Talk:Esports/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Noting that this page is regular subject to vandalism, I will watch this closely. --Djith 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Or noting that Billy Mitchell is trolling to make sure his name is the only individual player on the page who's 'accomplishments' are pointed out... ? 199.168.239.245 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

VOLTS?

First I would like to give a small bit of information concerning my background and why I feel that I am qualified to speak concerning some of the information in this entry. I started gaming on the PC with Glider Pro (MAC) and Spear of Destiny (PC); unfortunately at the time my family was unable to afford a computer until 1994. At that time I became heavily involved in Doom and eventually Doom 2 playing my fair share of Doom 2 over DWANGO and spending many long nights playing through the various WADS that were hosted on ftp.cdrom.com (boasted nearly 1.5 TB of storage at the time! ;p ). Once Quake came out, I was hooked and have been a part of the semi-competitive scene traveling to some LANS and evening being part of a clan that hosted a few very successful tournaments in Quakeworld and Quake 3. Enough about me...

There is much in this article that I see as being very questionable. I want to start first with the following:

"There are 150 good gamers known worldwide.Five of them are called best. Presently for the year 2007-2010 only 17 Sponsorship have been granted to the most top level players and only five of them are proper. The players who these sponsorship are

1. Jake Orland

2. Siddharth Agarwal

3. Ivon Suviziki

4. Jewel Conerovous

5. Ryo Watanbe

The three of them are having sponsorship from Amd Group and the others are having from EA

These 150 gamers are called by the name "VOLTS""

It may be my lack of knowledge when it comes to some of the RTS games used for professional gaming (WC3, SC, AoE)... but I recognize none of those names, nor have I ever heard of the term VOLTS. The entry is also poorly worded; where does the exact number 150 come from? Can anyone shed any light on this for me or, if possible, could the original author please cite sources for this information?

Respectively,

]km[watcha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.238.229 (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Annihilation

Added Red Annihilation as the first major tournament, the wording implied that CPL started e-sports

Cyberathlete Merge

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.

---

The term Cyberathlete is a registered trademark and should not be merged with the general concept of e-sports. -- [George Kaspiris|CPL] — (Unsigned comment by 69.93.31.211.)

How is the term Cyberathlete a registered trademark? That would be like registering "Football player" as a trademark. Please provide proof of this and a list of countries where the term is registered as a trademark. --DJiTH 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The term Cyberathlete is in fact a Registered Trademark of NewWorld.com, Inc. the parent company of the CPL. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted a ten year exclusive registration for the following three marks: Cyberathlete® (Reg. No. 2,407,453), Cyberathlete Professional League® (Reg. No. 2,407,450) and CPL® (Reg. No. 2,397,115). NewWorld.com, Inc also holds international registrations for these marks in the European Union, Australia, Asia and South America. The term cyberathlete (translations and/or variations of this term) must be used exclusively to reference the activities of the CPL and cannot be included in any product or service, for purposes of commerce or display that are not licensed or approved by NewWorld.com, Inc. This information is publicy available at http://www.uspto.gov just do a trademark search. By the way, a trademark is an adjective that should be followed by an appropriate generic term. Because a trademark is an adjective, it should never be used in a possessive form (Cyberathlete's), made plural (Cyberathletes) or used as a verb and you should not create new forms of the trademark (Cyberathletics). Because the term is the property of our parent company we cannot allow it to be commingled with the generic term "e-sports." -- User:Angel 15:13 July 26, 2006

Slow down, Tex. Show some faith in DJiTH's query. The term is already like kleenex or aspirin. Generic. The evidence is in DJiTH's query. People haven't assumed that cyberathlete meant CAL/CPL for a long time. Maybe in the early days of competitive gaming, but that hasn't been the case for some time now. I don't dispute that there are trademarks for it, but cyberathlete as a standalone term has become synonymous with a competitive gamer in general, not CAL/CPL specifically. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what some people assume. Cyberathlete is the property of NewWorld.com and all uses of the term must be approved by NewWorld.com, therefore it cannot be merged with the general concept of e-sports. For further discussion contact John G. Fischer PE. USPatent Attorney, and NewWorld.com's lead counsel at http://www.alliplaw.com/main.php -- User:John 8:30 July 28, 2006

NewWorld.com (or one of its employees) edited the Cyberathlete article, by that, releasing the text under the GFDL, therefore, there is no legal barrier to merging the two articles. Ergo, the merge can be done. --DJiTH 14:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting Merge Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 05:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept of cyberathletics/esports (and the competitors being called cyberathletes) is not protected by trademark, George. That's what the merge is for. Combining the concepts from the Cyberathlete article with ESports since they're parts of the same whole. MERGE - Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And why the revert on the TeamWarfare addition to the list of NA Leagues? TWL is one of the largest online leagues in North America. o_O Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The amount of online leagues is far too great to list on the e-Sports main page, therefor, this list should be limited to only major leagues. Perhaps a seperate article for an e-Sports league list would be suitable though. --DJiTH 17:33, 26 July 2006 (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.

Main e-Sports Titles

I added this section today. If you feel one of the listings is wrong or there is a listing missing, please take it to talk first, before editing. The list I compiled is based on the choices of major tournaments and players, for instance, the WCG, CPL, WSVG, ESWC, etc. I have not counted in leagues like MLG and EVO, since these are minor and local, whereas this list gives a global view. - DJiTH 16:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about dota allstars It's an up and coming warcraft3 mod that is already included in CPL, CEGL, and other leagues. Primadog 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Djith, your bias continues to astound me. "I have not counted in leagues like MLG and EVO, since these are minor and local." You clearly don't know much about Major League Gaming if you are lumping them in with EVO. EVO is a once-a-year event that runs tournaments for fighting games. Major League Gaming is a nationally recognized, nationally televised, professional console gaming league. Several of the top players are making over a hundred thousand dollars a year playing in their competitions, which are held all over the United States. The events are featured in a TV show on the #1 cable network in America and rebroadcast over the web for fans all over the world to watch. Players from England, Sweeden, Japan, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands have traveled to the United States for a chance to compete at MLG events, so while the competitions don't currently take place outside the USA, MLG clearly is recognized and followed by an international crowd. And for the PC gaming fans out there, major eSports news sites like Amped and GotFrag cover MLG events on their websites. What about all of that is either "minor" or "local?" Please stop pretending to be the Lord of Wiki eSports and editting away anything positive or noteworthy about MLG to suit your personal bias or agenda. Odinwolf 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I originally classified MLG as local because it is limited to the United States only. I classified EVO as minor, as it is only noteworthy in a beat-em-up context. The thing we are takling about here is a world-view. Sure, from a USA-view, the MLG became the biggest e-Sports competitions this year. However, when you look from a world-view, the MLG did (and does) not come near the status that WCG and ESWC (and WSVG and CPL in a smaller manner) have. For instance, WCG and ESWC have participants from 70 and 53 countries respectively. Also, in the past two months, I have adjusted my attitude towards MLG a lot, which you should notice when looking at my recent contributions. The list here however, represents the titles that are regarded as the most important e-sports titles world-wide. Every country in the world has a serious competitive scene for these games, something which cannot be said for for instance Halo 2. It's easy to find these if you google around. However, it's a lot harder to find resources for MLG outside of the USA. For example, google for "Major League Gaming" in Dutch and you will not find more than 190 results. Google for "World Cyber Games" and you will find 162000. That's a pretty big difference, and I'm sure if you would do it for other countries, the results would be the same. You would have to come to the conclusion that MLG is not very notable outside of the USA. -- Laurens Hoek 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Price money

If possible, price moneys should be given for the major tournaments where known. MadMaxDog 12:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean prize money? Primadog 09:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Online Section Edits

Please stop removing Major League Gaming from the online leagues section. MLG has an online tournament division that currently runs Halo 2 and Gears of War competitions for thousands of dollars in prize money. These competitions include thousands of players from Europe, North America and Australia and include their own points and ranking systems seperate from MLG's professional tour. This is its own division and meets any standard requirements for a major online eSports league and belongs in that section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Odinwolf (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

MLG not the first league to sign players

MBCGame and Ongamenet signed players participating in their competitions long before MLG did, im removing this from the history/contract section.Zerter 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Gaming Dependent on Corporate Sponsors

the reason that pro-gaming is slow to develop / be taken seriously is that it is entirely dependent on corporate sponsors. these sponsors don't really care about pro-gaming, they are just out to sell us a new computer.

GetGosu 22:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC) jordan

Redefine "Electronic sports"

I think maybe the general term "Electronic sports" should be redefined as instead of being: " is used as a general term used to describe computer and video games that are played as competitive sports" it should be "is used as a general term to describe the play of video games as a competitive sport." or "is used as a general term to describe the competitive play of video games." Thoughts? Digx 20:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• As a result of no argument, I changed it. Digx 22:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing a LOT of games

If this is about "electronic games" that are played competitively in tournaments worldwide, that are broadcast on the television/internet and/or pay out cash, as well as having "teams", here's a large list of games you forgot;

-Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 -Capcom Vs. Snk 2 -Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike -Melty Blood -Guilty Gear Accent Core -Hokuto no Ken -Street Fighter II -Street Fighter II Turbo -Soul Calibur 3 -Tekken 5 -King of Fighters

and those are just fighting games; I can guarentee not only through personal experience, but through many links as well from reputable sources, that all of those games are being played at tournament level, most, if not all, are having said tournaments broadcast in some form or another, and all of these tournaments have at least one team, and all of them pay out money.

