Talk:Atari video game burial

GA review

Right off the top, three of the links in your reference section are dead. -- SECisek 09:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I won't fail this article, as another editor already put the nomination on hold, but there is no conceivable way this is a GA. It's five paragraphs long, for god's sake! This shouldn't even be its own article- why not just merge it with the article on the game? -- Kicking222 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it ironic that you're against it being a GA for being short when the Good Article system was originally conceived specially for short articles. And for the record, it wasn't my idea to split it, but I figured I might as well nominate it since someone feels it should be on its own. As for the links, I'll just ax those. The information all originally appeared in print anyways.--SeizureDog 05:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The E.T. Atari article is only 22kb. It could certainly stand the addition of the 6kb here. This is GA quality, but the E.T. article is already GA. Why not just fold this in to that article under the existing heading? With the links gone, I'll take off my hold, but somebody else will have to pass this as I agree that it should be merged. -- SECisek 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with it either way. Though I suppose a case could be made that since the incident didn't involve just E.T. that it should be a separate article. But of course, E.T. is the only game anyone thinks of when they think of the event. --SeizureDog 05:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that too, since Pac Man was supposed to be involved. The article convinced me that the whole thing was probably a hoax anyway, and nobody ever refers to it as the Pac Man Video Game Burial. Yes, I think the article is well done and should be cut into the GA Atari E.T. article. I don't think this one can really grow much more by itself, so why not? -- SECisek 06:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

music video

there is a music video where they dig up all these cartridges maybe someone can find include that?

I believe the article on the band in question was deleted for a lack of notability. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of August 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The lead is too short, even for such an article. Who did it? Why? How? The lead should mention some of these things. You could easily base most of your intro on this (and indeed, the article should contain ALL of that content).
"infamous" is a weasel word unless cited, and should not be used.

2. Factually accurate?: Refs 1, 2, and 3 - Where do the quotes come from? Ref 5 - Huh? What's it citing?

3. Broad in coverage?: As noted above, does this really need its own article? I know Atari is long, but a summary of these events wouldn't add much to it - especially with the short lead at the moment. So here's the deal - you expand this with any more relevant info (as well as do whatever else is needed in this review) and we'll call it an article, and pass it.

4. Neutral point of view?: Fine

5. Article stability? Fine

6. Images?: [1] needs a WP:FURG for this article (copy paste job should be OK)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Reviewed version: [2] Giggy ^Talk 05:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the issues were not addressed, I have failed this article's candidacy for GA status. Feel free to address them and try again in the future. --Boricuæddie 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AtariLandfill.jpg

The image Image:AtariLandfill.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for References in Popular Culture

I recall that there was a joke about this in the last episode of Sam and Max Season 2 (by TellTale Games)--there was a pile of buried cartridges in the understreet scene. Can anyone recall the name of the game and/or write a fair description of this joke? Seaborg106 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Speech file

It is getting close to 3 years old. Does that get updated periodically? Varlaam (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Atari video game burial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DeadlyAssassin (talk • contribs • count) 10:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	You may wish to consider adding an infobox for this article, the closest I can think of is template:Infobox event, which although for a news event could fit this situation. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). I'd change The Burial to Burial.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The specific numbers listed in the Financial Difficulties section should have inline references.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	You mention in the lead, but not in the body why the ET game didn't do very well. You say "but this was later contradicted by a worker who claimed that this was not the case" in the Burial section, did he (or anyone else) say what was the case? You don't really explain why it's become an urban legend. I mean, it seems to be fairly well referenced the way you've written it. The information about alleged insider trading and the stuff about Atari's poor numbers subsequent to the burial should probably be part of the Legacy section. There's also some good (and well referenced) stuff in this section E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)#Effect on the industry that might help flesh this section out some more.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	You say in the caption of the Atari 2600 image that they were junked, but didn't the refuse worker say that this wasn't the case? There are a few appropriate images you could add, e.g. File:Etvideogamecover.jpg
	7. Overall assessment.	The geek inside me really liked reviewing this article, I'm glad I picked it up. I think it's really close to GA status, I'd pass it even with most of my comments except for the unreferenced figures in the financial difficulties section. So I'll put it on hold, and look forward to looking at the finished article (so to speak).

