Talk:Can I Play That?

Planned improvements

Hi all,

Thank you for the latest amends on this article. I can see two updates have been made: the use of WP:LEDECITE and inclusion in the WikiProject Video Games portal. I thought I would outline my planned updates here:

WP:LEDECITE

• Reviewing the lead for citations to improve verifiability
• Updating the lead to follow the guidance for Lead Section such as providing an accurate article summary (within up to four paragraphs), appropriate formatting and contextual links.

WikiProject Video Games Portal ranking

• Reviewing the referencing and grammar according to the Manual of Style
• Updating the content coverage with more relevant information

I would welcome any feedback if there is something else I should consider at this stage. Thank you.

--Straydogstrut115 (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

IGN Reporting

So I'm not even sure where to start with incorporating this latest reporting into the article. IGN isn't what I'd normally consider a high quality secondary source, but the reporting holds together with other information sources.

Link: https://www.ign.com/articles/a-prominent-accessibility-advocate-worked-with-studios-and-inspired-change-but-she-never-actually-existed Keferbean1001 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Disability, and Talk:Game accessibility have been notified of this discussion. WP:IGN and the IGN entry at WP:VG/RS state there is consensus that IGN is generally reliable and follow that with important details to look out for. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a tricky one because it seems to be open and shut evidence of identity fraud by the site's creator, but it's technically more about Craven than the site itself. This may end up affecting the website and causing it to shut down, but it might not be the right place to put this particular information.

In other words I think it's best not to mess with the article at the moment and wait to see how it pans out, and if it is confirmed by other sites to be true. If it has a knock-on effect on the site, then it can be added. Or if it makes Craven notable, a separate article can be written, but that might run afoul of WP:ONEEVENT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a huge part of the article, but given that Coty Craven is a co-founder of the site and used it to push these fraudulent identities as mentioned in the article, it'd be weird not to include this information. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Would it actually be on topic in any way for the site itself? There's no real evidence the site has incorrect information or has otherwise been affected by the potential fraud. There's a reason the initial poster was confused how to integrate it, because there's not really a sensible way to integrate it without going into a tangent about how so-and-so may be faked.

I do think it's probable that it will influence the site and I think that would be the right time to mention the situation with regards to the site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have made an initial edit to the page as this was necessary - the page talked about Banks as a "co-founder" and some of her supposed activities that we now know to be because of Craven. It was also out of date and used Craven's deadname and out of date pronouns. But to update this, I had to link the IGN article and describe what had come out of it. I'm sure better work can be done but I chose to add the information to the article *now* because we cannot leave up references in Wikipedia to a person that a major publication has revealed is not real. Stoner was also a former site editor so yea, this is still part of the site's history. Rebochan (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)