Talk:Deus Ex (video game)

Release date

A lot of editors were changing the release date based on several articles that came out recently with the same's 20th anniversary. While some of these were going, paraphrasing "With the game's 20th anniversary today", and thus leading editors to use the date of the article's publication to set the game's release date to June 22 or 23 depending, we should not be using these sources, but instead the ones as close as possible to the game's actual release. In this case, the closest that names a date is the Gamasutra Postmortem, in December 2000, that names June 23 2000 as the release date. Unless one has a source that is closer to the actual release date and names it differently, we should not change it from that. --Masem (t) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Deus Ex: Revision into Deus Ex (video game)#Mods

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While there are a lot of sources for this article, there is only a single review from PCGamesN. It doesn't seem like sufficient non-trivial coverage to merit a standalone article on the mod. The post release reception from the game would be limited to one journalist. It would likely be better to merge the information into the main article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I see plenty of significant and sustained coverage over multiple years, on its development, modifications, and reception. Not opposed to merger or a separate Deus Ex mods summary style split from the main article, but I also see enough content in the listed sources such would be undue weight if shoved into the main article. And it goes without saying that every day dedicated fictional character articles are kept with less dedicated coverage than this. (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  There was a small flurry of coverage of the release of the mod but very little in the way of post release coverage and reviews. Without something more substantial, it cannot be covered fully and fails WP:SIGCOV. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support: If we don't commonly split remastered games into standalone articles, I see no reason to split a mod that only improves the graphics of the game into one. OceanHok (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: An article which entirely consists of developmental info based on coverage cited from secondary sources without a voluminous reception section still meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria if there is significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. In fact, Wikipedia hosts quite a number of "Development of (insert game name)" articles deemed notable in their own right. The real issue here is not that the mod lacks coverage because there clearly is, but that in the six years since the article was first created, no one including the original article creator has bothered to properly flesh it out from the cited sources. For reference, I just recently created The Sith Lords Restored Content Modification, another notable fan mod. Had I left its contents in the same sorry stub state as this article's upon its arrival to mainspace, I suspect other editors like the NPP team would have challenged whether it is entitled to exist as a standalone article by leaving a PROD or taking it to AfD. In this context, merging it back to Deus Ex if no one including the article creator is interested in writing a half-decent article about the subject is an understandable course of clean up action. Haleth (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  In this case, even if it was a total stub and had viable sourcing to develop into a lengthy article I'd have left it alone, but the current WP:REFBOMB will only amount to a start class article, if anything. Most of the cited references say the exact same thing and don't actually describe the merits or criticisms of the mod. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I still don't agree with your interpretation of the extent of the topic's sourcing. But if no other editor, including the article's original creator, is willing to put in an effort to expand the article beyond the exceedingly bare bones stub we have right in front of us, merging it into the Deux Ex (video game) is a perfectly valid cleanup exercise. Haleth (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding the development staff

In the development section, it mentions that 20 people worked on the game, while this mentions [1] 50 people worked on the game. Which source should we use here? Timur9008 (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd probably trust the current source more. The newspaper one seems like it may have been an exaggeration for dramatic effect to show that games will take less risks as their development cost rises, while the one used in the article actually breaks down who was working on what. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)