Jump to content

Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)/Archive 1) (bot
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)/Archive 1) (bot
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 46: Line 46:
|topic=Video and computer games
|topic=Video and computer games
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Video games|class=B|importance=High|old-peer=yes}}
{{WikiProject Video games|class=B|importance=High|old-peer=yes}}
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|class=B|importance=Low|type=Article}}
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=Low}}
}}
{{refideas
{{refideas
|1={{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/3/5775026/e-t-myth-worst-game-ever|title=Why E.T. wasn't the worst game in history|last=Lien|first=Tracey|date=3 June 2014|work=[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]]|publisher=[[Vox Media]]|accessdate=}}
|1={{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/3/5775026/e-t-myth-worst-game-ever|title=Why E.T. wasn't the worst game in history|last=Lien|first=Tracey|date=3 June 2014|work=[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]]|publisher=[[Vox Media]]|accessdate=}}
Line 65: Line 67:
}}{{archives}}
}}{{archives}}


== Reliability of pastebin ==
== GA Reassessment ==


{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)/1}}
A pastebin uploaded by an anonymous user isn't a reliable source for any purpose, in my view. I don't think an anonymous paste should ever be cited in the body of an article – it's no more verifiable than not having a source at all. '''[[User:L235|Kevin]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; [[User talk:L235#top|t]]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 14:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: this is patently wrong. This is the definition of a primary source. And having a source is cleary very preferably according to our verfiabilty goal than not having. If you are concerned about the fluidity of padzebin, use the webarchive. There is no reason to remove sources (exchanging against better, yes) as this is against our core goal of verifiabilty. [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 15:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::Have you read [[WP:V]]? Because you are absolutely, without a doubt, wrong. In what way is it reliable, as defined in our policies? <span style=font-size:11px>[[User:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051">CHRISSY</span><span style="color:#301934;font-size:11px">'''MAD'''</span>]] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051;font-size=11px">¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>]]</span> 16:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Primary sources can be used to verify claims of something already verifiably notable enough to be included. Using primary sources by themselves to cite something's existence would mean that we could expand the section by at least 20 more unnotable remakes by various people, citing their respective websites. Both claims from the section in question had been subject to the latter, though I found sources backing up one of them.
::MobyGames is inherently 100% unreliable and on WP:VG's bad sources list. Pastebin really isn't anything at all, just a website where you can paste code or text. In this case, it was posted by an anonymous user and without any context. Unless you were to compile the code yourself, you couldn't check whether this actually the legitimate code, so it's not useful as a source either way. [[User:Lordtobi|<span style="font-family: Impact;">Lordtobi</span>]] ([[User talk:Lordtobi|<span style="color: #B0B0B0;">&#9993;</span>]]) 16:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::notability is applied on the whole article not subparts. Non-controversial facts can be added even without sources. (See sources for the sky is blue) Sourves are always preferable due to verifiabilty [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Again, I'll point you to [[WP:V]]. <span style=font-size:11px>[[User:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051">CHRISSY</span><span style="color:#301934;font-size:11px">'''MAD'''</span>]] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051;font-size=11px">¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>]]</span> 16:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::So should we add [https://gamejolt.com/games/etatari/258508 this remake], [https://www.indiedb.com/games/et-the-extra-terrestrial-remake this remake], [https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/21072553/ this remake] and [https://codepen.io/zerratar/full/yqQGNm/ this remake] as well? No we shouldn't. At least on reliable source should be available for these; other information missing from these reliable sources can be added through primary sources. [[User:Lordtobi|<span style="font-family: Impact;">Lordtobi</span>]] ([[User talk:Lordtobi|<span style="color: #B0B0B0;">&#9993;</span>]]) 16:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::::i agree, we should not add everything. We should add things which had impact, found reception and can be sourced. The patched version fullfil this. [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


