Talk:Polybius (urban legend)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Digitalhumanitiestudent1. Peer reviewers: Menschel, Dmakeever, Paxiwiki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sinneslochen trademark history

If you do a search of the USPTO on the company name SINNESLOSCHEN, the name has only been registered once in the United States, as an LLC in 2008.

This indicates the chance of the screenshot within the article is a fabrication is relatively high.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.29.166 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not even a screenshot. Its an amaturishly constructed image. Its very obviously a total fake. 75.17.124.26 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten

The article in its current form is almost useless. It doesnt even properly tell the history and development of the hoax. Everything in the article that can't be sourced should be removed.

The hoax started with the game description on coinop.org in 1998. It continued in a small set of usenet group posts in 2001. Then there were the magazine articles a couple years later. Then there was Steven Roach. Then there are the various cabinet sightings. There is no pre-1998 history to any of this. Speculation about games that might match the stories told about the game have no place in the article.

Right now, the article reads like a bulletin board for hoaxers. 75.17.124.26 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Je viens tout juste de visionner une émission télévisée dans laquelle on parlait du jeu Polybius. Ce n'est pas un canular, le jeu a bel et bien existé. Je viens du Québec, l'émission est une traduction en français pour moi et je n'arrive pas à trouver le titre original de l'émission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.63.29 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

References

you'd think because it's Wikipedia

Trolling/hoax/Snopes content wouldn't make it on here.

But I stand corrected. 68.38.197.76 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for sources/citations

Ok. I dont see and cannot find any source for the following claims made in the article. Unless someone can produce sources for this material, its eventually going to be removed.

- The game proved to be incredibly popular, to the point of addiction, and lines formed around the machines, often resulting in fighting over who played next.

No source for addiction. lines forming around the machines or fights over play on the machines.

- an unheard-of new arcade game appeared in several suburbs of Portland

The coinop.org material says "one" suburb.

- This was followed by clusters of visits from men in black. Rather than the usual marketing data collected by company visitors to arcade machines, they collected some unknown data, allegedly testing responses to the psychoactive machines.

The only known source says they collected "data about how the game was played". It does not say anything about "psycoactive" or "testing responses".

- In some versions of this mystery, the players suffered from a series of unpleasant side effects, including amnesia, insomnia, nightmares and night terrors.

What are the other "versions" of this mystery and what are the sources for them. The quoted material is basically directly from the coinop.org source.

- The supposed creator of Polybius is Ed Rotberg, and the company named in most accounts of the game, Sinneslöschen (German meaning "deletion/erasure of senses, Sense-delete"), often named as either a secret government organization or a codename for Atari.

Who is the source for tying the game to Ed Rotberg? Who is the source tying any of this to Atari? Where are the accounts that do not associate the game with Sinneslöschen?

- The gameplay is said to be similar to Tempest (a shoot 'em up game using vector graphics), while the game is said to contain subliminal messages which would influence the action of anyone playing it.

Where is the source that says the gameplay was similar to Tempest? Where is the source for "vector graphics"? Where the source for "subliminal messages". The sourced description of the game says it was "kind of abstract, fast action with some puzzle elements".

69.198.25.2 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Bias

I believe this article demonstrates an overall bias to assume the game is pure fiction, using words like "supposed" or "alleged" next to many descriptions of the game throughout the article. For instance, the introductory paragraph states "Not much evidence for the existence of such a game has ever been discovered," which implies that the writer was hoping to find no evidence. Instead, it should say something like "There has been only trace evidence that Polybius was manufactured and released." Another good example is the thumbnail of the title screen, which reads "Title frame of the alleged game", implying that the game is only "alleged" (Wiktionary: "supposed but doubtful"), which directly contrasts to the image's description page, which inarguably states the game is real, non-free, and under copyright protection (another bias we might want to work over). A better caption might read "Title frame of Polybius", since the game's existence or lack thereof has already been declared above. There are more examples of this in the article, such as "According to the story", "The supposed creator", and even "a "lack of hard evidence" situation typical of hoaxes." — Supuhstar * — 03:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There no "evidence" whatsoever as to the game existing. The article is documentation of an urban legend. What you are calling for is to use Wikipedia's voice to back the hoax and to treat it as if its real. The article should be careful in its tone to clearly WHO has made WHAT claim about the game and make claims about the existance of the game in Wikipedia's voice at all. Wikipedia is not a message board for anonymous unsourced claims or a forum for trying to turn rumors into facts. The article should document the urban legend but make claims about it. 75.20.229.129 (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying there should be evidence, or that this should be a platform for propagating rumors, I'm just saying this article isn't written in the unbiased way that Wikipedia tends to have them. — Supuhstar * — 02:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