Then there's music games;

-Dance Dance Revolution -In the Groove -Pump It Up

All three of those games still have tournaments in some part of the country; DDR and ITG both have tournaments in America, and Pump It Up is still HUGE in Korea and Mexico, where there is an annual tournament since 2004 at least, sponsored by Andamiro, which pays out over 100,000 dollars a year. deepbluevibes 20:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's a game that is missing, find some sources and write about it! Digx 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Theres a difference between widely POPULAR electronic sports titles and niche games. Esports are a pretty specific group, elite if you will.Odds87 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Whats that supposed to mean?　Whats popular in the West won't neccessarily (and isn't, really) popular in Asian region (HK, Taiwan) and Japan, and vice-versa. 38.98.217.88 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Less Popular Terms

Says who? I hear competitive gaming A LOT more than e-sport. Could this be changed to other terms? 58.110.136.88 00:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"E-Sport" indeed sounds like some advertisement ploy. I do indeed see the similarity in attitude with sports despite the fucking retards above who disagree despite not knowing shit (I guess they know it from playing their precious rpg games), but competitive gaming feels more professional to me.--219.79.238.23 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Many errors

This article is so wrong I wouldn't even know where to start.

· Electronic Sports is not a widely accepted term. Competitive gaming is and this article should be called "Professional gaming" or something like that. · Quake 4 has no bots, so that line about the "undisclosed amount of bots" is pure invention. · There were competitive (and professional) events way before 2004. It all started with Street Fighter and Quake and other games like Age of Empires 2, all the Quakes, the Unreal Tournaments, Painkiller, Pro Evolution Soccer, and many more have enjoyed its share of big events. · The selection of major tournies in Counter-Strike is rubbish.

That's all without talking about non professional competitive gaming (which would fall into "Electronic Sports"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.123.140 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the Quake 4 bot issue sounds utterly dubious, it might as well be deleted. Mr. Unsigned's [^_^] other points also seem to have merit, so if anyone can pursue these issues further, I encourage them to do so.Anthonzi (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Main international electronic sports titles per genre

According to who? This here is pure opinion... A blatant example of this is not even mentioning Starcraft, while it has the highest total cash prizes every year, due to multiple tournaments with $30 000 to $100 000 first prize and top gamers receiving salaries as high as $200 000, which no other game has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.35.28 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC) I agree, we should remove this section as no proper origins are mentioned any was ... --Dabese (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Quake 3 instead of Quake 4.. or just Quake-series?

Quake 3 has got a bigger playerbase compared to Quake 4 and far more competitions are being held in that game. So shouldn't the Q4-section be replaced with Q3 or maybe just rename it to Quake-series and offer a wider perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.21.170 (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done the latter, and put it all under one heading. What kinds/how often are the quake games played nowadays? This section probably needs updating, after 5 years.Forbes72 (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sport in video gaming merger

I didn't put the merge tag in, but it does make sense. Approve? Digx (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently, it does. But sport in video games could also be video games related to sport like NHL, FIFA, etc... I think it should be merged under Electronic Sports. The article sport in video games should then be rewritten, focussing on sport simulating games.--Ramschmaerchen (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no merge. Tekken or Maj Jong or Pong could be seen as electronic sports, and this is very different from a real-life sport being emulated in a videogame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkdoc (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

eSports on major networks

I heard that pro gaming was going to be on USA network on Saturday morning. It'd be nice if someone could do some research and find out when, so it could be added to this article.

It's MLG Halo 2 on Saturday morning at 10:00 AM EST. This article doesn't even mention MLG, which I find to be a major oversight. If I ever find the time, I may add some info on the MLG league. J0lt C0la 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The MLG is note-worthy in this article, but the whole article is in need of a major rewrite. Whether the appearances on USA network are noteworthy is disputable, the show is partly hosted by the owner of the league, for instance, he interviews the players he hires from the teams that he owns. I don't think that entirely fits the third-party doctrine. -- DJiTH 12:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of who hosts the show and why he hosts it, the program is definitely notable. USA Network is the #1 Cable outlet in the United States and they are airing eSports competitions now. This isn't on at midnight on a tiny network with a small viewer base. A huge portion of Americans watch this network and considering that MLG is the first to land on a major network is a big deal. In a global sense, while America lags behind in eSports culture and mainstream acceptance, America is the world-wide cultural leader in music, television, movies and other forms of entertainment. If this show brings eSports into the mainstream in America then that will certainly be beneficial to the entire culture worldwide as more American dollars and companies get behind it.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to spin the media coverage off into its own article, featuring worldwide broadcast coverage of eSports. Then MLG on USA could be a part of a larger article that would include the WSVG show on Dish Network, the Korean television stations dedicated to eSports coverage and any European or Australian cover. Considering all the small news stories that are run about the various leagues and tournaments, a comprehensive list isn't a reasonable goal. However, including regular television shows with their own time blocks seems like that would fit the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.77.46.22 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry. Didn't sign that above. 71.77.46.22 19:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on Doom II

I may be missing something here, but I think this section's rambling about 'Deathmatch 95' seems to be a bit broken. Deathmatch 95 would appear to be to celebrate the launch of id's HEXEN, which would make Fong's rambling about clerics and mages make a lot more sense. Article on Deathmatch 95: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_Sept_21/ai_17453687/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.120.214 (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Have merging Sport in video gaming as part of cleaning up the Category:Articles to be merged backlog. This referenced statement from that article may want to be included somewhere.

Video games are not a part of the Olympics but the Global Gaming League have made attempts to make them a demonstration sport in the 2008 Olympics.[1].

Everything else was repeated or has been added. AIRcorn (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

UKeSA

There is an eSports Association in the United Kingdom called United Kingdom eSports Association, which is similar to organisations like The Football Association, National Basketball Association, etc, and was wondering how do I go about submitting a page or a section about this. Their website is www.ukesa.co.uk.

why is CS focused on 1.6 and not Source, Last i checked source is much more played then 1.6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.232.43 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

- Actually the CS Source scene is dead. NO INTERNATIONAL lans even host it anymore. CS 1.6 is the hotspot. stop caring about graphics so much and play the better game. any pro gamer who has played both will vouche for CS 1.6 over that crappy CS: Source knockoff anyday. fRoD, ksharp, Moto, walle, HeatoN, n0thing, tr1p, shaGuar, heck even FODDER will agree on this. CS 1.6 > CS Source no questions asked. better scene. bigger scene. and definatly more respected scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.217.185 (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Source has international LANs, your statement is false. CS1.6 still is the "hotspot", without any doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.184.195.122 (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The website link you provided does not even work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrederickMS (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Electronic sports → Competitive gaming – The current title strikes me as neologistic; the common term used in most media is competitive gaming. Powers ^T 20:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I see PC Gamer calling it e-sports, SRK calling it e-sports, and IGN calling it e-sports. The only other term I've seen used is "pro gaming". I've heard claims that "competitive gaming" actually is the more popular term, so... what do you have? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • A Google Books search for "electronic sports" (ignoring results from Books, LLC, which are taken from Wikipedia) returns primarily books about athletic sports, with the word "electronic" attached in senses such as "electronic sports reporting" (electronic reporting on sports) or "electronic sports games" (video games about sports). A Google Books search for "competitive gaming", on the other hand, turns up a few false positives, but also a number of books that talk about competitive gaming. See, for example, Game Boys: Triumph, Heartbreak, and the Quest for Cash in the Battleground of Competitive Videogaming. Powers ^T 13:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • A search in the Game Boys book returns several uses of the term "e-sports". A search for "competitive gaming" also has several results, but less. And I also searched Google Books for "electronic sports" and also found several instances of it, disregarding the Books, LLC results. Yes, I did come across it when it referred to reporting or sports video games, but this is to be expected. The e-sports results that are relevant are simply mixed in with the the other stuff. The term can be ambiguous, but as you replied to the IP below, that shouldn't be a problem. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Your second link doesn't support your point; it refers to sports simulation games. But I think this is turning out to be a bit of a judgement call; the number of sources appears limited and there are a lot of false positives no matter what terms we use. Powers ^T 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Aw, so it is. My bad. But yeah, there are false positives for both. I just see "electronic sports" as the most established of the two possible terms. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose nothing about this concerns competitive scrabble, professional chess, or the pro-Poker tour, etc. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • So? What's important is what the common term is for this activity, not whether the common term is ambiguous. competitive gaming redirects here already. Powers ^T 13:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It should be a disambiguation page. I see competitive gaming quite frequently in reference to poker, so I expect "competitive gaming" to be about poker. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Diablo 2 "When Worlds Collide" Ladder Season 2 Race to Level 99 - July 2004

Back in July of 2004, Blizzard held a competition on Battle.net for all Diablo 2 Realms, which started with the first ladder reset in version 1.10. This began their new promotional campaign for World of Warcraft and those playing Diablo 2 could compete and win prizes for the first character on each realm to reach level 99. 6 Total prizes were awarded for each realm (Asia 1-3, USWest, USEast and Europe), and included a Blizzard North CD Wallet, a Warcraft 3 Toy Statue of Tichondrius, a Blizzard T-Shirt, and a personal autographed copy of the Collectors edition of World of Warcraft. This was one of the only competitions that was held on Diablo 2, I do not know of any others.

References: [2] [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.181.33 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a sport..

It IS a sport, you stupid nerds.

...what makes Motorsports a sport? All you do is sit in a chair and use your arms... just like eSports.

Granted, I also don't consider it A sport, but sport in itself means competition.

