a jock. Scrawny virgin nerds eating pizza all day and fantasizing about nuking their schools.

Especially hardcore gamers are the most un-macho bunch I can think of: Obsessing over their virtual towns in Civilization, going bonkers over endings in RPGs (Mass Effect 3 anyone?), optimizing for hours and hours their trade routes in Elite and Eve Online... woaaahha! So macho!

So, please, since when is "gaming" (ugh) considered a "man's man" tool to discriminate women? The whole undercurrent of the article is so bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.11.98 (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research, nor is this a forum for discussing the topic. Discuss actionable changes to the article based on reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Came here after seeing there was a page "Youtubers"...

...thinking how absurd, that'd be just like having a page for Gamers . Oh :P.

So, skimming the article ( "A female gamer, or gamer girl..." - really ???) , and then the talk page, it seems like it's been bad to start with, and hasn't changed considerably since first being fleshed out. So, what to do about this article then ?

Please let me point out that I am, honest to god, an inclusionist at heart - I'd be happy to see every neighborhood school having an article. But an article with verifiable information (even if it's not been published in academia or in newspapers or such). But I saw very little on this article that was verifiable.... The two options I see then are - post at Article for Deletion - WP:AfD , or cut down to basically a description of what the term "Gamer" refers to. (Gamer Culture / Gaming Culture, I think, if someone did want to see an article in that direction, would lend itself far better to having some content than "Gamer" / this one here..).

So any thoughts before I proceed with one or the other ?

Regards 37.49.76.172 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Since it sure seems like this isn't your first time here, you should log into into your account, if you have one.
Beyond that, this is all way, way too vague, and "skimming" the article isn't good enough. It is not up to you to decide what "gamer" refers to, it's up to sources. You're planning on nominating this article for deletion because the info isn't verifiable? How is it not verifiable? The alternative is to remove large quantities of information from an article with 59 citations spanning academia, journalism, and industry sources? What are those sources if not verification?
Don't just complain, get specific. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, was "log in" supposed to be a constructive hint, or trying to tell me what to do ? (I don't recall a policy saying "always edit via your account if you have one"). But whatever, that's not my point.
Perhaps I was a bit blunt or proposed to be overly bold in my message above - but sorry, any article about a "Gamer" is not going to go very well, and the way this one is structured even less so. My point (and that of the Wikipedia), is that information presented here needs to be verifiable. The people that put on costumes to Anime cons (Cosplayers?), that's a group that is relatively easily defined - its the people that turn up to those cons in costumes. There are things you can write about them (whether thats interesting/notable and merits inclusion on the Wikipedia is a different question - but like I said, I'm more on the tolerant side of things). "Gamers" on the other hand, I can't see defined here other than by self-reference... which seems a very, very weak definition to me. (And "People that play video games" on the other hand, is not a very interesting category, since it seems to be eg over half of the US Adult population... You might as well have "People that watch movies" or something along those lines.).
Now people that play video games professionally - ie earn their living that way - thats a clearly defined group. (I'm pretty sure there's an article on them). But my point holds - a page on "gaming culture" would work ok I think - and you could probably keep at least a considerable bit of the content from here on that page. But "Gamers" just doesn't make sense... (and thus more detailed criticism or reading of this page is not really necessary, at least not for proposing to move the page / parts of its content to Gaming culture).
Sean Heron (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose Merge with Gaming culture

There has been a long string of criticism of this article (see a number of sections in the talk-archive), which have not really been addressed. For the most part, they cannot really be addressed, since the fundamental problem is there is no definition of "Gamer" that is usable for making an article covering the term.

I therefore propose to merge that content which is usable into the article Gaming culture. I've suggested two sections above, and had no comments on the action as of yet (there was opposition to my alternate proposal of submitting to AfD, so I'm not doing that). I'm happy to hear any constructive comments or alternate suggestions! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. As stated above, a page Professional video game players is something perhaps worth creating, or splitting some of the content from here off to.
P.P.S. I stumbled over a page that seems an appropriate example for this page: Lamer. Definition of the term, a bit of etymology, and thats it. ( No attempt to describe long and wide the makeup, age distribution, properties and development over time, etc. of the "group" the term is applied to / that apply the term to themselves).
Sean Heron (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Gamer" is distinct from "gaming culture". Many people can engage in gaming culture without being "gamers". It's the equivalent of the article otaku for anime or cinephilia for movies, as denoting a subgroup of people who are dedicated fans of that form of media.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Electronic athlete?

"sometimes also called" an electronic athlete or eathlete? What?? Where? [citation needed]? Not only are those two unsourced "synonyms" not widespread, this implies that they apply to anyone who plays interactive games, including things which have nothing to do with e-sports like tabletop games and card games. Needs to be removed or reworded or something but that makes zero sense being there as it is. 174.82.103.15 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's found in the urban dictionary here.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
But can the Urban Dictionary be considered reliable, considering it's crowdsourced? aboideautalk 15:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
PCMAG says it too, and the WSJ and the Chicago Tribune mentions it.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Grandma Gamer

There are several YouTube Grandma Gamers. Should this be incorporated into the article? https://www.tweaktown.com/news/65410/82-year-old-gamer-skyrim-grandma-elder-scrolls-6/index.htmlHere's and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjx4jEtp1Qs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVm8qym7l8 --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Though it is a curiosity I am not sure of its value for Wikipefia. Spannerjam (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Game name" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Game name. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Source

"Video game enthusiast" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Video game enthusiast. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Hardcore game" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hardcore game. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Stereotypes opening

The paragraph opening the "Stereotypes" section is absolutely insane, demonstrably wrong and its source is, to put it mildly, weak.