An article dealing with a matter of clear facts has a different standard than an article dealing with a hoax or an urban legend. Such articles need to carefully seperate facts from the stories used to spread the hoax. "According to the story" is appropriate. "supposed" is an appropriate qualifier for "creator" because not using it suggests Wikipedia is using its voice to support the claim. "typical of hoaxes" probably goes too far and should be modified. 184.63.149.199 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

But has there actually been "trace evidence"? The source currently being cited for there being "not much" evidence plainly says "there is no evidence that the game ever existed". --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Creepypasta

So Wikipedia has moved to accepting creepypasta tales as articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.159.172 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to be an unbiased repository for all knowledge — Supuhstar * — 15:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's more of a theory, anyway. TVShowFan122 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

How is it a theory? It's a story that has nothing suggesting it goes beyond fiction.

Wreck It Ralph

The image that the article was referring to for Wreck It Ralph is a hoax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8bCFV4uhwA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.13.198.218 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Steven Roach sourcing

Not sure this section meets Wikipedia's sourcing standards - a guy giving an interview is a primary source and I'm not even sure that Gamepulse.co.uk is that reliable a source in the first place, and gamecola.net which did the follow-up analysis looks like a WP:SPS group blog. Given that this only adds up to "guy claimed to have worked on the game, was probably lying" anyway and doesn't seem to have gotten any wider coverage, maybe we should lose it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

With no response in a month I've gone ahead and cut it. --McGeddon (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

2009 information

In 2009, it appeared as if the author of the coinop.org description of the game added new material to the entry:

"Quick update, we just wanted to go on record here that Steven Roach is full of himself, and knows nothing about this game. We have it on good authority. No, Polybius is not a Tempest prototype. No, Polybius is not a vector game. Does the title screen look vector? No, it does not. We've recently received some new information about the game (today's May 16, 2009), and yes one of us is flying to the Kyiv, Ukraine area tomorrow and yes the trip is related to this information. Stay tuned."

It seems likely that the person who modified the entry in 2009 was the same one who created it years before. The comment introduces four new story elements:

- It denies the Roach story. - It denies that it was a Tempest prototype - It denies that it was a vector graphics based game - It denies that the title screen looked like vector graphics

This might be worth adding to the article in some form since everything in the urban legend really sources back to that entry at coinop.org. 75.17.124.85 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Instagram and Steven Roach

TVShowFan122 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Apparently, in late 2012, someone uploaded 4 photos relating to the game, in which he claimed he had a machine, to Instagram. Here: https://instagram.com/p/RLBoqaxy0C/ https://instagram.com/p/RLOzE-xy8J/ https://instagram.com/p/RYUxK8Ry7b/ https://instagram.com/p/RgSF1zRyzZ/ Sorry if you can't add any links, if it's the case I wasn't aware of it. Also, I think Steven Roach should be added again, because I think the interview is important enough. TVShowFan122 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all difficult to create your own Polybius machine. GSK (t • c) 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

TVShowFan122 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Ok then. Delete this section, please. (unless I can do it by myself.)

To re-add material on Steven Roach, you will have to find an acceptable source for it. The previous sources all failed the test because they were primary sources. As far as polybius machines, there is a very long history of people building hoax machines or doing hoax photos including screen shots. Minus a whole lot of hard evidence, anything like that is not going to be taken seriously. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Move to Polybius (urban legend)?