Regarding number 6b (the caption), I think you're a bit confused. The author of the game says he doesn't think there was a mass burial of ET's there. The caption is confirming this, stating (via the literal coverage of the dumping at Alamagordo of the time) that the dump was actually a mix of hardware and some games (several titles were listed as being pulled out by local kids which is what lead to the crushing of everything and pouring of concrete). There's other newspaper coverage of the dumping also confirming this, including a statement from Atari execs that it was malfunctioning equipment (which I believe was also included in this article). Here's the premise of the burial (and this article): There was a burial of stock that consisted of computer hardware, console hardware, and games. It was covered at the time by the local press and explained away by Atari execs in the coverage. Sometime afterwords (nobody know when it first started or how), there was an urban legend that sprung up and has been quoted for years about a mass burial of ET's. The legend directly conflicts with the actual coverage of the time, yet still persists.

With regards to references that discuss in the context of an urban legend, I did find this and this, and this. Further actual reliable references regarding discussion of the urban legend aspect of this seems to be hard to come by. There's plenty of material on the urban legend itself, but not on discussing it in regards to an urban legend. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1B: Heading fixed. Had a look at the infobox template, and very few fields could be reliably filled with the information here - would it be better to have a pretty Spartan infobox or go without?
• 2B: I've added inline citations to the numbers, but it leaves several consecutive occurrences of the same citations. I usually avoid this but if you feel it's better then I'll stick with it.
• 3B: Added some info about the ET game, nabbed some from the ET article. The source didn't seem to say why, but I can't access the source to check (it was added to the article before I revamped it). Have incorporated some of the above sources for the 'urban legend' status. I'm not sure if the Kassar information should move to the "Legacy" heading, as it's not a result of the burial, but both were different results arising from the same events.
• 6B: I've amended the caption to be clearer. I'm also wary of adding non-free content that isn't vital, as the article isn't a critical commentary on ET, but only mentions it as one element of a wider event - I don't think that would really be covered under fair use. GRAPPLE X 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1b. Infoboxes are optional, I had another look at the one I suggested and you're right that most of the fields aren't relevant. I had a go at filling out what I could, from my POV it looks better, but I'm happy if you want to revert the edit. Either way, I think this one is  Done.
• 2b. The MOS is pretty clear that specific numbers should be inline referenced so that they can be verified. I don't really have a problem with consecutive reference numbers, but understand it's a matter of personal approach. You could also reword the sentence so that they are together, but personally I think the way you've written it flows really well. If you're happy with the way it is, I think that one is  Done
• 3b. Now that I look at it again, you're right about moving the Kassar information down.  Done The references don't really address why it became an urban legend given that it's pretty clear it happened. Nice job on finding those references Marty. I had another look too and couldn't find anything to describe the why, so I'll need to be happy that we've just referenced that it has been considered an urban legend. I wonder if there's a chance to rewrite the sentences along the lines of what Marty has outlined: "Sometime afterwords (nobody know when it first started or how), there was an urban legend that sprung up and has been quoted for years about a mass burial of ET's. The legend directly conflicts with the actual coverage of the time, yet still persists." What do you think?
• 8b. Fair enough, I'm happy  Done

Let me know what you decide about the infobox and the suggestion above I'll take the GA off hold. Nice job on this article, as I mentioned it was fun to read and review. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've amended the sentence in question, hopefully that's phrased it a bit better. GRAPPLE X 14:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that wording is a bit clearer.  Done Nice job. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A-class assessment

Proposing per A-class guidelines. Article has recently passed a Good Article nomination, and has sicne had a few additional references to further strengthen a few points. New information or free images for the article are unlikely to be available in the foreseeable future, although I will be keeping an eye out on the off-chance that Retro Gamer, the only reliable journal likely to cover the topic, would happen to make mention of it (though in their two-issue, multiple-page history of Atari, it didn't even get mentioned in passing, so who knows); As such, I believe the article is stable and will probably not grow much more beyond its current state, so I'm presenting it for A-class assessment now. I should be available at short notice should there be any requested changes. GRAPPLE X 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I support the A-class assessment of the article. ~ Hibana (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support, at 30 years old, there doesn't seem to be much room for expansion. I think it's great coverage of this event, with a good eye toward its historical significance. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• With two supports fro A-class, I'm Promoting. GamerPro64 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Alterations

• Changed "leading to it being considered an urban legend" to "leading to some considering it an urban legend" It is not commonly accepted that this is a legend, quite the opposite; skeptics are a minority. The only urban legend is that the burial consisted entirely of ET cartridges, when sources state that it also include a large amount of additional material. This does not contradict that the burial included millions of unsold games (see below).