Everything outlined in the article is a competition too, so therefore, according to you, they are sports. Duh. --Andyroo316 06:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree, this is not a sport. And by the way, go try motocross.. your arms and legs get tired pretty quick. The entire definition of sport lies in athletic (physical) ability. Oh my, please don't talk about reflexes and fast fingers. --Hurricane Angel 09:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Using that definition, chess isn't a sport either, and neither are poker and marbles. I think people have to read up on the subject a bit more, before blurting out an opinion. But that will be hard, with all these anti video games crusades people are having around here.. Please explain how, for instance, archery or swimming are more a sport than e-sports. All require specific skills, training, dedication and an excellent mental and physical condition in order to be practiced at the highest level. -- DJiTH 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

True sports require physical aptitude or some sort of risk. Motorsports, while I hate them, can be considered sports because they put your life at risks. "E-sports" is anything but that. I think the only risk involved in this "sport" is diabetes, since you're sitting in a chair the entire time drinking red bull. You cannot be a "professional" at a video game, something purely designed to be just for fun and not something to be "mastered." --69.134.24.204 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Video Games is definitely something that can be mastered. Just as baseball was created as a form of play and entertainment, video games was made as a form of play and entertainment. Baseball matured and turned into a professional competitive "sport" just as video games is turning into a professional competitive "sport." As the Wikipedia community defines it in the Sport article: "Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively." By this definition, which is assumed to be generally accepted by the Wikipedia community, E-Sports can definitely be considered a sport as competitive video game play is governed by a set of rules and customs and is engaged in competitively. Digx 09:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Video games are "purly designed to be just fun fun and not something to be mastered?" What? Go tell that to Capcom (Street Fighter), Team Ninja (Dead or Alive), Valve (Counter-Strike), id (Quake). I think they might just disagree...so much cluelessness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odds87 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So what your saying...is that things like dance dance revolution is a sport because it requires physical activity? The meaning of a sport is competition not power or finesse. Gaming is a sport, even though you probably suck at it. Like it or not, its considered a sport.Sage1989 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither eSports nor Motocross are sports. I love gaming, but it only makes sense as an entertainment, a hobby, or an art form (depending on the individual game). As has been mentioned, there is not really any physical element to eSports. On a completely unrelated note, this article needs clean-up.182.239.142.226 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Gaming is not a sport. Board game and video game competitions are gaming competitions and they are definitely not a sport competitions. Sport (or sports) is all forms of usually competitive physical activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport 79.172.111.230 (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"usually". This is a ridiculous discussion. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaming is a competitive activity. In a very loose sense of the term, it's a sport, and that should be enough. Even if it's not a sport (And who cares, anyway?), the common term used to describe competitive gaming is "electronic sports", so unless you can somehow erase that term from everyone's minds, it will continue to be called that. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a competitive activity, but it's actually not a sport even if the "electronic sports" is a common term. Sport is all about physical activity and gaming doesn't involve a physical activity, so gaming should not be considered as a sport. 79.172.111.230 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And this is a relevant discussion how? What does this have to do with the article? What we can all agree on is that the most common term used for playing video games in a competitive environment is "electronic sports", and thus it is appropriate to refer to it as such, whether or not gaming really can count as a sport. This discussion won't change that. If you didn't have the article in mind, then all I can say is that this is not the place to discuss it. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a relevant discussion. Calling gaming a sport is wrong and not appropriate. There is no physical activity in games like Counter Strike, chess and poker. Here is the definition of sport: "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment" - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sport#m_en_gb0803330 79.172.111.230 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Third party sources call it e-sports so we call it esports. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it's a sport, which is why this discussion is pretty much pointless. What matters is that everyone calls this activity "electronic sports". See WP:COMMONNAME. Lots of activities and historical events are pinned with inaccurate names, but that doesn't mean using those names is not valid. 20:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative views (opinions)/controversy/criticism content is the best solution because many people don't consider video gaming competitions (and other competitions like NASCAR, poker, golf, pool, chess, etc.) as a sport. 79.172.111.230 (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which claim any kind of controversy or criticism surrounding this? Samwalton9 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the fourth time you've brought up your opinion of gaming not counting as a sport, and this is the fourth time I'm telling you, "So what?" Once again, it does not matter whether or not competitive video gaming counts as a sport. Naming the article "electronic sports" is not Wikipedia saying, "By the way, video games are totally sports, spread the word." This is not a matter of having to take in alternative views about what to call this activity. It goes like this: A large majority calls it "electronic sports", so Wikipedia will call it "electronic sports". It's that simple. This is why your arguments that it is not a sport don't matter, because arguing against something that Wikipedia is not claiming. So here's what you can do instead: Like Samwalton says, get sources. If you can provide multiple legitimate sources about the supposed controversy about what to call competitive video gaming (proving its notability), you can start a new section in the article detailing the controversy. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As this discussion attests, the nomenclature does appear to be controversial. I've noted the disagreement in the header section and sourced both sides. (see [6] for not a sport side) To be honest, I personally think it can be called a sport, but hopefully this addition is something that'll make everyone happy.Forbes72 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Action RTS section

On May 23rd, an editor moved League of Legends from being a subcategory of Action RTS to its own subcategory under RTS and vastly expanded LoL content. Can we agree that LoL is not its own sub-genre and should be merged back into the Action RTS category and revert the extraneous detail that was added? We can all agree that LoL has had a lot of competitive events, but that information should be on a separate page.

DarkXymphony (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Naturally. Although this is an old issue now and response is not necessary, I can say definitely yes. DarthBotto _talk•cont 23:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

Why is there no section or discussion of Copyright as it relates to esports? IMO this is one major distinction between traditional sports and esports -- no one ever claimed to have a copyright on basketball or tennis, whereas esports are generally based on copyrighted works.

IIRC this issue contributed to the demise of the professional Starcraft scene in South Korea, since under Korean copyright law Blizzard had the right to sell licenses to broadcast the game. Blizzard ignored this issue for many years but began to enforce its copyright sometime around 2008-2010. Piddle (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could provide some sources to work with? Not really aware of this issue myself. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This article goes into some detail and is already in the references (#44 currently). It describes the chain of events I was thinking about, where Blizzard began to assert its IP in 2008 after ignoring the issue for many years. Unfortunately it doesn't go into the legal issues surrounding copyright. Piddle (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If this information is going to be added, which I'm not against, I think it should be added under the section "Definition of a sport", and the section renamed "Controversy", this the debate about eSports being a sport, the Copy Right information and Fighter gamers not wanting to be classified as eSports, along with anything else that might come up will have a section. --Olanatan (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll need another article, that reference isn't going to be enough. Also, "Definition as a sport" is good enough as a title. If anything, it should be mentioned in "Prize money and sponsorship." TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Trimming leagues

I'm planning to trim the list of individual leagues down soon. I plan to remove any league without either a wiki article or referenced link establishing independent notability. Thanks for your help identifying leagues that are notable so they are not removed. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Will this be done again? Looks like tons of unnotable leagues are popping up. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I cut it down severely a while ago, but I'm wondering if I could get some other editors to do a case-by-case review of each league. I'm primarily a follower of competitive fighting games, which is really only a small part of the competitive gaming market. If any other editors would like to help out, that would be great. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the minor leagues to a new article List of electronic sports tournaments. If any more minor leagues show up with good sourcing, I'd suggest they go there.Forbes72 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a break down of the differnet tournament types based on size/prestige/prize pool, as not all tournaments have the same level of players and importance. Olanatan (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point to those definitions and they seem to constitute WP:OR. Tournaments aren't really formally separated into the groups that you defined. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I had meant to respond to this earlier. The research, and wording I choose was based on Liquipedia, the authoritative site on SC2, and SC:BW, and to the best of my knowledge the only place for Dota 2 that has a list of tournaments in the community, along with news about this portion of the scene. Olanatan (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Getting info for Wikipedia from another wiki is generally a very bad idea. It won't work, sorry. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Some notes for contributors

First, thanks. This article covers quite a large range of subgenres, games, tournaments and so forth; it still has a ways to go. Adding more info is almost always a good thing. To try and help make your contribution even better, I thought I'd lay out some key issues that I've seen come up repeatedly from well meaning contributors who possibly are less familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines.(e.g. anonymous editors)

• Too much hype

While you may want to explain how important your game/tournament is to eSports, be sure you back up your claims with credible sourcing. Often, people makes nebulous claims of growth or oblique references to international appeal. Be specific, and back up your claims with third party sources.

• Granular detail

This article is a general overview of eSports, not an comprehensive analysis of everything that falls under that heading. Try to avoid descriptions of game mechanics or tournament results, unless they are specifically mentioned in third party sources. You may want to add info to the individual game or tournament articles in question.

• Disconnected style

While some subjects here warrant individual treatment, everything does not need its own heading. Try and integrate added information into the article so it doesn't end up looking like a giant list of topics/facts. The organization of this article is not set in stone. If you can think of a way to reörganize the headings more clearly, go ahead.

