Talk:Digital Homicide Studios

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

Imminent Uprising studios[edit]

It's just a redirect back to Digital Homicide. 2601:19B:700:DA18:7993:CD2:594B:6F3D (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Imminent Uprising" is a pseudonym used by Digital Homicide Studios. On Wikipedia we elaborate on those alike former names of companies, hence it redirects to the DigiHom article. Lordtobi (✉) 09:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Almost all of the content of this article is duplicated in Digital Homicide Studios, where the entire lawsuit part belongs. After stripping that from this article, there's so little left, it makes sense to merge this entire article into Digital Homicide Studios. --DanielPharos (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - the game itself meets WP:NVG and this article is missing basic essential content such as what it's actually about, how it was developed and its reception beyond Jim Sterling's not-quite-review. --McGeddon (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per McGeddon above. Article should be expanded rather than merged. Lordtobi (✉) 15:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, makes sense. I'll reduce the duplicate content (removing parts that are not relevant to this article), and withdraw the merger request. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reopen this merger proposal, as I do not think that Slaughtering Grounds is really notable beyond the company's controversy. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the missing essential content sections (empty for now), to give a better picture of what needs to be done for this article in order to remain stand-alone. --DanielPharos (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Digital Homicide Studios/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 09:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Here we go again, I can tell by first glance that the article's content matches far better than it did before. I will review this over the next few days.

Three things I immediately noticed:

  1. per manual of stlye, I would move the background section to a level 2 header named "Company history" or sth., and the controversies under another level 2 header named "Controversies".
  2. I agree that a list of all 61 games makes no sense, especially since most of them are really obscure. A list of games released on Steam would be feasible I guess, since all controversies relate to Steam in a way, even though you could convince me otherwise. As far as I am aware of, the other platforms they released on also included sites where people published as a hobby rather than as a profession, so these games shouldn't be relevant.
  3. When you go into the company history, talk a little about the other controversial games. I recall Sterling and other outlets also wrote about other games like Tamper Tantrum, include that information here to show that they did other games then Slaughtering Grounds and that they were equally received.

Expect a full review very soon.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DasallmächtigeJ, thanks for this initial review. #1 was easily completed. For #3, I was only able to find a review/playthrough of Galactic Hitman and added that. Temper Tantrum is not featured in any reliable sources apart from a name-drop in Vice. This name-drop (as well as a few others) is now included. As for #2, I don't there is a viable intersection without resorting to mass primary-sourcing or original research. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some videos by Sterling and Game Star (among others), where they rip some other games, the question is, do they meet the reliability criteria? I would also presume that mentioning some of the games is sufficient...DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid citing Sterling directly as they are a non-neutral entity in this matter and might give undue weight. GameStar is reliable per WP:VG/RS so I might look into that tomorrow. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 22:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found only one GameStar video covering Digital Homicide, though it does not discuss any game in depth. I added some new details per that video, though. IceWelder [✉] 14:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


1. Is it well written?[edit]

Will take a look at writing etc. over the coming week.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Insert a paragraph after "succession"
     Done, though the resulting half-paragraph felt a bit short, so I added the number of games produced with a few examples. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention that the company folded in 2016.
     Done. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many details about the lawsuit in the lead. I would only mention that Sterling heavily criticized the game, and that the Romines sought reparations, also against Steam users, which were dismissed/dropped. I would also remove for what they specifically sued and how high the reparations were supposed to be, all of this can be found in the controversies section.
     Done: I trimmed the details a bit, though I think that it should be mentioned that the Steam users were sued for harassment to retain some context. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • I would just name the section "History", as it should contain the entire history, including when it folded. (cf. broad coverage)
     Done: I very briefly mentioned the lawsuits and their outcomes. I want to avoid the History section essentially copying the lead in this regard. Previously, all three sections were part of the History as the lawsuits played a major role in the company's reputation and ultimate demise. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is their age relevant?
    It is something I commonly include where such info is available in the sources I already use. Should I remove it? IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that he was a liquor salesman, as such not relevant. This information would gain more relevance if you would stress that he had no prior experience or academic/other qualification for programming video games. If available, also include that information for the other brother.
    I like to include backgrounds where such info is available. One could argue that a lack of experience is significant to mention here. Should I remove it? There is no such info available for James Romine as far as I know. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would remove their age, as it is not specifically relevant but keep the liquor salesman bit. However, stress that he had no prior experience in the video game industry. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ages removed, but I was unable to find a reliable source that, verbatim, says that neither of them had any VGdev experience. IceWelder [✉] 16:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect personal computer to PC game instead.
     Done. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would stress that they used nom de plumes to avoid them being associated with their negative image.
     Done with attribution to Marcel Weber. This was likely the intent but I don't think that you can put this objectively. The lawsuit claims legal use of trade names. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name drop some other horrible games in a sentence ("Other games released were a,b,c, who were also negatively received." or "Many of Digital Homicide Studios' games, such as a,b,c, were criticized as "amateurish, rushed and cobbled together from recycled assets".) The gamestar video lists quite a few of them at 0:48, so you could also inlcude them there. By doing so people can associate other stuff than Slaughtering Grounds, considering they sued for quite a few of their games.
     Done by moving up the sentence about the removed Steam games. The GameStar video shows, but does not really comment on, a screenshot of the company's Itch.io page. I'd rather use a few sources that purposely mention a few of the games briefly than an uncommented screenshot that shows many of them. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