What's your basis for this? Have you polled the skeptics and believers? Or is it just your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.91.69 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you can dig up dozens upon dozens of reliable sources saying it's not an urban legend versus one programmer and a handful of cranks who think it is. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Changed "several thousand" to "several million." Sales figures imply Atari had at least 2.5 million (based on Kassar's claim of 4 million cartridges total) and more likely 3.5 million (the 5 million production figure quoted by more or less everyone else, though some sources claim up to 5 million unsold) ET cartridges still in inventory, along with around 5 million unsold copies of Pac-Man. It is generally accepted that the majority of such ended up in the landfill. The article actually quotes the 3.5 million ET cartridges figure itself with a citation (17) under "burial." "Several thousand" grossly understates the scale of the disposal; pretty much every source other than those disputing the burial ever happened at all (which is basically just Warshaw himself) state the figure was millions. There is no cited source that claims the burial took place but involved such a ridiculously tiny number of cartridges.
• Removed two sections under "Legacy."
  • Warshaw might have been ET's programmer, but that gives him no authority above a layman to speak on matters related to business practice or stock disposal. Moreover, he is stating what he thinks rather than what he knows; speculation by a layman is worthless as a citation for something contentious.
  • Travis Fahs is a gaming journalist. His article basically just boils down to unsupported statements of opinion with little factual backing, often just going against popular opinion for the sake of it (eg stating that ET "doesn't live up to the anti-hype;" um, yes, actually, it very much does). More to the point, his article does not dispute that copies of ET were buried in the landfill, or that the burial took place, and therefore does not support Warshaw's claims of such.

Herr Gruber (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes because they introduce WP:WEASEL words in place of actual content. Warshaw's and Fahs' personal biases are clearly stated and it's up to the reader to believe them or not. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Warshaw has no authority as a source (he's stating something he admits is totally outside his field of expertise) and Fahs' statement is only needed to back up Warshaw on something not directly relevant; basically, it's trying to buttress Warshaw's guesswork with Fahs' comments, a clear case of original research. Fahs only states that it happened because Atari over-speculated rather than because the game was shit. It is not a case of weasel wording to point out that only a minority consider it an urban legend, since this is clearly the case; the purpose of WEASEL is not to remove factual statements that only a minority hold a given belief. As for reverting to "thousand," how the hell can you justify that figure? Herr Gruber (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the Warshaw and Fahs comments. They don't have to be experts in the field, both are using reliable sources as a platform from which to offer relevant insights. Neither can be deemed 'irrelevant'. GRAPPLE X 16:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fahs can certainly be deemed irrelevant since his claims have nothing to do with whether the burial took place or not; he simply disputes why the leftover inventory that was buried existed. The Fahs quote is a tangent spun off from Warshaw's reasoning that basically has nothing to do with this article at all, and belongs on North American video game crash of 1983; either that or it's trying to imply that since Fahs agrees with Warshaw's supporting reasoning, this can be taken as supporting Warshaw's actual claim, which would be original research. As for Warshaw himself, he admits he's just guessing. How much worse can a source possibly be? Herr Gruber (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

They're both relevant sourced opinions on the legacy of the burial, hence they're going in the Legacy section of the article on the burial. Discussion about the level of actual impact of an event is worthwhile to add to an article on said event, and the article is much less comprehensive without these kinds of reliably sourced comments. They're presented as being the opinions of their authors, not as cold facts. GRAPPLE X 16:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not. Fahs isn't talking about the burial or it's legacy, he's talking about where the excess stock came from in the first place. To be honest, everything after "ever took place." has no place in either that section or this article. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant to the context of the market glut and crash, which aids a broader understanding of the article. We can take a straw poll for inclusion/removal if you're not convinced, and just go by consensus, but I genuinely don't see removal being a positive option. GRAPPLE X 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In it's current location it creates a tangent where 1) Warshaw says that A, because B and 2) Fahs supports B (which is likely to be taken as further support for A). This is disingenuous because Fahs does not support A. If Fahs' quote is being included at all, it should not be in a paragraph about skeptics, as Fahs is not a skeptic and does not deny that the burial existed or that millions of cartridges were involved in it. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

