Jump to content

Talk:Gregory Avery-Weir

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

WP:CONFLICT zone

[edit]

I'm not adding this myself to avoid WP:CONFLICT, but the article should probably link to my website/blog/podcast at ludusnovus.net. -GregoryWeir (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should! (It actually does through the references but I'll put it in the external links.) While you're stopping by, if you happen to have any design documents or graphics roughs that you've released under a Wikipedia-compliant free use licence let us know and I'll see whether they can be fit into the article. Also other interviews and third-party stuff that we can source. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look around, but for now I hereby release the three images from this postmortem as well as this picture under a CCBY3.0 license. Let me know if you need a more formal licensing statement than that. -GregoryWeir (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That permission should do for now and I'll leave it for someone who knows that side of Wikipedia better to raise the issue if something more formal turns out to be required. While I'm here, does the picture on Twitter correspond to any particular game or project? There's some I've not personally played yet so the significance might elude me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it's clearly Babies Dream of Dead Worlds, which I hadn't had a chance to play yet. Also, any chance of a usable (creative commons) photo of yourself? Like this one on Newgrounds? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONFLICT zone: redux

[edit]

I think there's some confusion being caused by the Italian interview. My writing at GSW was never a full-time position, and it's currently on indefinite hiatus. I don't really have a reliable source I can provide for that, sadly. -GregoryWeir (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's non-controversial information so I'm happy to remove it as disputed in good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources

[edit]

Other links for later use in the article:

Notability and original research

[edit]

What you've done here is called "original research", taking articles and synthesizing them into your own interpretation. That is subtly but importantly different than using articles which provide an opinion or an interpretation of the facts and referencing their exact interpretation. which is what is allowed. Also, although the references section at first seems really big, so one would be tempted to go "wow, there's a lot written about this guy! He must be important", upon closer inspection it appears to lack any links to publications that qualify as REPUTABLE sources as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. As for sites that have specifically reviewed him or his games, you have a lot of tiny, tiny indie sites that command next to no traffic (alexa rank 14 million anybody), and the occasional second of attention is, for example, being piled in a routine "link dump" post from Jayisgames. Links to reputable publications are generally used talking about other games, and and their facts are synthesized into new interpretations and opinions (original research) 76.105.10.80 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have no idea what you're talking about but you seem to have a misapprehension about what original research is. What part of the article do you say is not either (a) directly attributable to a source or (b) clearly and unambiguously apparent to a person playing the relevant game? As far as notability goes, "reliable sources" aren't defined by traffic, they're defined by reliability, and besides which Kotaku and JayIsGames have both provided significant coverage. If you feel the article isn't notable, take it to AfD, and prepare to take a fair bit of criticism from the community for doing so. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed

[edit]