Will look at this during the week.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove "Squirty Play", the subtopic Sterling calls their videos is not relevant.
     Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Sterling's videos were among the most exposure the game received at the time, with one of them appearing as the second search result on Google Search and as the first on YouTube. The Slaughtering Grounds received no reviews indexed by the review aggregator website Metacritic.", merge both sentences with a linking word like "...Youtube, whereas it received..."
     Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The absense of Metacritic can also be used in company history. You could use it to indicate that the studio was so small and amateurish it largely flew under the radar.
    That's a stretch, really. Possibly WP:SYNTH. Some games are just not popular enough to be covered by the mainstream media. For example, Among Us did not have one review until September 2020, more than two years after release. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link assault, libel, slander, harassment, death threat, hate and harassment group, and all other specific law terms and allegations (in both sections), as most de jure terms differ from common word usage.
    I see, then we'll leave it at that.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Skype call "awkward and contentious"?
     Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Representing himself in court was seen not only as unusual but extremely stupid at the time I vaguely remember. Maybe you can find a source on that...
    The pro se representation came with the expected unprofessionalism but I see no source with explicit problems arising from this. The only real issue, claiming damages on behalf of the company, is already listed. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I vaguely remembered that I read sth. about it a few years back, but I don't even know if that source was reliable or not.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "filed a lawsuit against 100 anonymous Steam users, including eleven referenced by their pseudonyms" How did he file the other 89? Since this will be hard to find out, I would just write filed against 100 users... I'm assuming the 11 are the same referred to later, so no need to mention them twice.
    The lawsuit says "Jane/John Does 12 through 100"; I don't think any source mentions this, though. I reworded the section to only mention the "eleven users" once. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

  • In the last sentence, explicitly stress that this facilitated abuse towards the developer and thus enabled the lawsuit.
     Done. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?[edit]

Agree All sources check out and are reliable, they are also all archived, which is always a plus.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?[edit]

  • I see you gave more details on their other games, which is good.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history and the controversy sections should be treated as two separate entities. Maybe a reader just wants to inform themselves about one or the other. As such, the company history should also include a paragraph about the financial troubles due to the controversies, as well as the closing of the studio, so that the entire company history is available to the reader. (Sth. like "due to several controversies and lawsuits relating to xy, all games were removed from Steam, which eventually forced the company to close in the year xy.")--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox states it folded in October 2016. I would add a small sentence stating that in the last paragraph of company history, so the exact date it went out of business is included.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    James Romine declared the company "destroyed" in October 2016. This is mentioned in both relevant sections. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did violating the greenlight rules have any consequences for the studio?--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I know of. Valve was never known for maintaining Greenlight well. The source makes no mention of consequences. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there sources about the other platforms where the tried to publish their games on after the ban? If so, include them in the company history.
     Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is it neutral?[edit]

Agree --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is it stable?[edit]

Agree Yes, as the company has folded and all lawsuits are closed with prejudice.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it illustrated?[edit]

Agree The logo seems sufficient. You could think about adding a picture of Sterling or the Romines in the lawsuit section, but that's not a must.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I couldn't find any free imagery of either of the three people involved. It is unlikely that such imagery would come up for the Romines, for Sterling maybe in the future as they are still active publicly. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

 Passed The article meets all criteria now and contains all relevant information on the topic. Good work!--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Eddie891 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by IceWelder (talk). Self-nominated at 12:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is a newly promoted GA and has no copyvio concerns. The hook is interesting and has an inline citation to a reliable source. QPQ has been provided so this one is good to go. Kosack (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

>>>Edit war?![edit]