AVGN Movie

It should be mentioned here that the AVGN's movie that is being filmed revolves around ET and the location of the cartridge burial site. 90.162.193.218 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I added a small note in the Legacy section. Oehr (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

BBC article on planned excavation

Kleinman, Zoe (4 June 2013). "ET game excavation confirmed by studio". BBC. Retrieved 4 June 2013. Chris857 (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

New York Times just added one too. Santos, Fernanda (18 June 2013). "Hunting for an E.T. Castoff in a Most Terrestrial Place". New York Times. Retrieved 18 June 2013. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

O_o

Does anyone else find it eerie that the suspected load of E.T cartridges' grave site has proximity to Roswell? E.T? Roswell? Pretty weird... maybe Atari knows something that we don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.50.132 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No longer an urban legend

Apparently the cartridges have been found Source. [Soffredo] 19:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand from where the urban legend that it was ever an urban legend arose. It was reported in the New York Times and other mainstream media. When Atari was asked, they confirmed the story. There was no real mystery or some kind of hidden secret. The current dig found... exactly what Atari and the NYT said was the case, in 1983. --Delirium (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion between the actual burial and the legend that 3.5 million cartridges of E.T. are down there. Only the latter part is the myth, but it seems many people have conflated that with the burial itself. --88.105.151.125 (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

All that's been confirmed so far is what was covered in reports at the time: that there was a dumping and it was a wide assortment of game titles and hardware. The list of titles reported there have always contained ET amongst it. And the preliminary findings also show this. It has not been confirmed that it was a mass dumping of ET, rather the internet is running rampant with that idea because of some ET games being found already (as was Centipede and Raiders).--Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's confirmed. There's even a picture of the E.T. cartridge dug up in the picture. Not sure exactly how true the myth is though, may have been a bit exaggerated (in the amount) of things dumped.

The article:http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/26/307178240/e-t-s-home-is-found-trove-of-atari-games-unearthed-at-landfillThdegy (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Thdegy

No, it has not been confirmed as being an ET dump. In fact archaeologists on site found 21+ games there (which ET has always been mentioned as being a part of), plus there's been hardware found. The only thing that's been confirmed is that Atari dumped stock and parts there, which there was never a question of before.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that I updated the article with a quote from Jim Heller, the original person in charge of the dumping who stated that there were only 728,000 games buried there. This further discounts the notion of "millions of ETs" there. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atari video game burial. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6H3Ty8foO?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.krqe.com%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Fsoutheast%2Falamogordo-approves-atari-excavation to http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/southeast/alamogordo-approves-atari-excavation

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) 05:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atari video game burial. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/2600/mindlink.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/southeast/alamogordo-approves-atari-excavation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427015354/http://www.state-journal.com/ap%20general%20news/2014/04/26/diggers-begin-quest-to-unearth-atari-s-e-t-games to http://www.state-journal.com/ap%20general%20news/2014/04/26/diggers-begin-quest-to-unearth-atari-s-e-t-games

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) 04:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Cultural icon

I think the following passage in the lead "the event became a cultural icon and a reminder of the video game crash of 1983" is not quite stylistically appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't believe any of the sources in this page refer to the video game burial as a "cultural icon" and I think the "reminder" is not really in our style - a reminder to whom? Both things read like editorialising to me.

I did rephrase this passage to remove these things and it was reverted with the reasoning that this article has a section on references to the burial in popular culture. A lot of Wikipedia articles have "in popular culture" sections, but having such a section does not make the subject a cultural icon. There are four references currently listed in the article' one is a reference in a music video for a song (without an article) by Wintergreen, a band who do not appear to have had any significant success and whose article uses a single dead link source. The other three references are in the independent film Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie, the TV series Elementary and a video game-based novel Lucky Wander Boy.

In my opinion, these references don't really support "cultural icon" - the Elementary plot device is the only one I'd personally say might indicate that the burial has significant cultural impact outside of the video game world. I would also question is "cultural icon" is appropriate terminology for a private burial, one that was once believed to be an urban myth, one that had no iconography as such until the 2014 excavation. More than that, I just don't think it's a phrase we should be using without sources explicitly supporting it. Thoughts? Humbledaisy (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The section called "Cultural symbolism and speculation" is what supports it, not the "In popular culture". Masem (t) 20:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)