Let me know what you think. Forbes72 (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Can't think up anything more to add to this. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The section on gaming titles in eSport scene is getting to the point that it is more about each individual game and less about the games in eSports, since most of the games have their own page describing what they are, I think reducing information about the game/background of the game to a sentence or two that is related to the impact it has on esports would be more idea. This way we can list more games, how long they've been in the scene, and a general impact, without adding "too much hype".Olanatan (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not really getting to that point at all. There are sections for genres in general, and then there are the subsections for more notable individual titles. The individual pages describe what they are but don't really have much detail on their histories with eSports. I also don't see how just a list of games with years next to them is an improvement. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is getting to that point, and with more competitive games coming out trying to make part of the growing scene, it makes this article look more cluttered. When I first started looking at this page, it took me a while to get through it all because of the amount of sections/subsections/sub-sub-section and how they didn't flow well together and jumped around. That and the lack of updated history(which was recently added.) This article should be "general overview of eSports" as Forbes72 puts it, not "an comprehensive analysis of everything that falls under that heading". Thats is why I changed the RTS section, granted I will give you that the information I posted is lacking and should be expanded, and that was the plan from the get go, but I feel to make this page better there needs to be a cleaner look, along with current and important information.Olanatan (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how general overviews of the most notable games of specific genres counts as "comprehensive analysis". The structure of those sections are straightforward: genre, then the game. I fail to see what's messy about that. I agree that general info/history about each genre would be great, though. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at the LOL and Dota section, they go into details of viewership, prices, and fighting admit corps with regards to ownership. This information would be good for an individual page like SC:BW has and WC3 has but not for a general overview of the who scene. As for structure. Currently you have Section(Titles in Esports) -> Subsection(Genre's in esports) -> Sub-Subsection(each game), but everything looks like its own section because of the formatting. Olanatan (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I suppose some details that should be covered/are already covered in their own articles could be removed. Other than that, I don't see problems with specific sections. The subsections don't all look like their own thing, they're under clear subsection headings. I still cannot see what's wrong. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the organization has gotten better, but for me the current structure seems like more of a compromise than an ideal situation. I've had some of the same concerns about section nesting that olanatan mentions, but I've had trouble finding a good solution. Media coverage of eSports is generally quite focused on individual titles, so it's sometimes difficult to make broad statements that are well sourced. It might be better if we could integrate the list of titles and list of tournaments sections into the rest of the article, but I think we should make sure that we don't lose information or coherence in the process. I'm going to try making each genre a full section; this should be a step in the right direction.Forbes72 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm new here, but I'm really interested in making this article the best it can be. And as a new person to wiki, the flow of this article made it difficult to understand all thats going on. I think there is a lot of great information but its jumps around. To the point of "It might be better if we could integrate the list of titles and list of tournaments sections into the rest of the article", a lot of it should be migrated into the history section. This specific tournament was created(its in the article so it must be important, so it is important to the history), and this is the impact it had on the scene. Or this specific game became an eSport title at this time, and this is the effect it had on the scene. So on so forth, It would make the history sections longer, but it would cut back on the amount of section/subsection and make the article more streamlined. As I was doing research for the history section the information I want to add is already in the article but at different areas. If your all not opposed I'd like to try to migrate the information into the history section.Olanatan (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I could see some of the info within the sections on specific genres being moved to history, but I hope that you ("you" being Olanatan) don't mean to erase those sections entirely. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 03:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say test it out in a Wikipedia:Sandbox, Olanatan. See how it goes. Most of the individual game/genre sections should stay, as The Stick Man says, but see if you can find a way to merge those tournament sections in a smart way, go for it.Forbes72 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved most of the individual tournament info to their pages. Hope this helps. Forbes72 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I've noticed that there is not really anything in the article on MMOs in eSports. Any reasons for this? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added some info on WoW to the Global tournaments section. Honestly, MMOs don't do very well as eSports, and recent attempts like Firefall (video game) haven't turned out well.(see: [7]) Forbes72 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To what extent are we including results in this article? I feel like the info on WCS champions and LoL season championships would be better off in articles about the specific games/tournaments. Unless the results are particularly notable (like Thresh winning the first ever Quake championship and getting a car), I don't really see a need to include them here, especially if keeping them means we have to update them year after year. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

IMO in time they should be removed to a separate page like the SC:BW or WC3 once they have enough content to warrant a page but 2-3 entries doesn't warrant a page at this time. But creating a dedicated page like that also means someone will have to update them year after year.Olanatan (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine if it's moved elsewhere, I just don't want results to start accumulating here, especially when they're more appropriate elsewhere. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable to post results of the finals of the biggest tournament of the year for a given game.(assuming the game already has its own section of course) On the other end, we definitely don't need the results of all 5 of the Starcraft II Dreamhack tournaments in 2013.(or any of them really) Olanatan is essentially correct: as long as the number of results is about 2-3, and the results are dated and sourced, I don't see this information as falling outside the scope of the article. I realize that allowing results in the article makes it a bit harder to weed out the irrelevant material that is frequently added to this page, but I think the information is worth it in the end. Forbes72 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess it makes more sense when you put it that way. OK, then. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 19:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Question for Forbes and Stickman since you two are the main editors for this article. There are websites/wikis that are designated to provide information on each game in esports(atleast for Dota2/sc2/wc3/lol), wouldn't it be wise/helpful to direct/point out these sites for people who are wanting to dig more into the esports scene? I know referencing data from these sites is a no no, but directing people there if they are seaking more specific information on players/tournaments/teams. Q2) Hearthstone by blizzard, while the game is not officially released, blizzard has already ran a tournament and plans to push the game as an eSport it currently doesn't fit under any current game genre should we wait till it is officially released or since they are already doing tournaments is it safe to add?Olanatan (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikis might be able to be added in External links under certain conditions, I'm not 100% sure. My question about Hearthstone is not whether or not to wait for the official release but rather if it should get its own section. Unless you wanted to find other ways to incorporate it, in which case I don't see why not. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

What conditions can they be added? As for Hearthstone, It doesn't fit under any other gaming genre, and after looking at MTG online it would seem that both games would compete for an electronic card game genre as MTG:online has tournaments and Hearthstone is being pushed as an esport. The only other place I could see to put it would be in the history section, but that would mean adding a new history section of 2010 to current, which would have information about LOL/Dota/COD/SC2/Heartstone and some of the information about twitch should be in that time frame as it came out 2011. Speaking of COD, shouldn't it have a section in the FPS like CS/Quake as Quake isn't being played anymore and Activision/Tryarch is pushing COD esports? While yes COD game is new every year, but generally speaking its the same teams/players they just switch to the new game every Nov. Just thinking out loud and sharing my ideas to see what others think to avoid stepping on toes. Olanatan (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the 12th point in WP:ELNO, open wikis are generally discouraged unless they have a stable history and a large body of editors. If you can make the argument whatever you want to add fulfills both, then I don't see what the problem is. I'm unsure about Hearthstone. With MTG I would definitely say that it would not count as an e-sport but Hearthstone exists solely in digital form, so it kind of sits in the middle. I'm leaning towards "no", but it could fit.

As for CoD, I guess you could start a section in there. I don't really see why not, unless I missed a previous discussion on not allowing CoD info or anything like that. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

SC2 Wiki - has 451 active users(17k registered) 7k Content pages SC:BW - Has 39 active users, since the game is only played in rare cases can see this not being good enough. Dota2 Wiki - Has 152 active users(1,394 registered) 1,599 content pages. This will grow as Dota2 grows. Lol Wiki - Has 389 active users(14k registered) 6k content pages. So based on the above criteria, LOL and SC2 might be able to apply. I know the SC2 one has been around since Feb 2010, and LOL as been around since Feb 2012. As for Hearthstone, I'll hold off for now and see what Forbes thinks. Olanatan (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at those user stats and going off of the few occasions I have browsed Liquipedia for various games, I think it might work as an external link. Little less sure about the LoL one, but it looks decent, too. I'd like a second opinion on both, though. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Article is too long

After doing an automated peer review for the article,(see [8]) I think it brings up a couple valid points. First, the article has gotten a bit too long. The recommendation is for a length <= 50,000 and currently it sits at 68,722. I am hesitant to remove any information outright, but I highly suggest cutting any details that are already present in other related articles on Wikipedia. Second, the issue of too many sections persists. I've removed the tiny subsection on casters, and merged the prizemoney section into tournaments and teams sections, but it's not quite there yet.

The long term solution to these issues may be starting a couple new articles to move information to. What do you think of moving the "History" section to its own page and cutting it down to a 1-2 paragraph summary on the current page? Forbes72 (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If your looking for opinions on what to move to shorten this up, my suggestion would be the games section. An article on Common/Current eSports games and their history, a stronger and easier article to create/maintain and branch off of as the games history expand to the point of needing their own article. Thus leaving this article mainly to Summary/History of scene/general knowledge about. Moving the games to their own article would shorten this article by 10 sub-section and 5 sections all together. This would include moving the Doom/SC:BW/WC3 from the history section. It would also make it easier to add more titles/game types to that article such as COD and Hearthstone and Heros of the storm (all games currently or slated to be pushed as esports titles.) Olanatan (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken your suggestion and made a split to Electronic sports titles by genre. Still need to do some minor fixing to smooth out the edges, but it seems like a fairly logical move already. I think the section issue is finally solved. Forbes72 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Awesome I think the change makes the article look better, and it allows the other article to be filled out with more content on other games. The only suggestion I would add is move the section called titles to the Game Design section either as a sub-section or "Also see:". Right now since there is little content in that section, it looks empty and out of place. Olanatan (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Final Say on Spelling

Daily Dot has moved to the sane an sensible "esports". No longer will we need to see the horrible "ESports is a growing industry." type sentences. Since this is in print now, I am updating the page to reflect the modern style.

Entropyfails (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

History: Quake 3 and Counter-Strike

How are neither of these games even mentioned in the history section when they along with SC:BW and WC3 comprised almost the entirety of PC esports until the rise of dota/lol? Also notably absent is any mention of the CPL which was the first major attempt at organized esports.

