Talk:Hogwarts Legacy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Regarding recent deletions of the reception section

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As I've listed above controversy surrounding a game within the context of it's public reception both before and after launch is standard practice. It's our responsibility to remove bias and edit in good faith, opinions on the controversy do not factor into it's relevance. As you can see from my past edits I have been updating not just regarding reception but with information from the game trailer and sourcing information previously unsourced. The section we are discussing is not the plot of the game, though the plot overview has been revealed, but the reception it has received. Breaking down into two matters of controversy at this time. This area will be expanded significantly after game release with reviews and ratings but currently the only availible information is what is presented. The first issue of Troy Leavitt is widely reported and sourced. Only some sources are shown within this article as to not over source the article. https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/5/22315226/hogwarts-legacy-leavitt-resigns-developer-avalanche-youtube-gamergate https://www.ign.com/articles/hogwarts-legacy-lead-designer-quits-following-youtube-controversy https://kotaku.com/hogwarts-legacy-lead-designer-used-to-run-anti-social-j-1846316222 https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/03/05/hogwarts-legacy-harry-potter-video-game-troy-leavitt-quits-youtube-gamergate/ https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-03-05-hogwarts-legacy-designer-quits-avalanche-following-public-backlash https://www.gamingbible.co.uk/news/games-hogwarts-legacy-lead-designer-steps-down-20210305 https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/15/former-hogwarts-legacy-developer-says-he-wasnt-pressured-into-leaving-14247011/ https://nichegamer.com/former-hogwarts-legacy-senior-producer-troy-leavitt-retired-to-help-family-wb-games-supportive-biased-articles-played-no-part/ The second of antisemitism, as the first, has been widely reported on as a matter of interest. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2022/01/05/the-harry-potter-anti-semitism-controversy-explained/?sh=2580969d6776 https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nmzk/hogwarts-legacy-imagines-a-harry-potter-without-jk-rowling https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/hogwarts-legacy-goblins-antisemitism/ https://www.thegamer.com/hogwarts-legacy-harry-potter-plot-anti-semitic-goblins-villains/ https://gamerant.com/hogwarts-legacy-villain-choice-goblin-controversy-explained/ https://www.comicsands.com/harry-potter-game-goblins-villains-2657020677.html https://thefilibusterblog.com/poklonniki-kritikuyut-nasledie-hogvartsa-obvinyayut-sozdatelej-v-antisemitizme/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/community-reacts-j-k-rowling-hogwarts-legacy-s-problematic-representations https://www.gamingdeputy.com/hogwarts-legacy-accused-of-anti-semitism/ https://heraldoffashion.com/hogwarts-legacy-is-controversial-anti-semitism-slavery-etc/ https://www.inputmag.com/gaming/new-harry-potter-game-faces-new-controversy-but-not-over-jk-rowling Both issues have shared as much press and interest at this stage as the game trailer release. A dozen more sources could be added to the list easily. That is the facts being presented within the article section. This reception is not a speculative event, a prediction or a rumour about possible reactions but a past and ongoing notable response. Even if the entire plot of the game were to be changed to remove the goblin race entirely at this stage the criticism and controversy in direct relation tot his game will have still occurred and still hold relevance to the critical reception of the game before release. Mr. Rapture I'd invite your input as noted on your page as you clearly feel passionately about this subject. - DavefaceFMS (t) 20:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC) For anyone planning to add content to the controvery session, please focus on the controversy surrounding the game, not the controversies surrounding the franchise, the use of goblins in the franchise, or JK Rowling herself. OceanHok (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC) I completely support having a controversy section, especially given the widespread media coverage of the criticism. That said, I think we should remove the line "the European origins of goblins originating from 'the ghosts of dead Jews'". The JSTOR source given for this line doesn't support the claim: the article goes into a lot of detail desccribing this (accessible via the Wikipedia Library). The Jewish ghosts are Cornwall specific folklore related to mining spirits they called 'Tommyknockers', not general European folklore surrounding goblins – there is nothing I could find that links anti-semitism and goblins before the Harry Potter books. None of the news articles linked to above mention any folklore links to goblins as Jewish ghosts, so this line and use of this source seem very misleading – these claims of a folklore origin of goblin anti-semitism don't seem to be part of the controversy as far as I can tell, and come across as WP:SYNTHesis (or WP:OR). I think it's best to stick to the media coverage of the incident: there's more than enough there to expand this section to cover all aspects of the controversy without this. ‑‑YodinT 12:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) @Rsj1992: see my comment above: the line about the "European origins of goblins" being "the ghosts of dead Jews" isn't supported by the source provided, and isn't covered anywhere in media coverage of the controversy. Please explain why you reverted my removal of the line, and provide sources that support the statement if you want to keep it in the article. ‑‑YodinT 18:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