"Although men and women play roughly the same number of games, there is a stereotype that women are not considered ¨True Gamers¨ because they tend to play more casual games which do not require much skill and dedication. This stereotype exists due to the fact that at a professional level, most of the teams competing are composed of men, thus, overshadowing the girl gamers who could compete at the same level but are not able to get the same amount of media attention.[6]"

It is wholly untrue that female gamers with the abilities/talents to compete with the male gamers on the pro-scene are marginalized or made invisible. The opposite is true, they are heavily focused on, possibly because they are rare. The female gamers can EASILY get "the same amount of media attention", as evidenced by the various female teams that the multi-game gaming orgs have. Navi is a fine example, with their "Navi Ladies" (https://liquipedia.net/dota2/Natus_Vincere_Ladies). Another fine example would be the fact that most major tournaments have female-only divisions, where-as the primary parts of the tournaments are open for all genders. Gaming does not seek to "silence" or "overshadow" or "marginalize" women in pro-gaming and its insulting to many that such a claim is made.

The source is literally some college gender warriors random project and they even follow it up by claiming that this "evil big gaming keeping the women down" is also why women stay out of STEM. Someone really dropped the ball, not only on reviewing the source, but also at applying common sense or having any sort of familiarity with the subject. There is literal affirmative action to get more ladies to compete and ofcourse a blue flower in a sea of red flowers will get more attention than just another red flower.

If the female gamers can compete on the level, then they are welcome at the level. Embraced at the level and, frankly, given way more attention than males on the same skill-level. A couple of examples of that already exists. Scarlett (in starcraft 2) for example, although some would argue that its different as she was not born female.

There were also a lady on one of the top League of Legends teams once (sorry that i cant remember the name), although she decided to retire very quickly, because she felt uncomfortable with the extreme amount of attention levied on her, simply for being female and competing at that level. From what i remember, she also had a similar "origin story" to Scarlett.

Nonetheless, the point stands that whoever plays the best wins the trophy, irrelevant of their genitalia. It is disgusting to read that opening paragraph of the Stereotypes section and how ridiculously obviously un-true it is, to anyone who has even a smidgen of familiarity with this extremely popular subject (pro-gaming). For shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.26.233 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Heh, well put. And I agree entirely. I actually came to this page just to see what was up with the article, since a lot of its own information contradicts itself. I suspect it simply has to do with a lot of media sources themselves contradicting each other. It's somewhat obvious that a lot of people have the opinion that anyone who would call themselves a "gamer" should be vilified, based on the age-old stereotype that games are only played by losers, and are a waste of time, and so on. So there are sources that define gamer as a person who is enthusiastic about video games, and other sources that define gamer as a person who embodies all that is wrong with society.
To your own point, I agree that female professional gamers are promoted far higher than males on their same level. I'm pretty sure what that paragraph is trying to say is that the "predominantly male" stereotype is helped along by most top-level professional players being male, thus they're the "face" of the game that people always see. And while I haven't read the source that you're criticizing, even from a cursory glance it's obvious that it's not because anyone is being rendered invisible. Like there's clearly no #1 world champion that everyone is conspiring to ignore because she's a female. The reason no one hears about a woman winning a championship is simply because there are extremely few top-level female players. But why this article chose some grand conspiracy to be their reasoning is pretty hilarious. It even mentions the ACTUAL reason later on in the article. "Social stigma against games has influenced some women and minorities to distance themselves from the term "gamer", even though they may play regularly." Indeed, women who are gamers tend to get ostracized from their peers for it, and thus they are less likely to take up gaming as a serious lifestyle choice. Especially for the extreme amount of dedication that one has to put into a game to be the best in the world.
Incidentally, that above quote is also part of the reason I checked in here to see if much was going on to fix up this article. Because no more than two minutes after reading that, I then read "Racial minorities responding to Pew Research were more likely to describe themselves as gamers, with 19% of Hispanics identifying as gamers, compared to 11% of African-Americans and 7% of whites." And it's like... well, which is it? Do minorities avoid calling themselves a gamer, or not? In my experience, I'm inclined to agree with Pew. I've met tons of minority gamers, and none of them have ever seemed any less likely to talk at length about their hobby. I'd even imagine that a marginalized individual would be somewhat accustomed to not fitting in with the mainstream, and thus would have less issues with trying to hide their non-socially-acceptable hobbies. Which Pew also correlates. So who on earth is saying that minorities avoid the term "gamer", and why is that being called a valid source? This whole article is filled with contradictions like that, which truly do seem to come from people trying to inject their unscientific personal beliefs everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.235.42.170 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Classification in taxonomies - information without source and probable case of vandalism

In the article about the Bartle taxonomy of player types (referenced in the Stereotypes section, subsection Classification in taxonomies), there is no mention about Completionists as "combinations of the Achiever and Explorer types" being a type of their own. Also, the part about "finding every secret within it such as Atrox, the God of Knowledge.." looks like vandalism, not even mentioning the two dots at the end.

Since I can't edit the article, would someone who can take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geronator (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am a complete stranger. Just noticed the Atrox thing right now--what is up with that? -- Some stranger

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020

Eliterange8822 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

i need to correct spelling

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
person who plays video games or participates in role-playing games.

"every gamer has suffered from small-screen videos" if you think this your wrong no the sucks a gamer does not role play we are not dumb we are smart if your dumb ask buga he is a multi millon dollar person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliterange8822 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Picture of a bird

Where is the picture of a bird? I thought this article had a picture of a bird as the example of a gamer. I saw a screenshot with a bird, where is the picture of a bird in this article? 2601:405:4400:9420:DCC3:A1CB:AB77:6A75 (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well....you might have. Check the back history.--Bddmagic (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamer/Archive_1&oldid=1136750091"