== Review ==
:::{{u|Lordtobi}} I don't think that's what's being discussed so much right now as the actual reliability (which it is not, in any form) of pastebin. <span style=font-size:11px>[[User:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051">CHRISSY</span><span style="color:#301934;font-size:11px">'''MAD'''</span>]] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051;font-size=11px">¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>]]</span> 16:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::::Oh? I thought we were talking about primary sources. Pastebin is not a primary source. [[User:Lordtobi|<span style="font-family: Impact;">Lordtobi</span>]] ([[User talk:Lordtobi|<span style="color: #B0B0B0;">&#9993;</span>]]) 16:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:read the five pillars, we should strife for reliabilty if the strength of the statement makes it necessary. Not for every detail. It is a pain the "reliabilty" is now the thing which is in wp so overbroad and careless applied, crippeling actual constructive work and driving authors out.[[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::The claim that it's a primary source is as ridiculous as the claim that it would be slightly reliable regardless of the type of source, but yes, the general discussion is about Shaddim's assertion that it's reliable, as I think we all agree: it's definitely not. ;) <span style=font-size:11px>[[User:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051">CHRISSY</span><span style="color:#301934;font-size:11px">'''MAD'''</span>]] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051;font-size=11px">¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>]]</span> 16:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::reliable regarding what? This is just fact proofing, not controversial stuff.
::if i link to an authors twitter account, is this a "reliable" source on his opinion on something? According your definition it would be not which is ridicoulus. Linking to source code verifies reliable, yes this is source code it exists. Read about sourcing [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::This isn't even relevant to the discussion and you're heading well into [[WP:IDHT]] and [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] editing. Secondly, why do we care what a developers opinion is on Twitter? It's not enyclopedic and it's not what we are discussing. <span style=font-size:11px>[[User:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051">CHRISSY</span><span style="color:#301934;font-size:11px">'''MAD'''</span>]] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051;font-size=11px">¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>]]</span> 16:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::::We cite all the time the opinions of experts in their fields.... don't be stupid. If John Carmarck, on of the greatest developer out there, comments on Java performance, this is a relevant opinion. [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 08:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Can we really verify the existence of a source through a Pastebin post? This could also just be a Hello World program with fake comments. [[User:Lordtobi|<span style="font-family: Impact;">Lordtobi</span>]] ([[User talk:Lordtobi|<span style="color: #B0B0B0;">&#9993;</span>]]) 17:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::::No we can't and it's in direct opposition of a [[WP:5 pillars|core tenet]] of Wikipedia.<span style=font-size:11px>[[User:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051">CHRISSY</span><span style="color:#301934;font-size:11px">'''MAD'''</span>]] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051;font-size=11px">¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>]]</span> 17:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::no, it is not. "All articles must '''strive''' for verifiable accuracy (''primary sources fit''), citing reliable (''direct link to source is "reliable" showing the existence of it''), authoritative sources (''original source is authoritative''), especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons (''this does not apply here, existence of this patch is a technical fact and not at all controversial'')." stop being a bureaucratic prick, the overarching goal of WP is adding relevant content & with verification [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 08:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{re|Shaddim}} I have to jump in a bit here. We ''sometimes'' allow certain primary sources under [[WP:PRIMARY]], but it needs to be high-quality and reputable. In this case, neither is remotely true. Policy states: {{tq|1=Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources {{em|1=that have been reputably published}} may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.}} (emphasis added). Code anonymously submitted on Pastebin is manifestly not "reputably published". '''[[User:L235|Kevin]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; [[User talk:L235#top|t]]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::indeed, primary sources are fine for verfiying technical, non-controversial facts. I will admit that pastebin is a very weak form of it regarding publishing. But sometimes such things are used by authors, so we have to cope with it. I would suggest using the webarchive form of it to give a nonn-fluid version, with a defined release date. And having a source, even a weak one, is always better than having none. [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 08:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


*''[[:fr:Jeux et Stratégie|Jeux & Stratégie]]'' #19<ref>https://archive.org/details/jeux-et-strategie-19/page/40/mode/2up</ref>
== GA Reassessment ==
[[Special:Contributions/8.37.179.254|8.37.179.254]] ([[User talk:8.37.179.254|talk]]) 18:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)/1}}


== What's the value of this game ==
== Number of Copies Produced ==


Is there a reliable source on the number of copies of E.T. that were produced?
Value of game [[Special:Contributions/71.72.27.166|71.72.27.166]] ([[User talk:71.72.27.166|talk]]) 15:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
In "Master of the Game", Kassar says that 3.5 of the initial 4 million units produced were returned to Atari. However, the Snopes article about the cartridge burial quotes Kassar as saying that 5 million units were produced. [[Special:Contributions/2603:301D:2506:EE00:44B5:89C0:6B59:163C|2603:301D:2506:EE00:44B5:89C0:6B59:163C]] ([[User talk:2603:301D:2506:EE00:44B5:89C0:6B59:163C|talk]]) 15:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:56, 22 October 2024