List the differences between PS4 and PS5 versions

• PS5 is USD $10 more
• [Request to fill out some more details here]

Asherkobin (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff common rooms

The Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff common rooms aren’t “previously unseen”. Detailed drawings of them exist on Pottermore. Lipglosschaos (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Music

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://www.ign.com/articles/jon-stewart-accuses-jk-rowling-of-antisemitism-over-harry-potters-goblins Hi @DavefaceFMS:, concerning your reinstatement, developer updates on YouTube are WP:PRIMARY sources. We need independent coverage. I've tagged it with {{bcn}}. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC) While the information was provided by Alan Tew the game Director and Boston Madsen, Senior artist for the studio it was verified. The product was shown, in video form to over a million viewers over the past three days. All that has been given in the article is statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source as linked in the original reference. XpectoGo by way of interviewing the primary sources and then publishing his own thoughts on his own channel. They are a reputable sources having reported on video game content over the past two decades. So his own channel may be best as a secondary reference point. - DavefaceFMS 16:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Hi @DavefaceFMS:, my apologies! I didn't realise the YouTube video was coverage by GameSpot, which is of course very much a reliable source independent of the developer. I've removed the bcn tag. Thanks for your work and happy editing! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Reception

The third paragraph does not really work for me (at least the first two sentences). The second source has nothing to do with Legacy but only with J.K.Rowlings views ([1]). The Forbes source is by a contributor and not by its staff, therefore i am not sure if it qualifies for wikipedia ([2]). Lastly, I am not sure about that Mary Sue page. Looks like a fan page, but maybe someone else can verify this ([3]). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see there's already a discussion going on. Dionysos1993 removed them recently. It's this part:

Many have called for a boycott of the game because of J. K. Rowling's transphobia and online behavior. Rowling has criticized those boycotting the game.

The first statement, "many have called for a boycott" is referenced by "The Hogwarts Legacy Controversy, Explained" by The Mary Sue. This bit says "In the two years since, she’s become increasingly vocal about her hatred for trans people (in particular, trans women), and millions of Potter fans have called for a total boycott of any official products that could put more money in her pocket." That's extrapolating, 'fans call for total boycott' and 'Hogwarts Legacy is part of the IP they want to see boycotted'. At the end of the article though, "So, the short answer to whether you should ignore the Hogwarts Legacy controversy and buy the game anyway is: No." - which is a call to boycott the game. The Mary Sue looks like a legit website; WP:VG/RS list it as a "situational source". So I'd change the phrasing, "some have called for..." or "some fans of Harry Potter have called for..." The Mary Sue also goes into Rowling's opinions on transpeople and the anti-Semitic tropes as well, so the sources can definitely be used to support both claims.

The second part, "(...) of the game because of J. K. Rowling's transphobia and online behavior" is referenced by "A Complete Breakdown of the J.K. Rowling Transgender-Comments Controversy". But there's nothing at all about Hogwarts Legacy in the piece, which is rather long. The only thing that comes close, is the news that there's a TV series in development, with tweets of people reacting negatively ("JK Rowling will profit from any and all new Harry Potter-related media. If you spend money consuming that media, you are giving JK Rowling money. That's it. That's the tweet."). That's WP:SYNTH to keep that in, as Glamour doesn't report on Hogwarts Legacy but on the controversy at large.