I realize not everything can be added to the history section (unless spun off as a new article) but these are pretty egregious omissions to anyone who was active in esports from roughly 1997-2007. QuakeCon and Cyberathlete Professional League both have some good sources to this effect although they are incomplete. 24.130.89.93 (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestions! I somewhat plan on continuing the good article aim at some point and will see about including these. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Information about Other countries Participation in the Electronic Sports

this article lists a few sentences about south Korea and China's participation but i feel like its a bit under appreciated. so i think its important to add a section about it. PowerfulEJA (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The title implies that the article is US-centric, which I don't think is that accurate. I don't think a section that focuses on Asian esports is all that necessary. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 19:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Trading card games

what about online-card game's like MGT, pokemon online, YU-GI-OH? why are they not listened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.103.230 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Having online/electronic platforms doesn't automatically make a game an esport. Magic/Yu-Gi-Oh are not esports, they are trading card games. Same goes for Pokemon TCG, although the Pokemon games themselves may (emphasis on "may") be worth mentioning here or on the list of esports games article. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Other tournaments

This article seems to focus more on professional gaming and FPS/sports gaming. But what about other tournaments, like the Blockbuster Video World Game Championships in the early 90's, or the SkillJam casual gaming championships this year, or even the Pokemon Video Game Nationals? I was looking for an article that talked about the history of competitive gaming. Is there another article I should be looking at? -- Lampbane 02:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: the Blockbuster Video Game World Championships, while looking though some newspaper articles I amassed while working on the Ogre Twins' articles, I noticed that the article says that Martin Ryan (the lesser known Ogre 3) was 11 when he won the Donkey Kong championship in the Blockbuster games, and if you figure his age and the date of the article, it would have probably been in 1995. If anyone wants me to work that into the article, I will, and I'll start looking for some of those other things you mentioned. J0lt C0la 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say the article lacks a world view and really needs some work. It goes into detail on certain topics while not mentioning alot of key information in other areas. Lim Yo-Hwan is by most accounts the most financialy successful e-sports player of all-time, yet there is no mention of him. It also lacks mention of individuals such as Billy Mitchell who brought competitive gaming to the attention of the gaming industry. Certainly there needs to be alot added in order for the article to be considered balanced. It seems to be written with an FPS slant. --FK65 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree here, the entire article is in need of a rewrite and proper moderation, if not only against organisations/people trying to plug in their views/ideas/selves. I am working on a rewrite currently, however I have a very busy schedule, so it could take a while. DJiTH 21:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add the worldview template just to bring some attention to the fact that the article is very imcomplete. I might add some stuff later once I figure out how to intregrate it into the FPS stuff that's there now. -- Lampbane 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw you already made some great contributions there, nice work. This pre-internet competition stuff is very hard to find information on. -- DJiTH 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree on the need of a better world view addition. Just gotta promote the involvement of people in other countries that aren't mentioned. Digx 09:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

IGN is a strong supporter of the online tournaments, and do alot to help the growth of this sport. i would like to include the information regarding the IGN pro League that pays the top player 30,000 dollars playing games such as starcraft 2. PowerfulEJA (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

as well as riot games Strong push of wanting to have League Of Legends be a now recognized game in this sport and has introduced their first tournament in august.PowerfulEJA (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Stuff on League is in the Electronic sports titles by genre article. Got sources for IGN? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Competitive gaming?

First of all, I was under the impression that "electronic sports" was the more common term. Second of all, how is it... "ambiguous"? There's not much else you could mistake for "electronic sports". TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a bit rash, because my reasoning is all OR, so I do not object to moving this page back. My meaning was that in my experience "e-sports" or "electronic sports" are terms used only by those with some real knowledge of the topic, whereas "competitive gaming" is used in mass media. This is due to the ambiguity I was referencing, in that we have an article called Sports games which is about video games in which you play a sport, and electronic sports, which is people playing video games as a sport. Generally, people playing electronic sports are not even playing sports games, they are playing non-sports games, as a sport. So, my assumption was twofold: that everyone who knows the term "electronic sports" knows that this is also "competitive gaming", and would not be confused by this title; that someone who did not know what "electronic sports" are, would not accurately assume what the topic is by the title, rather the most logical jump would be a sports video game, or an otherwise sport-related electronic game (like air-hockey or whatever). This is why "competitive gaming" is used in mass media, because people can easily assume what it means. But again, I have no refs or anything, so this move was rash and I would not oppose it being undone. Apologize for any confusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

can W.O.W. be considered a competitive game, if so do you think it should be included into this article, it did alot of blizzard, even though they already had diablo 2 out, by the time world of warcraft came out, i still think it is important to include.PowerfulEJA (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WoW is covered in the Electronic sports titles by genre article. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

add more information about game sharing

with newer age consoles coming out now, talking about the new accessibility that has come out for the ability for PS4 to directly game share the game play straight from system it incorporates good display of spectator play as well as the ability for friends of the player sharing, to play with them.PowerfulEJA (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't sound directly related to electronic sports. I don't think that's a good idea. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Under streaming, why does MLG get such a large focus?

MLG is more of a niche streaming service and is no where as big as twitch, so why is it used for stats on streaming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Better mixmaster (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the article that uses MLG.tv for stats on streaming. The only MLG.tv-related stat I'm seeing is about MLG.tv's growth, not about streaming in general.

I also don't see how you think it's getting a "large focus". It has a single paragraph dedicated to it, which acknowledges its niche-ness (by mentioning how it's primarily used for CoD streaming). I don't see a problem. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 05:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

History

I'm planning to expand the History section, currently it is "missing" 13 years of historical data.

The things I'm currently researching to find more information on to provided decent references/citations are:

• Introduction to Competitive Console,

1. The FPS wars of Halo, CoD, Splinter cell from Xbox/PS2 through Xbox36/PS3
2. I'm not a follower of Fighters, but I believe they made a switch from arcade to console at sometime

• Broadcasts switch from recording and playing on TV to streaming online

1. From what I can tell MLG was the first to stream its content Live online in 2008, still searching for more information.
2. The birth of Twitch/Own3d and the impact it had on the eSports scene.

Yes I know there is already some information in its own section on TV vrs online broadcast giving some history does it need its own section?

• The resurgence into the West

1. Starcraft 2 release and the impact it had on the scene not only in Korea but also to the west(Europe and USA)
2. The birth of MOBA's(HON/LOL/Dota 2), and the impact it has had on the scene.

I'm still working to gather information on these topics above to expand the history section, if you think of anything you feel should be added, or should be merged from other area's into the history section let me know. Olanatan (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• Weren't the "FPS wars" really more of a war in the gaming market in general as opposed to the competitive scene? Never really heard anything like that.
• There's not much to say about fighters going from arcade to console. Once upon a time, we played on arcade machines. Now we play on console thanks to console ports. Arcades declined. I guess you could add a bit, but I don't see much else you could add.

Other ideas sound OK. I didn't comment on the ones I didn't feel like I knew much about. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• The "FPS wars" where a war in the gaming market in general but it also had an impact on the Competitive scene. Games where created with internal/external ranking systems to increase their sales to the general public and this created more competition and more interest in trying to become "the best". Also the arguing over Console vs PC for FPS lead to more news/attention to gaming and competitive gaming in general.
• Do you, or anyone else know of when the first emergence of console ports started coming out? Not having luck finding this information.Olanatan (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your word on the FPS wars stuff, I'll just wait and see how that turns out. With fighting games, there pretty much started to be a bigger focus on consoles with the release of Street Fighter IV. Consoles had been used previously before. I wouldn't dwell much on the subject past the fact that arcades declined. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we might delete some historical information before 2000. Cause according to my research, Electronic games first been called "E-Sports" since KeSPA was founded in 2000 whose main goal is to make e-sport an official sport event, and it started to called "Star Craft" an E-sports and have TV channels name E-sports. Before that, we can say video games are not e-sports, but just electronic games. And information before 2000 is not that important to our topic, we are defining E-Sports instead of video games. Also most of people would not care about so long historyBbchris0916 (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove important info about the history of playing video games competitively because they weren't called "esports" back then? That's not a valid reason at all. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 04:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Promotional language and peacock terms

It seems like this article has a little too much promotional language, for example: "Recently, eSports has gone through tremendous growth, incurring a large increase in both viewership and prize money.[35][36] Although large tournaments were founded before the 21st century, the number and scope of tournaments has increased significantly, going from about 10 tournaments in 2000 to about 260 in 2010".--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Guitar Hero

Is Guitar Hero considered an eSport? Some of the notable players and high scores seem to have gotten a lot of media attention and there are "professional" players.[9] [10] etc.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hyphen

Is there a hyphen in esports? I'm seeing some inconsistency across wikipedia.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Current consensus appears to be "esports", with no hyphen and no capitalized "s". Strangely, I vaguely remember some discussion on this but it doesn't seem to be on this talk page. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Its entry into dictionary.com/randomhouse dictionary was just "esports" no hyphen and no capital S. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/esports --salle81 (t, c) 14:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Girl gamer controversies

You have a youtube video cited as a source and the article on girl professional gamers reads like an Anita Sarkesian article. It's pure bias and propaganda with no basis. Women aren't looked down upon for being girls in gaming. They're looked down upon for wanting more respect than they deserve just because of their gender. If they're good, they'll prove it in game. There was a girl CoD team back in Black Ops 2 at UMG Atlanta 2013. They got destroyed by Complexity because the skill simply wasn't there. This section does not belong here. At all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prototypep3 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The ssection certainly belong in the article, but I do agree that it is worded very strongly and POV.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it's worded that badly, but the sourcing could definitely do with improvement. Sam Walton (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clear on this. In competitive gaming at large LAN events there is what is known as an open bracket. You sign your team up and you pay an entry fee and you play. The fact is when they are allowed in, they just simply don't place well for the most part. Is there an issue with girl gamers in the gaming industry itself? Maybe and that needs looking into but it doesn't apply to competitive. At the very least not to Call of Duty which is what I'm familiar with esports wise. Prototypep3 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the articles I've seen with regards to sexism in eSports don't seem like viable citations, as I have a hard time considering them to be unbiased.24.237.212.62 (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2015