It is not an "edit war", Chaheel, it is an attempt to remove crappy pretentious pseudo-French rubbish from WP, and there is no reason why anybody should be forbidden to do that. The term "nom de plume" is not used by educated French speakers — and come to that, nor by educated English speakers, who recognize it for the pretentious guff that it is. The French word is le pseudonyme. Je devrais mentionner que mes connaissances de la langue française sont assez avancées ! And my knowledge of English is likewise so. All that the inclusion of "nom de plume" in that article that you own shows is that you do not speak French, and have a very tenuous grip on English usage. The term "nom de plume" was invented in England (that's right, not France or any other French-speaking place) in the 19th century and used by those who wished to appear cultured, and they did, too — to those who knew no better. It is a substandard usage in both English and French, and I treat it as I would any usage of "ain't". Now, please explain why you think that "nom de plume" should be retained in that article? This mystifies me even without regard to its pretentiousness, for the term applies to writers of literature, not software companies. How about it? Kelisi (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well... It is an edit war, albeit the very beginnings of one. You made a change, then reverted to force your preferred version twice more:
You may not like it, but nom de plume is a perfectly valid English phrase, and your dislike is no reason for removal. Or at least not to other editors. As pointed out by Ice Welder, nom de plume is used in the source. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of whether I like it, but rather one of whether it's proper English for an encyclopaedia. Since it is substandard usage, I say it isn't, any more than using euphemisms (which is discouraged here on WP) would be, or forms like "he don't know nothin'". I can see that you are personalizing this. That is a mistake. I am simply trying to raise the article's level of English. I can also see that what I have told you simply has not sunk in. Whether you use "nom de plume" or "pen name" in the context in this article, it is wrong. A pen name is a pseudonym used by a literary writer. Well known examples include "Boz" (Charles Dickens), "George Orwell" (Eric Arthur Blair), "George Eliot" (Mary Ann Evans), "Lewis Carroll" (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) and "Hergé" (Georges Prosper Remi) — and we can include that last one because he wrote the text of all the Tintin stories, as well as drawing all the pictures. For any other kind of creator, though, you would have to use the broader term "pseudonym". You could also say "false name". The only exception that I can think of just now is false names used by celebrities, which can be called "professional names" (e.g. "Elton John" for Reginald Dwight). Some of those are actually legalized. Kelisi (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for its being substandard English? Srnec (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest reference in the Oxford English Dictionary is 1841 and it includes sources like the Daily Telegraph (a conservative British newspaper) in 1991. Pen name is actually a more recent word dating to 1864 and a back formation. Nom de plume is an English coining (a case of English mugging the French language, see James Nicoll). The French language phrase for the same thing is nom de guerre. Pocket Fowler's has "A nom de plume (also in translated form pen-name) is a name assumed by an author to appear on the title-page of a book; a pseudonym is a name assumed more generally although this too is normally applied in authorial contexts." Nothing about it being substandard. --Erp (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, native French speaker here,
While it is true that the word was forged in England, saying that the word isn’t used in French is incorrect, the word is present in all reference French dictionaries today (Larousse, Le Robert, TLFi) including the one from the very purist Académie française since 1935: https://dictionnaire-academie.fr/article/A9N0540 Thibaut (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelisi, a quick look at your contributions suggests that it's not me taking it personally - your last 100+ edits, all made after this section was started are all removal of "nom de plume" from articles. When all the edits doing the same prior to this conversation are included it certainly looks like this is a personal quest for you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was full of compassion for my coat. Wrote down the address of his tailor for me. Did not tell me to mention my nom de plume and the tailor would put his best work on my garment, as complimentary people sometimes do, but said his tailor would hardly trouble himself for an unknown person (unknown person, when I thought I was so celebrated in England!—that was the cruelest cut), but cautioned me to mention his name, and it would be all right. (Mark Twain, "Rogers", emphasis added.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Porlock, Watson, is a nom-de-plume, a mere identification mark; but behind it lies a shifty and evasive personality. (Arthur Conan Doyle, The Valley of Fear, emphasis added.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of all the things that this article is about, I would have never imagined that French would cause the most drama. I reverted the initial edit because it changed the phrase with no explanation, even though the definition for a nom de plume appears apt:

A ... nom de plume ... is a pseudonym ... adopted by an author and printed on the title page or by-line of their works in place of their real name.

The term seems to be more specific than just "pseudonym", just like you would use "stage name" or "ring name" instead of the broad category for certain artists. The source uses this phrase verbatim as well.
I have no strong feelings towards using "nom de plume" but, judging by the arguments brought up by the other users, the notion that the phrase is "substandard English" seems unjustified. Any case for not using it should be brought up on the talk page of the term's article first, not unilaterally applied to all articles that use it. IceWelder [✉] 13:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


'nom de plume' is perfectly good English for an pseudonym used by an artist. It's roughly based on french, but so what? A lot of our language is. There's no reason to search the encyclopedia for it and remove it everywhere you find it. It's unsurprising, and not a problem, if editors revert the unneeded change. ApLundell (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_Homicide_Studios&oldid=1205308020"