The last line, "Rowling has criticized those boycotting the game" is referenced by "JK Rowling Mocks Trans Gamer For ‘Hogwarts Legacy’ Comments". In the Forbes piece, Rowling takes aim at a gamer that said "I will not begrudge anyone their love of past works or thing they already own that they take comfort in. I own the first 9 movies and all 7 books myself. But any support of something like Hogwarts Legacy is harmful". 1) they didn't state that they would boycott the game (we can assume, but that's our interpretation) and 2) Rowling went after that person, not after more people. So can we use this bit? I think we need to rephrase it again. Not because of this twitter conflict, but because the developer and publisher are trying to distance themselves from Rowling. And more importantly, the last line is "But those same fans have to reckon with Rowling who is now actively weighing into the “should you buy/play Hogwarts Legacy?” debate, and making a pretty good case that maybe no, you shouldn’t" is another call to boycott the game though.

I suggest the following:

Due to Rowling's statements on transpeople, some fans of Harry Potter have called for a boycott of the intellectual property in the past. The Mary Sue and Forbes have called for a boycott of Hogwarts Legacy.

Leaving out the Glamour piece, mentioning the call for a boycott by fans and specifically stating that The Mary Sue and Forbes have called for a boycott on Hogwarts Legacy. Thoughts? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I would propably do a minor change to this:

Due to Rowling's political views on transgender rights, some fans of Harry Potter have called for a boycott of the intellectual property in the past. The Mary Sue and Forbes have called for a boycott of Hogwarts Legacy.

This would align with Rowlings other page about her views. One last thing: I assume that being a contributor on Forbes is accepted on Wikipedia? I do not know exactly how it is treated at Forbes, but on other pages the contributors are not really reliable (comparable to user reviews on Metacritic or RT, for example). If the Forbes source is acceptable, I would agree on keeping this as well, then. Dionysos1993 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually no, I read the Forbes source again word by word and it does not call for a boycott at all. It only reflects the views of one random twitter user (I could not find anything with substance about the person Jessie Earl except some writing) and does not add anything new. Furthermore, Forbes states that the articles of senior contributors are "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" (visible once you read the note next to senior contributors on the article), so it is the viewpoint of one single person and not Forbes itself. I would exclude the Forbes source completely and keep it like this:

Due to Rowling's political views on transgender rights, some fans of Harry Potter have called for a boycott of the intellectual property in the past. In December 2022, The Mary Sue called for a boycott of Hogwarts Legacy, amid ongoing controversies regarding Rowling's views and accusations of perpetuating antisemitic tropes.

Thoughts? Dionysos1993 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What does Forbes mean with 'contributor'? Tassi's page states "I’ve been writing about video games, television and movies for Forbes for over 10 years, and you may have seen my reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic" and when I look up "tassi" in the search bar, I get 12,325 results. Tassi also has an OpenCritic page. Tassi is also used extensively as a reliable source on other articles on Wikipedia. Looks like to me they're the real deal and not some rando who submitted a piece. The Forbes piece, before the update, ends with "Hogwarts Legacy is due out on February 10, 2023, after a number of delays, and at least on the surface, it really does look like a Harry Potter fan’s dream. But those same fans have to reckon with Rowling who is now actively weighing into the “should you buy/play Hogwarts Legacy?” debate, and making a pretty good case that maybe no, you shouldn’t." We can rephrase that "Paul Tassi of Forbes stated that "maybe people shouldn't buy Hogwarts Legacy due to the controversy". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. In that case, if it already is used extensively here, I dont mind. Seems like it is seen as citable. My final thoughts on using the sources:

Due to Rowling's political views on transgender rights, some fans of Harry Potter have called for a boycott of the intellectual property in the past. In December 2022, The Mary Sue called for a boycott of Hogwarts Legacy, amid ongoing controversies regarding Rowling's views and accusations of perpetuating antisemitic tropes. Paul Tassi of Forbes further stated that "maybe people shouldn't buy Hogwarts Legacy due to the controversy".

Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I readded the discussed sources to the article and shortened it a little. In case no one disagrees, this should be done for now. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"and online behaviour" - NPOV issue aside, this was simply unacceptable language for an encyclopaedia such as this. This isn't Tumblr, we're not interested in first-person, off-the-cuff critiques of JKR or the controversy surrounding a video game. Thank you for resolving this.--SinoDevonian (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jabota gisum, please join the discussion here. I am of the opinion that Tassi can be used as a source. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Reposting this from my talk page: I suggest you have a look at the in-depth discussions linked at WP:FORBESCON (doing so should also answer your question, "What does Forbes mean with 'contributor'?"); the problem is the lack of editorial oversight within the Forbes contributor system, and it doesn't matter if the contributor has been doing it prolifically or for a long time. Having an Opencritic page doesn't make one a reliable source as WP:RSP states on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes that the reviewers that they track "are not automatically reliable for their reviews". Also, I'm pretty sure "established subject matter expert" only refers to Roger Ebert-level figures and not people who are essentially bloggers posting their stuff under a high-profile domain name with zero editorial oversight. (Although I'm willing to admit that WP:SPS is frustratingly vague on this.) I'm sure there are less iffy sources out there discussing this controversy, and this one dude's opinions and hunches being removed isn't going to destroy the article. Jabota gisum (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree on your take. I had my suspicions on the Forbes sources anyways and this makes sense. The way it is written now should be sufficient. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm afraid I still haven't got the time to properly go into sources and discussion. I've got three month old baby sleeping on my chest as I'm typing this. Sorry for the delay! Also, sorry, forgot the reflist talk template. Happy editing everybody! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Cast and characters

With the majority of the cast and characters now announced (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230111005322/en/Warner-Bros.-Games-and-Avalanche-Software-Reveal-Voice-Over-Talent-for-Hogwarts-Legacy), it would be good to update the Plot section with a Characters paragraph. Would do so, but article page is still semi-protected.Bo27abc (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bo27abc, a belated welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've registered quite some time ago, but haven't been very active. Better start editing, with some edits your name you could've done it yourself.

To answer your question, I refer you to WP:VGSCOPE point No. 11, cast lists: "Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices, likenesses or motion capture acting performances for video game characters is not appropriate. If mention of an actor has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, typically the actor will be mentioned in the prose of the development section."

Since the cast list has just been announced, I'd say that it's too soon to mention it specifically. A mention in the development section would be a good idea though. If you didn't see my previous reply, I'm cradling a three month old while typing this on my phone, so actively contributing to the article is not feasible for me right now. Thanks, and happy editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

Recommending addition of a "voice cast" subsection as voice actors for the game have recently started to be revealed. Telstar500 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

My bad, hadn't seen the talk section on here already Telstar500 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

The page says that the character Amit Thakkar is played by Asif Ali. Whilst this is the name of the actor playing the character, a link is provided to a South Indian actor of the same name's Wikipedia page.

This is not the correct Asif Ali. The Asif Ali playing the character instead refers to a western actor who has appeared in roles such as on wandavision etc, and does not have a Wikipedia page (as far as I am aware). 92.238.61.70 (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done, removed link. Cannolis (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Composer

Score is written by Chuck E. Myers via Big Idea Misuc Productions (can bee seen in the credits). Alexander Horowitz is one of the outside AUDIO contractors. 188.234.17.237 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

British English vs American English

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was use British English. Treetoes023 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Early today the user Seasider53 and I had a disagreement about which English variety this article should use, British English or American English. I am now here to seek a consensus for the English variety used in this article.

• Argument for British English – Hogwarts Legacy takes place in the United Kingdom and in the game it exclusively uses British English without the option to change it to a different English variety no matter where you live. The Harry Potter task force style guidelines for spelling also states that articles within the scope of the Harry Potter task force should use British English.

