User talk:RCPolygons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 2024
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, many of the mentions of Game Pass as already on the page but I just added the mention of game pass to the top so people can more easily know that the game was released into Game Pass and there was already a source in many of the pages that I edited as they were already had the mention and source of in the release. So, I will just go back and re add them and add the same source. RCPolygons (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Game Pass doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead section. It's not a separate console, so it's not notable enough to be there. Keep it in the Development and Release sections where it's more appropriate. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- As I said before, please use reliable sources. Wikipedia prefers third-party sources (i.e. coverage on mainstream news sites) instead of first party ones (i.e. store listings or Xbox update pages). You can use this custom search engine to help you find news stories that are considered acceptable for citation per WP:VG/RS. (That said, I'm not sure all those pages need to mention Game Pass. We have a lot of pages that don't because it's often not considered an important detail, what with games constantly being added and removed from the service; it's the same reason most articles don't mention when a game gets added to PlayStation Plus. We're not obligated to note those details like we're performing some sort of service; besides, someone who wanted to find out what's on Game Pass would be much better served just going to the Game Pass webpage than searching a bunch of random wiki articles to see if it's mentioned.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- So, Xbox, the people behind the service and who would know for 100% what is or is not going into the service is not a "reliable source", Thats like saying Discord posting a tweet about an update and you saying that is not true because it didn't come from a place like IGN. A place that could lie or misinterpreted information. You choose them over the official source of the information. Also, Game Pass that service that is a core feature to the platform of Xbox is not "important detail" so the games that are important to Xbox as a platform and to Game Pass itself as Xbox has been pushing heavily does not Important enough to detail. So, giving people the information that this game is a part of a core feature of the Xbox ecosystem and branding is not important. RCPolygons (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- We are not an Xbox promotional tool. Supporting the "Xbox ecosystem and branding" is not our job. And supporting statements with things through reliable secondary sources has always been one of the core tenets of Wikipedia for reasons of verifiability and establishing notability. If you can't understand that or refuse to do so, you probably shouldn't be editing. Like, I literally gave you a link to a custom search engine that only produces sources that have been approved by Wikipedia; if you used that instead of digging your heels in and insisting any sources that weren't first party were "lying", you'd probably have a much easier time. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I never said that Wikipedia is a promotional tool for Xbox. I am saying that we need to give the information to the people. Xbox offers a subscription service, that is the main pillar that Xbox is building around. People have the right to know that Xbox first party titles are in this subscription service so they are more informed about how that could affect themselves and learn new things. Third party games go in and out of the service and that will get tiring changing every time the game goes in or out. Xbox first party titles, the ones I have been added Game Pass mentions they tend not leave Game Pass. So, it's a one and done situation. We need to give out as much information as possible. What is more reliable than the official source or a third party that may or may not have different intentions on how that information is seen to the world. You want the information to come from the horse's mouth and not play telephone. I am saying that Citing Xbox on their own website should be credible source about information that they want you to know about the Game Pass first party and third-party games. Mainly the one that I am trying to inform people are the first party games going into Game Pass. RCPolygons (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- There are plenty of articles about first party Xbox games that are rated as "Good Articles" or "Featured Articles", considered some of the most complete and well-researched on Wikipedia, that don't mention Game Pass at all; it's often not the essential detail you believe it is. And WP:VG/PLATFORMS still applies because Game Pass isn't a system, it's just another way to get the existing Xbox and PC versions, so you shouldn't be putting it in the lead even if there's not a release section. And whether you agree or not, Wikipedia is founded on the basis that reliable secondary sources take precedent. That's why we have entire groups on Wikipedia that are constantly having discussions to determine which sources can be trusted as reliable for citation; again, that search engine I keep suggesting you use only searches sites that have gone through that process, meaning if you use one of its results for citation, no one will question its verifiability. You don't have to like the rules, but you do have to follow them. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I never said that Wikipedia is a promotional tool for Xbox. I am saying that we need to give the information to the people. Xbox offers a subscription service, that is the main pillar that Xbox is building around. People have the right to know that Xbox first party titles are in this subscription service so they are more informed about how that could affect themselves and learn new things. Third party games go in and out of the service and that will get tiring changing every time the game goes in or out. Xbox first party titles, the ones I have been added Game Pass mentions they tend not leave Game Pass. So, it's a one and done situation. We need to give out as much information as possible. What is more reliable than the official source or a third party that may or may not have different intentions on how that information is seen to the world. You want the information to come from the horse's mouth and not play telephone. I am saying that Citing Xbox on their own website should be credible source about information that they want you to know about the Game Pass first party and third-party games. Mainly the one that I am trying to inform people are the first party games going into Game Pass. RCPolygons (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- We are not an Xbox promotional tool. Supporting the "Xbox ecosystem and branding" is not our job. And supporting statements with things through reliable secondary sources has always been one of the core tenets of Wikipedia for reasons of verifiability and establishing notability. If you can't understand that or refuse to do so, you probably shouldn't be editing. Like, I literally gave you a link to a custom search engine that only produces sources that have been approved by Wikipedia; if you used that instead of digging your heels in and insisting any sources that weren't first party were "lying", you'd probably have a much easier time. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- So, Xbox, the people behind the service and who would know for 100% what is or is not going into the service is not a "reliable source", Thats like saying Discord posting a tweet about an update and you saying that is not true because it didn't come from a place like IGN. A place that could lie or misinterpreted information. You choose them over the official source of the information. Also, Game Pass that service that is a core feature to the platform of Xbox is not "important detail" so the games that are important to Xbox as a platform and to Game Pass itself as Xbox has been pushing heavily does not Important enough to detail. So, giving people the information that this game is a part of a core feature of the Xbox ecosystem and branding is not important. RCPolygons (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- As I said before, please use reliable sources. Wikipedia prefers third-party sources (i.e. coverage on mainstream news sites) instead of first party ones (i.e. store listings or Xbox update pages). You can use this custom search engine to help you find news stories that are considered acceptable for citation per WP:VG/RS. (That said, I'm not sure all those pages need to mention Game Pass. We have a lot of pages that don't because it's often not considered an important detail, what with games constantly being added and removed from the service; it's the same reason most articles don't mention when a game gets added to PlayStation Plus. We're not obligated to note those details like we're performing some sort of service; besides, someone who wanted to find out what's on Game Pass would be much better served just going to the Game Pass webpage than searching a bunch of random wiki articles to see if it's mentioned.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Game Pass doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead section. It's not a separate console, so it's not notable enough to be there. Keep it in the Development and Release sections where it's more appropriate. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
September 2025
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Call of Duty: Black Ops 7, you may be blocked from editing. As it has already been explained to you, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information — we focus on notable details (as covered by reliable sources); the changes to the BO7 Vault Edition are a trivial detail that is only relevant to Call of Duty's dedicated community and not an encyclopedia article. IDKFA-93 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to cover the visual identity of BO7 like it was mentioned in the page that was made, then stop the carry forward, Then the changes to the skins for the VISUAL IDENITY same as before, then it should be mentioned. Both are impacting the Visual Identity of the game, so you if are able add information about Visual Identity about one part of the game, then you should be able to add information about the part that impacts the Visual Identity of BO7. The overall information is the Visual Identity. Also, you all flips flop on what's a " reliable sources" one day Gamesspot is not, then the next day it is, then the next day Insider Gamer is, then the next day it's not, then kotaku is a source then the next day it's not. RCPolygons (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)