We never include detailed descriptions of game designer's game within his article. I removed the lengthy descriptions and provided links for the actual games. The links don't go anywhere yet (and some just go back to this article), but someone who feels the burning need can go in and create the relevant articles and fix all the redirect pages to have them go to the correct articles. All the material from the previous version of the article can be found here for use as a jumping off point for future articles. If you want to do this, be sure to establish the game's notability. Not all of his games seemed at all notable, and seemed to exist in this page simply because they wouldn't qualify for an article on their own. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see Yoeman Editor DustFormsWords restored all the extended game descriptions I removed (with this edit) stating "information is relevant, sourced, and notable - deletion of this material was not by reference to community policy". The truth is, including all the information on every game in the article is against community policy. Some of the information is referenced, but the point is that the detailed information for all games is never done for developers anywhere else on the 'pedia. For comparison, look at the pages for more notable game developers such as John Carmack, Will Wright or Richard Garriott. Their articles talk about their careers and list their games, with links to them so people can read more about them if they're interested. They don't go into detail on every game in the main article on the person. Having all the games discussed ad nasium within the main article is nothing more than clutter and muddies the water: the article is about the person, not his works.
Every game can have an article unto itself, something I tried to initiate with my edit. Having a separate article for each game has several benefits. It is much easier to find information on a game if it has a standalone article. More information with a standalone article. I am therefore restoring my edit and will make one article from the information that has been removed. Others can write other articles using this information.
Before reverting my edit, please discuss here first, as I did initially. Let's work something out before we start an edit war. Thank you. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There, I created the Necropolis article. It actually contains more information than the blurb in this article did. The same can be done for the remaining games. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. However, "we never include detailed descriptions of game designer's game within his article" is not a statement supported by any community agreed policy that I'm aware of. Each of the games are notable, in that there is significant coverage in reliable independent sources, but none of the games are substantial enough to support their own article, nor are they ever likely to be (except maybe Majesty of Colours) and hence it's appropriate for them to be detailed here. You're likely to find that the Necropolis article wouldn't survive an AfD, with the result that it will be redirected back to this page with the expectation that the relevant content will appear here. I'll give you a little while to reply to this comment, and then revert back to the detailed version of the page. Please find documented policy support for your deletion, if you'd like to continue down that argument. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll bring it up at the project. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up here. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The developer's article is for information on the developer. If you want detailed info on the games themselves, make separate articles if the games are notable enough. Just remember that mere existence does not confer notability to a game. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 10:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello guys. I was taken aback by the volume of text devoted to these non-notable games, this is prescribed against by policy, WP:WEIGHT: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." At most I would dedicate two paragraphs to his games, if that, and stick to ones which have had some sort of coverage in reliable sources, Majesty of Colors could be split, the sourcing isn't brilliant but the Jay is Games piece coupled with the Play This Thing review should just scrape notability and Weir's own game postmortem means it could be a pretty complete article. Please don't revert to that massive chunk of text. Someoneanother 11:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for chiming in on this matter. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game articles

[edit]

Okay, I created The Majesty of Colors game article as User:Someone another suggested. It is mostly content from the old version of the article, but I reworded some of it to make it appropriate for a stand-alone article. Are there any other notable games that Weir worked on that deserve articles? If not, I suggest we nix the wikilinks to articles on them per Torinir and User:Someone another's comments. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every game he made that has signficant coverage in multiple independent sources (ie all of them except Necropolis, Sugarcore and The Bryant Collection) is notable per Wikipedia's notability standards. Note that notability doesn't necessarily mean the topic should be covered by a standalone article; it may be more appropriate (as in this case) to discuss it in the context of a related parent topic, ie the designer. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of is to make an omnibus article that discusses all of them together (e.g. Gregory Weir video games or Video games by Gregory Weir). This is kind of uncharted territory for video game designer articles, but this is the best I can come up with. Discussing all of his games at length within this article is inappropriate as discussed above. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A notable game would be How to raise your dragon. It has different endings like the majesty of colors. Same thing with the mold fairy. Ukokira (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

[edit]

Requested Changes:

 Done
  • Add mention of Future Proof Games
    • This could be done with a sentence in the article intro of "He is co-founder of the company Future Proof Games." and an external link in the footer to http://futureproofgames.com/.
 Done
  • Change photo to [[File:Gregory Avery-Weir.jpg|thumb|Photo of Gregory Avery-Weir]] (see on the right/below)
    Photo of Gregory Avery-Weir
 Done
  • Replace each case of "Weir" with "Avery-Weir".
 Done
 Done

Hello, folks. Subject of the article here. My name changed in 2011 to Gregory Avery-Weir. It's been noted in the article but the article title is still incorrect. You can see evidence of my name on Ludus Novus in the right sidebar, as well as on the homepage of my company: Future Proof Games. It's the credit I've used in my recent works. Could someone please move the article or at least create a redirect? Would do it myself, but COI and all that. Thank you! -Gregory Avery-Weir (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{edit COI}} info. -Gregory Avery-Weir (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gregory Avery-Weir. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gregory_Avery-Weir&oldid=1208159891"