Requested move 30 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Esports (lower case 's'). Only evidence provided strongly supports a move to Esports and even though Greg Kaye's ngram evidence was rebutted no evidence for any other form (including the present, soon-to-be-former title). Opposers were disregarded for not making any arguments relative to titling policy or guidelines. No prejudice against a new RM discussion about the merits of "eSports" (or another variation, such as "e-sport") as a title, provided strong evidence is presented alongside it. Jenks24 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Electronic sports → ESports – the term "electronic sports" is somewhat obsolete --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC) – Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Make sure we move it to ESports so it can be stylized eSports per WP:COMMONNAME. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this be discussed then? There's already a prior move discussion on the talk page. We can discuss stylization in a regular move request -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• @Prisencolinensinainciusol, Valoem, and 65.94.43.89: {permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support Electronic sports → Esports as per Ngrams GregKaye 08:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @GregKaye: I think you need to be a bit more careful with your Ngrams. The highest usage of "esports" was in 1841, whilst "Esports" had a peak in 1859; this would strongly suggest that the Ngrams are picking up quite a lot of words that do not mean "electronic sport", and that the results produced are largely useless. Number 57 11:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it "eSports", "esports", "Esports", "ESports", "e-Sports", "e-sports", "E-sports", "E-Sports", "e Sports", "e sports", "E Sports", "E sports", or some other stylization? And should it be plural or singular? (eSport/eSports) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Based on a quick Google search estimate, "eSports" seems to be the predominant form in English.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Dictionary.com have just added esports to their dictionary after scanning 15 billion words in reliable sources and have decided that "esports" is the predominant form. If the sole purpose of the move is so that it can have the vanity styling "eSports", that's the wrong reason to move it. - X201 (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @EoRdE6: We don't call email "Electronic mail" anymore do we? The fact that dictionary.com added eSports to their site is another factor in why this article should be moved to ESports. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this is an encyclopedia. No need for slang, both names seem equally common. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: What is it that you are considering "slang"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 May 2015

eSports isn't "slang" any more than email is. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Esports. It appears that this version, however it's written exactly (eSports, E-Sports, etc.) is now much more common than "electronic sports". I'm supporting the "Esports" spelling as it now appears in a dictionary (dictionary.com)[11].--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • How authoritative is dictionary.com exactly? I realize that they, as well as some major eSports outlets such as LolEsports and The Daily Dot use the "Esports" form, however it still seems like the majority of organizations use the eSports form.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a dictionary, and very widely used. The fact that it added an entry for "Esports" was pretty well covered in the media.[12][13][14]. Other than this I haven't seen any useful gauge as to which version is most common, Google Ngrams is no help as it ends at 2008, and any kind of search engine results return hits for all variations. I'd be open to changing my mind if some evidence is found.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like any of these dictionaries, have an esports entry, but that doesn't necessarily sway the debate either way.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the first dictionary to include the definition (and it includes it under esports.[15]--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

But if dictionary.com isn't very authoritative, it doesn't necessarily mean that esports is automatically the proper form of the word.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty authoritative. It's no Oxford English Dictionary, but it's a reliable, published dictionary. It's better than just taking a guess based on what turns up in search engine results or Google News (again, because those searches return hits for esports, eSports, and e-sports all together.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Esports per WP:COMMONNAME.--Staberinde (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose eSports stands for Electronic sports. eSports currently redirects to Electronic sports, there's no need for a move. --Anarchyte 07:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article title revisited (22 December 2015)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page renamed. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The consensus above was to move from electronic sports → the shorter eSports/esports. Per the closing statement, and for lack of consensus above, we need to discuss which shorter version to use.

Should this article use capital or lowercase "S" in its title? (eSports vs. esports)

---

• Capital S. This is the common usage in both a Google search and a video game reliable sources custom Google search. We should title accordingly.

eSports: Polygon, Eurogamer, IGN, Engadget, MCV, Gamasutra, GamesIndustry, Red Bull, Vice, theScore

esports: PC Gamer

inconsistent—mostly eSports: Kotaku, Game Informer

hyphen: NYT, The Verge

I'll also note that the article, as written, uses eSports consistently (rather than "esports"). czar 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Capital S for obvious reasons (i.e. common usage is eSports, not esports). --TL22 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, if anything the article should be moved or maybe split to competitive video gaming or professional video gaming per WP:NEOLOGISM. Theres also the fact that many of the events described in the history section weren't considered "eSports" at the time--Prisencolin (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NEOLOGISM does not apply in this case, because the term is not WP:MADEUP and is covered/used by multiple reliable sources. --TL22 (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

According to MOS:NEO: "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last." It seems like "esports" is still common enough in mainstream usage to justify being used as the article title of this page. You can see this in the fact that most mainstream reporting about esports events will introduce the subject as "professional video gaming, also known as esports" or something along those lines, for example this video from ABC.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• eSports as WP:COMMONNAME according to reliable sources. It's also more readable per WP:NC. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• eSports per above. Heartwarming (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• eSports per sources. Cavarrone 07:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Looks like there will be a consensus to move. If that happens, please make sure the many categories that currently use "esports" are listed at WP:CFDS for renaming. Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ESports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120528203921/http://www.gotfrag.com:80/portal/story/40273 to http://www.gotfrag.com/portal/story/40273/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "Local Prized Events"

This part of the article needs to be changed in some way to reflect either tournament payouts or needs to be removed. It does not help the article at all in some cases makes it weaker. eSports is known to be more "professional" and when you add in LAN events it makes it stay away from some of the well established leagues that are out there. Plus with its idea, there would not be any way to cite a crediable source to make this section fit into the rest of the article. RazerBandit (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

eSports vs. Esports

I reverted the undiscussed move of this page to Esports. As of the last requested move discussion (at #Requested move 30 April 2015), the consensus title was eSports. The article shouldn't be moved again without a new consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Move page to esports (or eSports)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The term electronic sports has fallen out of common usage and only has around 600,000 google hits, compared to 300 million for "esports". While I personality detest the term esports, there's no doubt that it's the commonly used term to refer to competitive gaming as a spectator sport, and is becoming increasingly accepted in mainstream media. There's still the question of whether it should be "esports" or "eSports" with a capital S. Thoughts?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

″Daily Dot has moved to the sane an sensible "esports". No longer will we need to see the horrible "ESports is a growing industry." type sentences. Since this is in print now, I am updating the page to reflect the modern style. Entropyfails (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)″ - Since this post we've all agreed to use esports instead of eSports. Olanatan (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. I'll go ahead and change the title to Esports.Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to give a proper opinion, but bear in mind that there have been discussions about this before which are worth reading, and note that you won't be able to make the page title read "esports" or "eSports"; the first E will have to be capitalised because of the way page naming works. Sam Walton (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be requesting "Esports" as the title, as "eSports" seems to be increasingly abandoned for "Esports", which isn't a violation of English language style. But in any case, using template:DISPLAYTITLE and some other methods you can have the title in non-plaintext.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you propose this as a standard move request? There's already a standard move request on this page from 2011 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This move can be performed with standard tools, WP:COMMONNAME basically requires it. By leaving the marketing name "eSports" as an article title, we could only document specific marketing approaches with that term, not the general category of "esports". This is exactly the same as when "eMail" was a big thing in the 90's. English normalizes marketing names into words and we should not let marketers influence the proper spelling of an english word because they like to press buttons on Wikipedia to make it seem like they are "serious" to investors. I have moved the page to "Esports" and changed all non-tiltes and non-marketing trademarks to the actual english word we are talking about, which is "esports". Entropyfails (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

We have had a reversion due to lack of "consensus" on this, even though we are talking about a dictionary term and the largest publications treat this topic as a common english word. Comment here if you feel differently but I feel the change should be implemented. If you care about this, we should come to conclusion soon. Entropyfails (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of a paragraph in economics section

I recently removed a paragraph in the Economics section of the article, which appeared as follows:

• Also with bigger names buying into eSports it generates a larger audience, and can bring more money and even professionalism to the scene. A three time NBA Champion, Rick Fox bought an existing League of Legends team to re-brand it as Echo Fox. Also another League of Legends team, NRG eSports has influence and sponsors from many different type of businesses including: Apple, IBM, NBC, MLB, and the NBA. With a solid backing of very profitable organizations, you can see why the global eSports revenue is estimated to reach $1.9 billion in 2018.

The person who originally added this information has disagreed (on my talk page) with my view that the information provided is uncited and unfitting for inclusion in the article, so I am providing a rationale for my deletion of this paragraph.

The main reason that I believe this paragraph should be removed is because its premise is uncited and can be considered original research (see WP:OR). The first sentence makes an uncited assertion that 'it' (presumably so-called 'bigger names' entering the business model of eSports) is linked to audience sizes and hence the economics of eSports. If the original editor can provide a citation from a verifiable source that specifically makes this connection, then this statement certainly deserves to be in the article to help rationalise the expansion of the eSports economy. As it is yet uncited, it should be considered improper editorial synthesis (see WP:SYNTHESIS). I also don't believe the part about professionalism belongs in this section of the article, since 'professionalism' is a vague description of certain qualities, discussion of which doesn't really belong in the economics section anyway, unless it can be specifically linked to economics by some source.

Secondly, the section on NRG eSports is factually incorrect, and has improperly interpreted the source information. According to the given citation, the ownership group of NRG eSports consists of people who have had prior experience working at successful companies such as Apple, IBM and sporting leagues such as the NBA. However, the written paragraph falsely implies that NRG eSports is actually actively endorsed/sponsored by these companies. In any case, the mere fact that the ownership has strong business experience is not a particularly good example of a driving factor in the exponential expansion of the eSports economy, as it is unlikely this specific factor is causative or necessarily contributive to this growth (again, citation would be needed for this specific link).

For similar reasons to above, the final sentence is inappropriate for the article, because it alludes to some 'solid backing' of profitable organisations (which I have shown is incorrectly cited), in addition to the phrase "you can see why...", which is not fitting with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

This leaves the statement of Rick Fox purchasing and rebranding a LoL team. This sentence was cited and is factually correct. However, in absence of any other information to tie this fact in with the (global or local) economy of eSports, it appears a stranded (albeit correct) statement, which does not belong in the economics section of the article on its lonesome.