• Argument for American English – The developers of Hogwarts Legacy are American, therefore making it an American-made game.

Pinging recent contributors and relevant users. (Wikibenboy94—Landingdude13—Aerkdude—Seasider53—Drevolt—Prinsgezinde—Popcornfud—Sceptre—David Fuchs) — Treetoes023 (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Would definitely go with BrEng; the ties to the UK are much stronger (set in Britain, HP is as British as roast beef or Monty Python) than AmEng. Sceptre (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. My concern is that the British-English template was added while the article is written entirely in month-first, and with American spellings. Seasider53 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I’d lean slightly towards BrEng for a HP-adjacent article, but I think there’s a decent argument to be made for either and I don’t think the stakes are terribly high in this case. Drevolt (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Although ties to both can indeed be claimed, I would say that the story taking place in Britain and the characters being British establishes a stronger link. I also see a likely conflict or at least confusion arising from MOS:CONSISTENT if we chose American English: what if someone includes a link to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (or Sorcerer's?), or when a word is used somewhere in the article that is different in the game and confuses players? So I see some strong advantages of applying British English. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2023 (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.

dmy vs mdy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was use dmy dates. Treetoes023 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

---

It seems that most people are leaning towards British English over American English, so should we also change the date format from mdy to dmy?

• Argument for dmy dates – Hogwarts Legacy takes place in the United Kingdom and in the game it exclusively uses dmy dates without the option to change it to a different date format no matter where you live. Also, this article originally used day dates before it was changed to mdy dates.

• Argument for mdy dates – Hogwarts Legacy is an American-made game.

Pinging relevant users. (Seasider53—Drevolt—Prinsgezinde—Sceptre) — Treetoes023 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSDATE this isn't really a point that should be inconsistent; if an article is in BrEng it should use DMY formatting as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, doesn't MOS:DATETIES pretty much guarantee they coincide in this case? Let's just stick to the outcome of the above discussion. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

DMY dates on this article are fine by me! Drevolt (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2023 (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.

Controversy

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If discussion is needed on the point of controversy as a valid section within this article, Video Games which also have these sections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2077#Technical_issues_and_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Fury#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Battlefront_II_(2017_video_game)#Microtransactions_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Go#Criticism_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwatch_(video_game)#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Island#Controversy The controversial reception is sourced, from multiple reputable sources and could easily be sourced by dozens more. No matter someone's opinion on the topic or on if Wikipedia should detail critical reception, everything posted in this section at this time is factually accurate information. - DavefaceFMS (t) 21:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC) I mean I think the first one has to do with a person rather than the game as a whole, although the second point is actually notable. Although maybe the issue is that an entire section does not need to be dedicated to controversies. 2603:7000:E43F:9867:11DA:9461:A44D:C204 (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC) The person in question was the Lead designer of the game for the majority of it's production. Someone in a senior leadership role for the majority of game production sharing these kinds of views which may have influenced design choices is notable in my eyes. It was certinly noteworthy enough for multiple large news outlets focused on the gaming industry to make articles on. For your second point Reception may be a better heading. Once the game is released the section regarding reception will be vastly expanded as always so making this a sub heading in advance of that reception makes sense to me. I'm hopeful WB or Avalanche will make more public statements on both so the information can be more balanced. - DavefaceFMS (t) 09:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Why isn't written that Jon Stewart, who caused the controversy of the Goblins, specified few later that he was just joking and he didn't actually expect people to really take him seriously and doesn't want Harry Potter to be censored for this?151.18.172.46 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Could you come up with reliable sources that back up your claim? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC) I'd be more interested in hearing how the Daily Dot or Vice can be considered reliable sources when citing controversial subject matter. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources is rather clear on the matter with regards to the former, and the latter, Vice is just simply borderline unreliable. This article is a mess, especially the reception section and should be rewritten entirely. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Are these enough? https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/jon-stewart-clarifies-comments-made-depiction-goblins-harry-potter-rcna11013 https://news.sky.com/story/jon-stewart-insists-i-do-not-think-jk-rowling-is-antisemitic-following-harry-potter-comments-12509903 https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/movies/jon-stewart-clarifies-harry-potter-190828932.html https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/jon-stewart-says-he-did-not-accuse-jk-rowling-of-antisemitism-3515860?amp= https://variety.com/2022/film/news/jon-stewart-clarifies-jk-rowling-antisemitism-1235147292/ 151.38.83.215 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Thanks! I haven't got the time today to look at the sources, I'll try to go over them tomorrow. I've sent you a welcome message, if you like to contribute, you can also create an account and be part of the Wikipedia community. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC) ☺😊151.18.188.146 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC) I was about to close this but saw that it still has an unfinished task. With Variety already provided as a source I would add in IGN as well. Probably just one or two additional sentences though. I may be able to look into it on the weekend. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Teach about the controversy!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS The controversy section is broadly covered now, so we can close this topic. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