So since there's an actual video game coming out called Polybius, maybe a move is reasonable? // Gargaj (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as said game has now come out, I would definitely agree that a move is warranted. WNivek (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) QEDK (愛 • 海) 15:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Polybius (video game) → Polybius (urban legend) – There is an actual video game titled Polybius, then there's this, which can be confirmed to be an urban legend. The actual game is only relatable by name and doesn't belong on the article here. The article for the urban legend shouldn't even have "video game" in the title since it's non-existent. I'm not sure if this recently-released documentary could serve as an additional source for this or not. Aria1561 (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Polybius (alleged 1981 video game), with the 2017 game being Polybius (2017 video game). The 2017 game isn't the primary topic for "Polybius (video game)" because of the 1981 game's notoriety... even though the 1981 game might not actually exist.  ONR  (talk)  21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Dude, the video game is alleged *by* an urban legend. That's the whole point. You just rewrote "urban legend" as "here's the subject of an urban legend". — Smuckola(talk) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the alleged game, not the urban legend itself.  ONR  (talk)  00:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Multiple video games have been given the title Polybius, but they were inspired by (and purposely named after) the subject of the urban legend, so I disagree that coverage of these games "doesn't belong on the article here". Its scope should continue to encompass the urban legend and any notable real-life works stemming therefrom.
  I wouldn't oppose a move to Polybius (video gaming), which is sufficiently broad to eliminate the slight semantic inaccuracy. —David Levy 06:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  Support. Upon further consideration, I'm convinced that the proposed move is appropriate (per the discussion below). —David Levy 03:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note. Is there an article on the 2017 Polybius, or is there going to be one? Otherwise this is an unnecessary discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  The discussion was made mainly for what the new title of this article should be. I've moved all info about the 2017 game to its own article. Aria1561 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  Irrespective of this article's title, information regarding the PlayStation 4 game's inspiration by (and marketing in connection with) the urban legend is relevant to the subject. I've restored that portion of the text (but not the rest) and added a "main article" link to Polybius (2017 video game). —David Levy 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The Polybius in this article is an urban legend, not a video game. I don't believe we should give such a rumour credibility by calling it alleged. Additionally, the story of Polybius isn't simply about the video game itself, but more the story of the government testing and disappearance of the game. I think "urban legend" is the best descriptor. Geesi (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  Notable factual developments (such as the creation of actual video games inspired by the rumor) have resulted in a subject broader than the underlying urban legend. I've suggested the title Polybius (video gaming), which accurately reflects the industry/hobby in which all elements (real and imaginary) are rooted. —David Levy 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  I agree that the topic is broader than simply the urban legend, however I feel that appropriately sits in the 'Legacy' section. The basis of the article is still the urban legend. The resulting games would remain as the legacy and reactions to that urban legend. I'd also argue the title of '(video gaming)' is too broad for such an arguably limited topic. From a preliminary search, the disambiguator of '(video gaming)' is only used for topics about themes or common elements specific to video games. See Level (video gaming), Combo (video gaming), Achievement (video gaming), or many more. Polybius isn't a broad or important enough topic to be designated this disambiguator, I feel. Geesi (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for taking the time to provide this thorough, analysis-backed response. I find your argument highly persuasive (and have revised my position accordingly). —David Levy 03:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. From what I gather from the article on the alleged Polybius, it was never a video game at all, so keeping "(video game)" there in any capacity is misleading. I like to point out that "(alleged 1981 video game)" is unnecessarily long (WP:CONCISE). As far as I can tell, the 2017 game is the only Polybius article about an actual video game at this point. Concering the urban legend version, with WP:CONSISTENCY in mind, I checked List of urban legends to see how they handle disambiguation. Tough luck, only Bloody Mary (folklore) and the sexual urban legend Rainbow party (sexuality) are disambiguated, but it doesn't rule out calling it "Polybius (urban legend)". It might've come from video gaming culture, but it still an urban legend, regardless of the medium video gaming. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. While the idea of a game like Polybius having existed excites my imaginative side, this is Wikipedia. People don't come to Wikipedia seeking false information - they come to learn about the truth as we know it. There is no conclusive evidence that the game Polybius ever existed. Until there is, it is merely a popular urban legend, and should be clearly stated as such. Talvieno (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Trivialist (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per OP. No question.Gaioa (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. To call it a video game would be to imply it ever actually existed, which we have no proof of. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Year of myth origin

