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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530151127/http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/southeast/alamogordo-approves-atari-excavation to http://www.krqe.com//dpp/news/southeast/alamogordo-approves-atari-excavation
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3124081&did=1

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) 12:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Release date

@Indrian, I understand your argumentation on why there is not concrete release date [on which the game hit all stores]. However, if Retro Gamer found out this date, wouldn't it be likely that it was the beginning of the game's rolling-out and thereby the initial release date of the game (which is what we list in the infobox)? Lordtobi (✉) 06:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I hear you; it’s just that Retro Gamer is really not a good source for that kind of pinpoint info from 35 years ago. If you can find a period source that indicates such a date, by all means add it back. Indrian (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  Well, they don't usually make stuff up, do they? Most of their content resulted from talking with the people involved with the content, so I'd assume it to be correct. I will try to find more timely sources, but 1982 is porrly documented on the interwebs, outside maybe Google Books. Lordtobi (✉) 16:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• No, Retro Gamer would not just make stuff up, but it is an enthusiast publication not a scholarly one and does have a habit of blowing the details. I tend to be distrustful of most information in it that did not come from a clearly delineated primary source. A date like that is far more likely to have come from a questionable website than from good source research. Indrian (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Indrian: I see you also reverted my related edits on Computer Space and Atari 5200, though without using the undo button, so I wasn't notified. I see your point that there apparently were no "street dates" for either of these properties, however, . Specifically on Computer Space, you claimed that "Evidence suggests it may not have even shipped until December"; I cannot find such evidence anywhere in the article, nor did you provide it. Then again, why would it say November in the first place? I'll go as far as to say that the release date for the game is not sourced anywhere in that article. In the infobox, "Release date" does not have to strictly mean "street date", but the day of first availability/when it started shipping from the manufacturer. Retro Gamer is considered reliable by WPVG and is edited by industry professionals, at least for the most part, so WP:V definetly applies. Lordtobi (✉) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  • My my, we did get snippy in that Computer Space edit summary didn't we? No, RG's BS release date is not good enough. Go read Cash Box if you want to learn a thing or three about Computer Space. The complete text is online and even completely searchable. And then for an encore you can go to the All in Color for a Quarter blog and search Computer Space and see Nolan Bushnell's own word on the matter in a deposition from the 1970s. Indrian (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

    Links to the websites in question would probably be helpful. Lordtobi (✉) 22:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I did try to look up the date through RSes (books, etc.) and seems to be either September 1982 (given the Sept 1 deadline) or December 1982 (the deadline was to assure the game was out by holiday for sales). I see nothing to suggest it was out any later than December 1982. Also we can confirm that Atari Age said Dec 1982 as the target release [1]. Every RS that talks about the game all call it a 1982 game. --Masem (t) 23:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It was definitely out by the beginning of December, as the first time it shows up in Billboard's software charts is the week ending December 4th. When during that week it came out is not possible to determine from the sources I have seen. Certainly there is objectively a date that was the first time anyone anywhere bought the game, but such dates were just not announced anywhere in those days because different stores around the country got the game at different times and there was no embargo for a set street date. Its likely Atari itself did not know for certain the first day it actually went on sale. You can look at newspaper ads, but stores will advertise product that are not actually on the shelf even if said ad says its "available," so that again gives you only a likely range. In most cases there is just simply no way to determine the very first day a game went on sale. Indrian (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah, I expect nothing more precise than month/year for games of the Atari 2600 generation. They shipped them to stores, stores stocked them when they got them, compared to the present where stores are supposed to wait until the typical Tuesday release date to unpack/etc. --Masem (t) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of pastebin

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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · 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. 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? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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. Lordtobi (✉) 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 Shaddim (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'll point you to WP:V. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

So should we add this remake, this remake, this remake and 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. Lordtobi (✉) 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. Shaddim (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

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. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh? I thought we were talking about primary sources. Pastebin is not a primary source. Lordtobi (✉) 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 conszructive work and driving authors out.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. ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

reliable regarding what? This is just fact proofing, not controversial stuff.

if i link to an authors twitter acount, is this a "reliable" source on his opinion on something? According your defintion it would be not which is ridicoulus. Linking to source code verifies reliable, yes this is source code it exists. Read about sourcing 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. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:35, 6 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. Lordtobi (✉) 17:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No we can't and it's in direct opposition of a core tenet of Wikipedia.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 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 authorative), 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 Shaddim (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@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: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources 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". Kevin (aka L235 · t · 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. Shaddim (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)