WIRED Review in Reviews Template

WIRED's 1/10 score for a generally well-received game is an outlier, yes, but Template:Video game reviews explicitly states that 'some games may divide opinion and there may be no true consensus ... consider including further reviews expressing these "outlier" opinions,' and this outlier opinion is part of the notable controversy already included in the Reception section. The review — and it is a review, regardless of whether or not we like it — should be fit for inclusion, so long as we avoid giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Besides, including it in the chart better summarizes the game's reception. trajing (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Gotta agree with Wikibenboy94 here. WIRED's description of a 1/10 score is "A complete failure in every way", but the opening line calls it "mid at best". They are free to not follow their own guidelines and give it an 1/10 anyway, but to feature its score so prominently without the necessary context is probably not a good idea. It's pretty clear that the score is symbolic. The trans author does point out some criticisms she has of the game, but most of the review discusses her experiences and disillusionment with Harry Potter in general due to, in large part, J.K. Rowling's views. That's not to say the review doesn't deserve to be mentioned at all of course (and I assume the score is featured on score aggregation websites anyway). Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it not the case however there are more positive reviews that also spend a lot of time distancing/discussing Rowling and her views and those that give a score that stands in contrast to the content of the review? An example I'd go for is the IGN review by Travis Northup that describes the game's technical performance as what I'd say was atrocious but still gave it a 9/10:

That immersion can occasionally be broken by Legacy’s dicey performance, though, which suffered from just about every issue that makes IGN’s performance review team cry during my time playing on PlayStation 5. Those greatest hits include framerate inconsistency, weird issues where the lighting switches from too dark to too bright, aggressive pop-in while moving around the map quickly, and more. There’s even this weird thing where every door in Hogwarts has a brief loading screen. It’s understandable since there’s so much packed into this beast of an adventure, but the PS5’s promises of the death of loading screens haven’t quite been lived up to here as it’s clearly struggling to keep up with the spellcraft and whimsy of the Wizarding World.

Beyond the performance issues, Legacy is also a fairly glitchy adventure in general. You’ll probably fall through the map a time or two, or see a character or object get caught in the environment, or maybe even have the person you’re talking to just up and walk away from you in the middle of a conversation, leaving you to speak with the empty spot they were standing in for about two minutes. I didn’t encounter anything game-breaking or so common that you’ll likely want to curse its name, but things like this do happen enough to be an irritation. [4]