The article currently states that Polybius is a "1998 urban legend". The date of 1998 is presumably taken from the coinop Polybious page. However evidence suggests that the page was created in 2000. The earliest captured instance of the Polybius coionop page in the Wayback Machine was captured on 3 march 2000 which displays a "latest modified date" of 6 february 2000, as well as a "reason for modification" with the value "New addition" - anyone heard of this game?" I cite these facts from this video by the YouTube channel Ahoy: POLYBIUS - The Video Game That Doesn't Exist. Torr3 (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

But, I think even writing that Polybius is a "2000" urban legend" is misleading. Because it seems that the legend was not widely known until 2003 when the story was published in the GamePro magazine. Torr3 (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the article actually says that Polybius is an "alleged 1981 arcade game described in a 1998 urban legend". Is that correct grammar though? Torr3 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The grammar seems fine to me. Also, you could say that the legend originated in 2000 and was popularized in GamePro in 2003. Aria1561 (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The YouTuber, Ahoy documented his detailed search for the source of the Polybius and concluded that the 8/3/1998 12:00:00 AM date at the bottom of the coin.org page appears to be a default value added between April 29 and Aug 10, 2003. If you use the wayback machine the earliest coin.org page on Polybius dates to March 3, 2000 and states this at the bottom of the page:

Last Build of this page: 3/3/2000 4:36:59 AM

Page views for this game at that time: 1351

Last Modification of this game: 2/6/2000 10:23:41 AM

Reason for modification: New addition - anyone heard of this game?

The "New addition" would imply that the page was added 2/6/2000 2/6/2000 10:23:41 AM not 8/3/1998 12:00:00 AM as is now claimed. This is enough grounds to disregard the 1998 date unless some other source for it can be found.

On a side note "sinnlosen" is the term used by cyberyogi (who according to Ahoy's research got a lot of blame for the myth's origin back in the day) for "senceless" not "Sinneslöschen". Funny thing is if you put in Sinneslöschen to Google translate you get "Clear sense" which supports the theory that the name was created using an English to German dictionary.--2606:A000:7D44:100:B1BA:AA4F:4972:238D (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd

How come the AVGN's Polybius episode isn't mentioned in the popular culture section? The series is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.252 (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Because notability isn't an infectious disease and Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of junk. He's notable for his own existence, not for what he says. He's not a real video game reviewer or a WP:RS. It's a show that exists to just say and do junk. — Smuckola(talk) 03:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you did a good job improving the more confusingly written sentences that were in the original article. Furthermore I think you have reorganized the article effectively, making it easier to follow. Of course, as you wrote, you did not edit the entire article, but still, the sections you edited have been improved in terms of organization quality, and content.

I think you did a good job keeping a neutral tone. It does not seem like you're partial to either side, or that you are trying to persuade me, the reader, to adopt a particular position on the legitimacy of Polybius legend. Your links all work and are relevant. Also, from what I could tell, you do not seem to be under or over-representing any arguments.

The legend is quite old, at least by the standards of the internet, and I think you did a great job of including sources from the time that exist. You also included a comprehensive article from 2015 which I thought was great. I felt that this stuck a good balance between what was said at the time, and what is being said about Polybius in hindsight. If there were more modern sources on the legend that would be great, but I understand that this isn't very common or possible with a lot of urban legends.

I am not sure how citations with pictures work on Wikipedia, but your picture of the "Start" screen is good and relevant, so I think it would be a great addition. Is it OK to cite if you provide a link to the website?

I think you're on the right track, keep doing what your're doing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxiwiki (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