I attempted reworking the paragraph such that it could justifiably exist in the economics section, but with no citations to prove a connection between the written statements and the section topic (economics), I leave it to the original editor to rewrite the paragraph with this information, should (s)he wish to re-insert this paragraph into the article. chu_pikachu (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this kind of analysis done on articles about those business deals, so there are sources to back up those claims and not just original research. i'll try to add them later--Prisencolin (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Requested move 5 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

---

ESports → Esports – Esports is a word defined in the dictionary http://www.dictionary.com/browse/esports. The largest news publications that cover esports spell this as a proper english word. ESPN http://espn.go.com/esports/ DailyDot http://www.dailydot.com/topics/esports/ Yahoo News https://esports.yahoo.com/ The largest esports league in the world, the LCS, spells it as an english word. http://www.lolesports.com/ and in articles http://www.lolesports.com/en_US/articles/g2-esports-wins-eu-lcs-finals-stunning-fourth-game-comeback Blizzard Entertainment runs the 3rd largest esports in the world and they spell it that way http://us.heroesofthestorm.com/esports/en/ The only time any of these publications use the spelling of the current page title is when they are talking about trademarked names with that spelling. I don't see any reason that this was moved in the first place and now, one year later, this looks even more foolish. This is a word and we should treat it as WP:COMMONNAME requires. We should not use personal marketing agendas to push forward something that will obviously change at some point in the future. If I attempted to change the spelling of the "email" wikipedia article to eMail (because that is what it used to be called), I would be laughed at. History will look back at your decisions to keep renaming esports to "eSports" as the same as when people kept trying to keep email as "eMail". While you are giving some future historian a great thesis on how "e words" always went from "studly caps" to normal english spelling, I think we can all agree that enough is enough. Just look at the starting sentence of the current article. "eSports can be defined as a form of sports ..." . Is this any way to start an english sentence? Would you take anyone seriously if they started a definition of a new word to you that way? Let's change it to the WP:COMMONNAME and end this debate forever. Entropyfails (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I actually do take a sentence that starts with an unusual capitalization scheme serious. Your thesis on how history will look at this page's edit history aside, your sources do speak for themselves. Judging from simply the links you posted here, I would support the moving of the article per commonname, though I might be missing some information and my opinion may change when other people chime in with differing sources. ~Mable (chat) 08:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources have been cherrypicked. A Google News search and the comments above this discussion prove that "eSports" is the preferred method of capitalization easily. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I picked the most reliable and biggest sources that cover esports professionally, and the largest organizations that host these tournaments. If 3rd rate news sites and minor tournament organizers want a poor camel case for marketing reasons, I'm not stopping them. Wikipedia is supposed to follow what the dictionary and other "sources of record" say about this. This page is being hijacked for marketing reasons. Entropyfails (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Shouldn't common name go with what's popular now, without thinking of what could happen in the future? (WP:CRYSTALBALL) And I feel that even if the page is moved to esports, somebody soon would bring up more valid arguments to bring it back to eSports. Either way, this needs to be the final discussion about this. If you want my opinion, then I disagree with renaming the article, because many sources still call it eSports, and we should just keep the status quo until it becomes universally esports. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The "many sources" are all 3rd rate publications and tournaments. All of the serious players, and the dictionary itself, have put this as a common english word. The mass of traffic comes to "esports" and will be confused by the term 'eSports', just as people were confused by the "email" vs "eMail" debate. I hope you change your position to support based your reflections on this point. Entropyfails (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. By saying "let's change it to the WP:COMMONNAME and end this debate forever", what you're really saying is "let's change it to what I want and end this debate forever." There's too much sources to list, but a quick Google search shows that "eSports" is the preferred method of capitalization used by the majority of sources and is thus the actual COMMONNAME. Additionally, most gaming websites prefer "eSports", as User:Czar's comment shows above. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of traffic flows through ESPN, DailyDot, RiotGames and Blizzard. If 700 sites are put up that have an incorrect spelling and get 10% of the total traffic but the 3 sites that actually care, have actual newpeople working on this issue and get 90% of the traffic have agreed with the dictionary, we should chose the 3 sites that have serious news reporters working on the case and chose what the dictionary has chosen. I'm writing this forcefully to make a point as is allowed with Wikipedia's contentious renaming policy. The industry has moved on and having Wikipedia being a backwards place that promotes marketing agendas instead of the consensus of serious people working in the industry is harmful to the project. Entropyfails (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I gave a thorough accounting of the spelling in reliable sources less than half a year ago and see no indication that the norm has changed. Might I remind that the NY Times still uses "e-sports"—most reliable sources still distinguish the "e" for reasons I would speculate as basic readability. There isn't some "Esports can be defined as a form of sports ..." endgame—language evolves with usage and time, and it's our job to reflect current usage. Satellizer's Google search shows that a wider range of reliable and non-niche sites use the CamelCase. For your other complaints, the iPod article is doing just fine. Above, you said, "We should not use personal marketing agendas to push forward something that will obviously change at some point in the future." You're right, we shouldn't, which is why we look to the spread of reliable sources instead of several, niche upstart publications. czar 12:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

iPod is a marketing name, not an english word. Dictionary.com says "Trademark, Digital Technology" as a caveat as to why this is allowed. The entire industry has moved in the last year to using the dictionary word. If one editor at NYT doesn't use it, but the editors of ESPN, Yahoo, Daily Dot have made informed and reasonable decisions, along with ALL of the largest tournament vendors, I think it makes the case that the entire english language and the industry has moved. I ask that you reconsider on your position please. Entropyfails (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Satellizer's argument, which largely boils down to WP:COMMONNAME. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I ask that you re-read WP:COMMONNAME and note where it says that we should avoid, "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." and I ask you do you see any case where this english word in the dictionary being spelled incorrectly is not that? In no way is "eSports" a neutral point of view for a common english word. It is specifically a marketing point of view. I hope that after a review of this you will change your opposition to Support based on reflection of these rules. Entropyfails (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. "eSports" seems to be a bit more prevalent, but not by as much as other people are making it seem. According to the first two pages of (de-personalized) google search results, "eSports" is more common for than "esports" in news results by a margin of 19-12. However in web results "esports" is more prevalent by a margin of 13-10. The currently title doesn't explicitly violate any naming rules, so it should be okay for now.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you have shown that the industry has been changing, and the tide is going away from marketing messaging into proper english usage, I would hope you would think it would be better to agree with this to take care of this issue now. Otherwise, we'll just have to do this in 6 months when 90% of the results are "esports" instead of 60%. And the largest, most reputable links returned from official news organizations spell it "esports". It seems like a good time to change. I would hope that you change you position to weak agreement due to this. Entropyfails (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Take a look at the discussion above. 15 sources were linked. 10 used eSports, only 1 used esports, 2 were inconsistent but mostly used eSports, and only 1 used it with hyphen (not really related to this debate). Dictionary entries don't necessarily take priority over what sources use when it comes to commonly used internet slangs like this. About the "eMail" thing, that's just WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (sorry). I also have to note the discussion above linked different types of examples of usages of eSports and esports, while you only linked others that used esports. Not enough evidence to make "esports" the WP:COMMONNAME, unfortunately. --TL22 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Broadly-announced and policy-grounded rename discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW keep, as a WP:DEADHORSE debate with less than a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. This perennial proposal has already received 10 opposes, many of them highly respected users at WP:VG and/or administrators. (non-admin closure). Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

---

ESports → ? – The "eSports" spelling is a commercial trademark[16] (whether other entities respect it much or not), so using it here is promotional, spammy, PoV-pushing, and undue favoritism toward a particular market entity (whether intentional or not, and I would surmise not). The present title is like moving Electronic cigarette to "eCig"; we would never do that, per MOS:CAPS. Below I've laid out 4 options that have a potentially defensible rationale (and others could be added). Previous RMs on this have been marred by: a) improper listing, b) low turnout, with WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ILIKEIT comments, c) move-warring, and d) policies, guidelines, and sources not cited or miscited (and often ignored, including by one or more closers, all non-admins but one). Consequently, this being about the 7th title-related discussion on this page in the last year or so, most of them incoherent, I am advertising this RM at WP:VPPOL, etc., to increase community input and obtain a long-term stable result.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Options with initial rationales

Option 1: E-sports – per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:CONCISE, MOS:CAPS, MOS:HYPHEN. Use the e- convention that's been used for such terms since they arose in the early 1990s (e-business, e-shopping, e-government, e-voting, e-cig[arette] etc.). It's rare for such a term to not use that exact form (even e-mail is valid and preferred by many, with the later, compressed email being advocated by mainly by journalistic sources who like to compress as much as possible). The desire to spell this "eSports" is a confusion of the e- convention with a series of Apple (eMac, iMac, iPod, iPhone) and other companies' trademarks (vSphere, eBay, etc.). Casual bloggers don't care, but the distinction actually matters in an encyclopedic context. The mid-word capitalization also is not countenanced by MOS:CAPS for a common noun. Hyphenation and capitalization are style matters, and COMMONNAME is not a style policy; it just tells us whether to use the long one or the short one (or a completely different one like pro gaming, etc.). Arguably used from frequently enough not to be confused with sports video games, etc. Google News hits: 2.27M [17], with surprisingly few false positives. The is undeniably the most common name in the media. Compare 964K for "eSports" [18], also with fewer false positives than expected, but a high incidence of "esports" and (in headlines) "Esports", not "eSports".

Option 2: Professional video-gaming – a WP:DESCRIPTDIS, for reasons of WP:PRECISION and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. "Pro[fessional] gaming" (confusable with professional gambling), and all variants of "e-sports" and "electronic sports" (confusable with both sports video games as well as online fantasy football and such) are ambiguous. Aids text consistency (e.g., refer to "professional video-gamers" or "pro gamers" for short after the lead; "electronic sportspersons", "e-sporters", etc., aren't really legit terms). Also WP:CONSISTENT with Professional wrestling, Professional bodybuilding, Professional diving, Professional boxing, etc.; all of these things are known for short as "pro whatever" but we don't move the article to the short version. (Note: Our article is Video game not "Videogame"; this becomes hyphenated in a compound gerund.) Google News hits (including variants): 8K [19]; some false positives, of course.

Option 3: Pro gaming – per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:CONCISE, and previous claims of being the WP:COMMONNAME (which if true could trump the argument against shortening professional in the title). Clearly, gaming-industry people refer to pro gaming and pro gamers; "electronic sports" is what someone in the marketing department uses in a press release to sound fancy, like referring to pool as "pocket billiards". At any rate, it also helps us be consistent in the text ("pro gamers", etc.), as in Option 3. Google News hits: 117K [20], but many false positives for products and other trademarks.