Think the best solution might be to just describe that a common expressed aspect of many reviews seems to be considering the "feel" of the IP involved towards the final score and also tend to carry commentary on the views of JK Rowling as that does seem common. Apache287 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that this is about the scores in the review table, so there is no way to elaborate on them. We can only show the number. As for your mention of the IGN review: performance issues are unfortunately common. Many at this point consider (light) performance issues/glitches in a game that just released to be a nuisance but not something that takes away too much from the game, and most trust that they will be patched in time. I agree that there's something to be said about many modern games being released in a minimum viable product kind of way but that's another discussion entirely. Key is that it's not odd to see a game with such issues nevertheless get very highly reviewed (sometimes even getting a perfect score). Anyhow, I don't think we need to discuss the legitimacy of review scores in general. My point was that WIRED's review score was intended to be less of a review score and more of a statement. A statement that only makes sense in context. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Jabota gisum, please contribute. I won't revert you because I don't think that's a good way to start a discussion, but I do think this warrants consensus. I myself don't believe WP:VGAGG applies here. You omitted from your edit summary the part that says "This division of opinion may already have been captured following the guidelines above", and the division is already quite visible in the other scores when you compare them with the meta-scores (if anything, the featured review scores are significantly lower). Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I think if Hogwarts Legacy is considered a "divisive" game, then this has only resulted from the external factors overshadowing its release (i.e. Rowling), rather than from anything in its overall design, which evidently (while Rowling has warranted a mention in many reviews) has not been a major factor in terms of how publications and reviewers are scoring the game. As Prinsgezinde has reiterated, Wired's review largely revolves around the writer's past experiences with Harry Potter and her animosity to Rowling, the opposition to whom is outlined plenty in the Controversy section; it is because it's outlined there we don't necessarily need it also reflected in the table. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I figured that the review's perceived shortcomings were irrelevant (game publications regularly publish stupid shit which gets posted on Wikipedia without any niggling) and that the review was much more of an outlier in terms of its scoring than the other unenthusiastic reviews on the table (which are merely middling or mediocre rather than outright negative), and just because it deviated strongly from the consensus was not a valid reason for omitting it. These were the reasons for its initial removal, but I am fine with treating the review as more of a statement; it could be mentioned in the controversy section instead of the review table, and if it gets removed entirely I won't litigate the matter any further. Jabota gisum (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning and agree that its deviation from the mainstream score range should be mentioned. I removed it from the table but added it to the controversy section with an explanation, as you suggested (and which I agree with). I was contemplating mentioning that the author is trans since it features quite prominently in her review, but I don't know what precedent that's going to set so I decided to err on the site of caution. Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems in keeping with the template documentation and the fact that the critic aggregates don't really tell you anything about median scores to include the Wired one, especially since it's from a reasonably well-known generalist publication. That said, given that the 1/10 is well out of bounds from regular scores, I don't think it really should be given a ton of coverage in the body outside of summarizing similar viewpoints. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with David that it should be included in the template. It doesn't need to be dwelled on or anything in the prose but if we were talking about any other score, this would be a no-brainer to include. Nomader (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should be included in the template but maybe it could also be mentioned in the "Controversies" section since it is clearly a response to those littlebum2002 18:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Late reply. Definitely agree there's a general issue these days of launching games in a less than ideal state and patching later but the point is more how much depth IGN goes into just how flawed it was technically wise but then still gives a 9/10 which demonstrates that views on the game are going to be biased one way or the other due to IP and views of the creator, and therefore we can't just pick out those we don't agree with and not include them.

The Wired score, like other prominent reviews, should have the score in the review box IMO to reflect the diversity of views and then we need to substantially improve the "critical reflection" main body to provide context of that and many other reviews. Apache287 (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree on adding this to the template. As already explained by other users, this rating is symbolic, just to add more attention to the controversy. It fits best into the controversy section, where it already is included. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

The line in the article "Jewish comedian Jon Stewart defended Rowling from charges of antisemitism." is contradictory to the source provided. Stewart clarified that his criticisms of the franchise were not intended to be taken as a serious accusation, but "I am not accusing J.K. Rowling of being antisemitic" hardly constitutes a defense. The context of it being an amendment to a previous statement is even the (current) title of the article -- "Jon Stewart Clarifies His Comments on Anti-Semitic Depiction of Harry Potter's Goblins [Update]". Either the line should be updated to better reflect the citation or both the line and citation should be removed. ZagOnEm (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The line got changed without any explanation by another user. We had it written like this before:

Jon Stewart, who previously gave the impression to some he was supporting the accusations, clarified that he is "not accusing J.K. Rowling of being antisemitic".