The video game infobox template is at the time of writing used in the article (though I might just change it after this post). I think this is a mistake because this article is about the urban legend Polybius, not the video game Polybius. The infobox fields currently used in the article, "Developer", "Publisher" and "Release", are not important aspects of the myth (excluding title and image, though I have to say the image is questionable). At least not as important to be included in an infobox. It is like including the speed of the ship RMS Titanic in the infobox for the 1977 film Titanic. Torr3 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What other infobox should be used? Seems that this is the best option really - it may be an urban legend, but it's about a video game, which includes a Developer and publisher - even if they are probably allegedly fictitious. It's certainly better than no infobox. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, unreleased games such as Thrill Kill and StarCraft: Ghost use the video game template - so do acknowledged vaporware titles such as The Grinder (video game). I think this is the best option as is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Urban legend articles usually do not have an infobox, except with mythological figures and characters. Just because no other infobox fits better does not mean that the infobox used is appropriate. I do not think it is inconceivable, however, that an urban legend infobox could be made. Regarding vaporware - vaporware is not myth, vaporware is still video game albeit in an unfinished or unreleased state, and "Developer", "Platform" etc. are all relevant basic info about vaporware titles (if reliable information is available). Another issue is that I think the video game infobox makes it look like a real game with facts supporting it. On a quick glimpse of the article it kind of looks like a real game, and it may give a false sense of Polybius (possibly) being an actual video game. Perhaps it could be factor in making some people, whom are prone to believing this kind of stuff, into believe in the myth. Torr3 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's a concern. The article makes its existence (or rather lack of) clear; the fourth word in the lede is "fictitious", there's a {{About|the urban legend|the 2017 video game|Polybius (2017 video game)}} at the top of the page, and the article title itself includes the phrase "urban legend". I think there's zero chance that the use of the video game infobox will persuade even a casual viewer that the game actually exists. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cube Quest

Hi, I just wanted to bring attention to a forgotten arcade game from the 80s that might have served as one of the bases of the Polybius myth, Cube Quest. One can find videos of it on YouTube and other places. It fits a lot of the descriptions of Polybius, such as it being a tempest-like game with puzzle elements, and I could see how how the psychedelic Laserdisk backgrounds might have caused seizures, etc. Also Laserdisk games were prone to breaking, so that would explain it mysteriously disappearing from arcades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.247.216.140 (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Poly-play

Would the possible connection to Poly Play be worth mentioning?--Professor Phantasm (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't released?

I found a site where someone who is talking about Polybius differently. I typed in the website called AMAfeed and his name was Klaus Saller, I think he told the truth about Polybius.

SonicTV64 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a reddit post supposedly by Klaus Saller that in addition to providing the same core information on AMAfeed answered a few questions but the answers are somewhat evasive. While reasonable at first read the more you think about it the less sense the story presented makes. The first question should have been 'why use a mangled German word for the name of your company?' The next question should be 'why are there no records of you company having even existed?' The whole thing smacks of trolling...though much better then we have seen in the past.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

About the Infobox

As long as we are clear that the game is (probably) fictional, I fail to see anything wrong with placing qualified statements ("alleged," "claimed," etc.) in the Infobox. As for precedent, we have birth and death dates for Lord of the Rings characters. Aragorn, for example, has an Infobox listing him as born in Third Age 2931 and died in Fourth Age 120.

Again, we have birth and death dates for Lord of the Rings characters! Placing qualified statements to acknowledge urban legend status, this does not in any way magically lend credence to someone claiming the game was real just by virtue of being in the Infobox at all.

Anyone wishing to try to refute the above argument should please do that here, on the Talk Page! Stop edit warring, and stop posting commented-out notes that haven't been discussed on the Talk Page. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ahoy Documentary

I'm surprised there is absolutely no mention of the Ahoy documentary and deep-dive on the topic. He did more research and dug up more details and facts than anyone ever has. In fact, Stuart Brown even contacted the person who most likely started the whole legend.

appearance in 'popular culture'

Should there be a section about the game's prevalence in things like webcomics? (For example, I only learned of this because it is part of the story in the webcomic 'addictive science') 0w0 catt0s (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There should be a reference to 2020 film "Ashens and the Polybius Heist", a comedy film where the characters search for the titular Polybius video game. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9170580/ 71.245.67.247 (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent Developments, "Sourcing" an urban legend, and strange deletions on this page.

All,

Polybius is an urban legend and I feel like basically all of the happenings to this urban legend in the past few years are not mentioned on this page. There are three movie projects featuring or referencing Polybius that were released in 2020 that are no longer on the page. There was an info dump with an 80+ page US House of Representatives hearing on Polybius (which is likely fake but it is far more substantial and substantive than the various rumors referenced here). No offense to Rogue Synapse but their definition of the urban legend has now been challenged by multiple sources and all of the edits I see from the past year or two are now deleted or reverted.