Former good articleE.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 15, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 20, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 13, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 31, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 14, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 1, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
August 13, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delist; no one's responding since I took over this GAR review, meaning the plethora of issues wasn't removed because of a lack of attention to the article. Should someone return E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) to GA status, then the issues should be removed before such nomination. -iaspostb□x+ 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has not been reassessed for GA status since 2009. In the decade since, there's been a lot of unsourced information added. Some if it may be true, but qualifies as Original Research, while other bits and pieces are flat-out incorrect. Article needs a lot of cleanup to regain GA status, in my opinion. However, since I have edited the article a bit recently, I think others should do the reassessment so there's no conflict. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So this article about one of the worst 2600 games ever made is now one of the worst 80's video game GAs, essentially. iaspostb□x 14:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's around a week since I last commented here and little improvement has been done. I'm sure you edited the article well though. -iaspostb□x+ 07:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Honestly, it's beyond my ability to get this article up to GA status. If you would like to do the review and revoke the GA based on the myriad of problems, I would have no problem with that, and frankly, I would welcome it. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could try. -iaspostb□x+ 01:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted an unsourced statement!: "The game offers diverse difficulty settings that affect the number and speed of humans present, and the conditions needed to accomplish the objective." -iaspostb□x+ 02:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've found 2 1 two-sentences-long paragraphs!:
  1. "On May 28, 2013, the Alamogordo City Commission approved Fuel Industries, an Ottawa-based entertainment company, for six months of landfill access both to create a documentary about the legend and to excavate the burial site.[3] On April 26, 2014, remnants of E.T. and other Atari games were discovered in the early hours of the excavation.[5][72]"
  2. "In December 2014, the Smithsonian Institution added an excavated cartridge of E.T. to their collection.[73][74] In 2015, The Henry Ford museum added several excavated cartridges and a video touchpad, a sample of landfill dirt taken from the site of the burial, and items of clothing worn by the excavation team to their collection. A selection of these items are on permanent display.[75][76]" (Never mind, it was a three-sentence paragraph.)
This is getting crazy! -iaspostb□x+ 04:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Reception section (and especially the Critical response part) doesn't have a {{Video game reviews}} template, it badly needs one. -iaspostb□x+ 07:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's information in the lead that isn't even carried over to other sections, namely this one:

"In April 2014, diggers hired to investigate the claim confirmed that the Alamogordo landfill contained many E.T. cartridges, among other games.[3][4][5] James Heller, the former Atari manager who was in charge of the burial, was at the excavation and admitted to the Associated Press that 728,000 cartridges of various games were buried.[6]"

I'm scratching my head as to why this statement even isn't in Legacy#Atari video game burial. -iaspostb□x+ 07:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the references listed in the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) article's talk page would be incorporated into the article. Correct me if there's any one or more of such references in the article already before I came here. -iaspostb□x+ 07:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reference used in the lead that isn't used anywhere in any of the headings listed in the table of contents:

"Warshaw intended the game to be an innovative adaptation of the film, and Atari thought it would achieve high sales figures based on the international box office success of the film. Negotiations to secure the rights to make the game ended in late July 1982, giving Warshaw five and a half weeks to develop the game in time for the 1982 Christmas season.[2]"

Reference 2 should've been in the Development section. -iaspostb□x+ 05:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the text with "giving Warshaw five and a half weeks to develop the game in time for the 1982 Christmas season" in it isn't in the Development section either. -iaspostb□x+ 05:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Critical response section has too many quotes. -iaspostb□x+ 17:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The prose isn't even like a modern GA, it must become one. -iaspostb□x+ 06:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been any edits since July 18, 2020 to the article, I doubt that the GA could remain in its current class unless a significant rework is about to take place. -iaspostb□x+ 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's several more features about the E.T. game adaption than what this article uses. It has features, but it needs more. -iaspostb□x+ 20:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

8.37.179.254 (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Number of Copies Produced

[edit]

Is there a reliable source on the number of copies of E.T. that were produced? In "Master of the Game", Kassar says that 3.5 of the initial 4 million units produced were returned to Atari. However, the Snopes article about the cartridge burial quotes Kassar as saying that 5 million units were produced. 2603:301D:2506:EE00:44B5:89C0:6B59:163C (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]