Option 4: Electronic sports – (the former name) per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and for WP:CONSISTENCY with Extreme sports (which is not at "Xsports", "X-sports", or "xSports") and other sports articles (Cue sports, Winter sport, List of water sports, etc., etc.), and with articles like Electronic markets, Electronic art, Electronic bill payment, Electronic music, etc., etc. Not just marketers use this term, gaming writers and mainstream journalists do too (with e-sports, styled various ways, as an abbreviated, shorthand form; WP article titles are not news headlines and need not abbreviate). Google News hits: 7K [21], some false positives (mostly in top pages), mainly due to Electronic Sports League.

Option 5: other – Please specify, with a policy- and/or source-based rationale.

And of course the oppose change option, which will also need a policy- and/or source-based rationale for "eSports". Google News hits: 978K [22], few false positives, but many not styled this way but as "esports".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments on renaming

• As nominator, I prefer them in top-to-bottom order, for reasons apparent from the material already given.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• You start out with an improper listing, a dubious analogy and what seems like a false or incomplete premise, none of which bode well. Esports as the title of an article about, err, electronic sports is more like an entity holding a trade mark on "electronic cigarette", than like the use of "eCig" for an article. That a trademark is held on the name is no disbarrment from its use as an article title. ("Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. - WP:COMMONNAME). That ESport is not featured as an option in your list is either a very regrettable oversight or some sort of pre-emptive assertion on your part that your shaky premise has been accepted. It has not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Esports.us being a domain does not represent a registered trademark, see this link among with many other resources. A search of USPTO shows that all trademark registrations for "ESPORTS" are abandoned or cancelled. I believe the entire initial reasoning for this move request needs re-evaluated. -- ferret (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on rationale given. Who cares if someone might also use the name? They don't actually own it. If anything, I'd think it'd be the reverse complaint - that their particular brand is smothered by the generic use of the term, which far outweighs any one company. But so it goes. This website is so insignificant as to not even merit mention in the hatnote it seems. I can't see what the problem is, unless you think that Apple should be moved to Apple (fruit) because it's somehow advertising the company. SnowFire (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, keep at eSports Just because a term may be trademarked doesn't mean that it cannot become a common word or name - the company has to work to prevent this from becoming a generic mark (see what Google has done to prevent this for Google (verb) and Adobe's failed attempt to prevent Photoshopping from becoming generic. And I've not seen anything to show that whatever company holds this trademark (if it is held, the USPTO gives no Live hits) try to stop it from being used to describe the field in general. Even if they were, "eSports" is the way often used across the board to describe the field. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Per my comment above about this site not representing a trademark to begin with (If anything, their trademark would be esports.us in its entirety), along with the reasoning from SnowFire and Masem. -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – "e-sports" may look nice but has very little mainstream use vs "esports". I'm neutral on the camel-casing, leaning towards "esports" but that's a personal opinion. All other alternatives are nice descriptive names but do not reflect common usage. — JFG ^talk 20:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, keep at eSports. No other option comes close to falling in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support renaming to professional video gaming. Copying text from a previous naming discussion: ::::According to MOS:NEO: "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last." It seems like "esports" is still common enough in mainstream usage to justify being used as the article title of this page. You can see this in the fact that most mainstream reporting about esports events will introduce the subject as "professional video gaming, also known as esports" or something along those lines, for example this video from ABC--Prisencolin (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This discussion happens to coincide with a current discussion on article notability going on at WP:VPP and elsewhere, and having two similar discussions might get hard to deal with. Can I request that this discussion be held off until the other resolves?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This keeps being brought up every few months, and consensus has been to keep it at eSports. What's gonna to change this time? Pro gaming and such should just be a redirect to eSports, as nearly every source doesn't call it that unless explaining what eSports even is to the uninformed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose/WP:SNOW close per comments in the section below (pending rebuttal), WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:CONSENSUS that happened on this literally two months ago. The website appears to have adopted the common name, and not the other way around. Apparently American Chair owns chair.com, and that has absolutely nothing to do with Chair. This is an improper RM that should have been denied in the first place given the recent consensus. TimothyJosephWood 00:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I consider this RfC borderline disruptive. Instead of engaging any editors with new evidence and thoughts on whether it would be worth taking to RfC, we're back at it again. Conveniently missing from the above analysis and the canvassing at WT:VG is my source-by-source eval earlier on this talk page (21:46, 22 December 2015), which was among the core rationale (valid, I might add) to the previous RMs, as it explains how sources referred to the topic. I see no major changes in source preferences since that time. eSports is the common name used in our reliable sources—and that's the core article titling policy (which, mind you, others did accurately cite prior to this RfC). And look, "email" might not be good enough for the NYT, but I'm also glad we don't share their same style guide. AP is much closer to common usage without the hyphen. czar 07:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• A bit of a pile on, but oppose. "Esports" is the version that's in Dictionary.com and, judging by the last three formal discussions, the majority of reliable sources. The debate over which form of that spelling - "esports", "eSports", "e-sports", etc., is the only pressing question to my mind, though the last two discussions seem to have settled that question fairly decisively.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The article has only been moved three times in the last year:

1. From Esports to ESports 5 January after clear consensus at #Article title revisited (22 December 2015)
2. From ESports to Esports 26 April without discussion, by a user with 23 edits at the time.
3. Back to ESports 14 hours later.

#Requested move 5 May 2016 had clear consensus against a move from ESports to Esports. So we already have a stable name with clear consensus, both in earlier discussions and this one. I also support ESports (stylized eSports) since it appears to be the most common name. The nominator has presented no evidence the name is trademarked, apart from existence of a website called eSports.US. Lots of websites are named after common words. That means nothing. ".US" is included everywhere they write their name so it isn't even a full match. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion on renaming

The only result I get at the US copyright office through title search is for eSports Partners, Inc. eCommerce Software Commerce 4.0. registered in 2008, which appears per Bloomberg to be a merchandiser, whose website is http://www.esportspartners.com/, which appears to be for sale. Keyword search yields four results, none of which seems to be connected to esports.us. Name search yield three of the same results.

So...this website doesn't appear to own the copyright to the term, at least in the US. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems they only own the copyright to their webpage content. TimothyJosephWood 00:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright and trademark are completely unrelated. (When you write a book, it's copyrighted, unless you declare it in the public domain; other people can't make and distribute copies of it without permission. Trademark is when you use a trade name - business name, product name, marketing slogan, etc. - and can restrain others in the same market segment from using the same name (e.g., you won't be able to start a burger restaurant called McDonald's without getting sued); and there are variants, like service marks for services rather than products, and registered trademarks which have much more protection that unregistered, asserted ones). Anyway, the legality of the matter isn't the issue for WP; rather, it's that by using that weird-styled, trademark-looking "eSports" spelling instead of the generic "e-sports" style preferred by RS (or some other name used by them, like "electronic sports" or "pro gaming", etc.), we're effectively giving free advertising and undue attention to a specific company who use that styled variant, a bit like having an article on online photosharing as a concept, but calling the article "Flickr". It's not the main RM argument anyway, which is COMMONNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As I was, wrong search, rightly corrected. USPTO search for trademark yields 44 records, so it's not entirely clear why this organization is important relative to the rest of them. It seems still, that this is the common name and has therefore been trademarked in a variety of ways by a variety of companies. Incidentally, chair has apparently been a part of 31,000 trakemarks, but as alluded to above, has little relevance as to whether Chair is promotional. TimothyJosephWood

• SMcCandlish, I don't have much of an opinion here, I just wanna say, that's one hell of an RfC! Also, I really like agreeing with you, so whatever you say is good with me. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  Coolio; in this case, I don't even care much which version we end up with, just not the current name. The issues to me are a) the spamminess and unencyclopedicness of the current name, and b) the amount of "let's change the name again randomly just between us 3 editors this week" instability that's been going on for a year. This is an increasingly prominent topic (somehow!), so it's highly undesirable that it keep being renamed back and forth all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to this being closed for WP:SNOW? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I walk among the fires of Hell, delighted with the enjoyments of Genius; which to Snowballs look like torment and insanity. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification log

• I have initially notified WP:Village pump (policy), WT:Manual of Style, WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters, WT:Article titles, and of course WT:WikiProject Video games.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Leading Image

Is there a wizard here somewhere that could whip up a compilation pic for the lead? I'm not sure that there is a strong objective argument that could be made for authoritatively including one game over any other (of the big ones) as the lead image. But it seems reasonable to include similar pictures from top competitions in the top five or so games, combined as one image, and then a caption: "From top to bottom (left to right or whatever), Tournament 1 Game 1, Tournament 2 Game 2..."

I'm not sure what the range of images we have to choose from currently. This would probably be a good place to make suggestions based on what's available on Commons.

Pinging @Dissident93: as they seem to be currently active here. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what type of images would be included though. Would they be semi-unique, or just a mix of the ones already in the article? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons had a whole category of images from tournaments. Really just a matter of picking them out. We may need help from someone commons savvy though if a compilation would mix multiple licenses. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Women in eSports

This section is missing statistics except for viewers/fans, are there any available? I think the Inclusion of gender ratios in actual tournaments would be very beneficial. --Laber□^T 16:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is this even reported on? If not, then it isn't notable enough for inclusion here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is, look at all the references in the corresponding section. --91.1.63.144 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

GA

@DarthBotto and Dissident93: With some improvements to the 'criticism' section and perhaps a bit of trimming down, do you believe this article would be ready for GA? It seems long overdue. Also, I believe The International 2016 is already good to go for GA, so I nominated it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

The link of reference 84 is broken ( David Schmidt (16 July 2012). "NASL S3 Finals push SC2 earnings over $5m". ESFI World. Retrieved 22 August 2012.)

It should be replaced by a more recent and pertinent link, like this one : http://www.betminded.com/biggest-esports-jackpots-27635.html

Leguellec (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The link has been archived and not replaced. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)