To be frank, this article needs a new format and a re-write from fresh eyes. To ignore all of the current "discoveries" or references related to the urban legend in a Wikipedia page about the urban legend makes the page misleading. I would volunteer to tackle the project but it seems extremely likely that any work put into this page will be deleted.

Please advise.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadephreak (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources to back up changes you wish to make there's no reason so assume they'll be reverted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources on this page are reliable and the page is a complete wreck. Just because a gaming blog does an article on unverified sources does not somehow permit the unverified sources to be used as fact on this page. There are now four or five corroborated events related to Polybius that have been deleted or removed from the page. There is a US House of Representatives document that is not cited or sourced. This article is junk now.

Appearance in TV series "Inside Job"

In the Netflix animated series Inside Job, a Polybius game appears in an "employees only" arcade, at a organization responsible for managing government conspiracies. Appearance is in season 1, episode 2, 4m50s into the episode. I don't know how to cite something like this since it would be flagged as "original research." Would go in the "popular culture" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:877F:BF00:B52F:A2E1:126B:AFD2 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A primary source (the episode itself) is typically sufficient when discussing whether something appears in that source. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Disproving with original research

I’ve removed the following as original research, since that’s literally what it was:

although no such copyright has ever been registered.

If there’s a reliable source we can cite as making the same negative claim, it should be restored with that source instead. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Also this bit of synthesis, as interesting as the coincidence is:

[the game’s namesake was] known for his assertion that historians should never report what they cannot verify through interviews with eyewitnesses.

—151.132.206.250 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Dimension 404

...had an episode dedicated to this, probably a worthy inclusion in the pop culture section. 137.118.200.132 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is this not included?

Many Polybius cabinets actually still exist today, but that is not mentioned. Goofyahadude1013p310 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim? - Aoidh (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I had evidence, but can't cite it Goofyahadude1013p310 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's why it is not included. Our purpose is to summarise what reliable published sources say about any subject. Wikipedia isn't a place to report personal experience, or original research - if you can't cite it, don't write it. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Stuart Brown (Ahoy)

@Greenboi123: I see that you wish to add Stuart Brown (Ahoy) to the article as a reliable source. Do you have any source (aside from him) that could establish such credibility? I found a Kotaku article that mentions him but I do not believe it is enough. It also does not go into detail on his research, which I feel it appropriate to say is self-published.

Edit: The Kotaku article cites Wikipedia, which makes me worry about A. circular references and B. their investigative techniques. Tireauclaire (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I do believe that I read in an article that he use to work as journalist at tech magazine if remember correctly. Although I would have double check that as my recollection of the contents of the page is a bit fuzzy. I'm not even sure if I remember which media outlet it was published under but I do recall some vague details of the news article. Greenboi123 (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

They are self-published (WP:SPS); their prior work history does not change that. There is a big difference between publishing an article at a newspaper/journal/website/magazine that has an established method and history of editorial oversight, fact checking, and accountability, and someone publishing their own work under their own name without that oversight. A self-published journalist is still self-published. A self-published work can sometimes be reliable if the person in question is a Subject-matter expert, but in that context one cannot be a subject-matter expert in something as broad as "journalism", so that caveat does not apply here. I'm familiar with Ahoy's channel and the video in question and while I enjoy their content, it is prima facie not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes without a very good reason why it would be. - Aoidh (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Simpsons did it

@LooneyLoaiza: Per WP:BRD I have again removed the addition of the The Simpsons entry in the "In popular culture" section per MOS:POPCULT, which says A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. The source used for that entry is very much a passing mention of Polybius being shown on The Simpsons. The source says nothing about the appearance on The Simpsons as being culturally impactful in any way, and the only thing that source verifies is that The Simpsons made a passing reference to Polybius in the background of one scene in one episode. That is precisely the type of WP:TRIVIA that MOS:POPCULT seeks to avoid and why it was reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a reasonable application of WP:TRIVIA, but it applies equally to every other item in the "In popular culture" section, as they all "merely mention the subject's appearance..." Willbmoore (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Storm?

What is this description of this article named "the storm is coming"? 50.53.66.139 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)