To clarify, we maybe should add that he not only is a comedian but also a political commentator. But you are right, it is not correct as it is right now. I would suggest to just put the old version back in with a clarification on Stewart:

Comedian and political commentator Jon Stewart, who previously gave the impression to some he was supporting the accusations, clarified that he is "not accusing J.K. Rowling of being antisemitic". Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Treetoes023 (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

more detail

the plot needs more detail, like Fig's sacrifice and Victor Rookwood must be mentioned HiGuys69420 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You opened two discussions about this within a day. I would suggest to write the plot elements which are missing yourself and add it here, so it can be edited in.

Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok i think after the sentence "Ranrok eventually locates Morganach's repository and extracts the ancient power, turning into a dragon; after a battle, the protagonist defeats the goblin, and must decide whether to keep the Keepers' secret, or reveal the existence of ancient magic." you should add, "Regardless of the choice made, Fig dies helping the protagonist sealing away the magic." HiGuys69420 (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Nicely spoiled, thank you. Seasider53 (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean .. when writing the plot, they almost always apply to WP:SPOILER. I edited it in, though changed the sentence a little. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Further boycotts

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There have been boycotts of the game on social media, mainly due to the political views of Rowling, which have even gone as far as making a website dedicated to hunting for streamers that played the game as part of a Twitch stream. YouFoundSharpe2 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Sounds like a lot of streamers are getting harassed by these left wing extremists. [stay on topic, please] TheDethklokGuy (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC) That's an odd assumption. Please keep your political leanings to yourself, TheDethklokGuy, on talk pages and in articles. One comment of yours has already been revdel'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Soetermans, To clarify, I was referring to articles like these: [5], [6], [7], [8] that I've been seeing. TheDethklokGuy (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Still, people are being harassed for playing a video game on such an extreme level. Isn't that worth at least a brief mention? Traptor12 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC) If there are reliable sources available, it should be included. I noticed this behaviour as well and since there is a controversy section now, it would make sense. Hate is hate, no matter which "side" it is. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC) It can be. The only problem I see is that I don't see what the scope would be. There's no way to document everything because it would be totally undue, so what do we document? Everyone's complaints, the division that exists, or only specific instances of harassment against streamers? We should probably determine that first. I already find the controversy section a bit long. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Then how did we document people boycotting this game to begin with? Not to mention the allegations before hand. Also the proof for possible future reference is right here:https://twitter.com/iamsamgibbs/status/1622570858626617344 Traptor12 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC) That's not an answer. It is mentioned very briefly, but the proposal is to go deeper into it. I'm saying it would be wise to form some sort of consensus on how deep. Prinsgezinde (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC) In my opinion, we should cover the Rowling bit pretty heavily, given that it's an inseparable part of the game's reception. Big outlets like Polygon and TheGamer boycotted the game, and tons of sources covered and explained the controversy, and nearly every review has a big "J.K. Rowling Bad But Please Ignore That" disclaimer. It's also caused things like a dev response. So yeah, I think write more on it. DecafPotato (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC) I do not believe the controversies section should be tagged with an "expansion" tag. Nonetheless I have added the response from the devs per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. I do hope this section would keep everything brief. Everything that is not "core" to the game should be precise and limit to around one or two sentences at most. OceanHok (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC) I think it does need expansion, but the rest of the reception also needs expansion (e.g. reviews of the game). I also think it's a bit disingenuous to act like the boycotts were insignificant (this is certainly different from other 'gamer boycotts', as whole outlets decided to boycott the game and others covered it significantly) just because a bunch of people that have a high likelihood of not purchasing the game watched people play it on Twitch. DecafPotato (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC) I'm just saying that innocent people, including Harry Potter fans, are being harassed by extremists and maybe wikipedia shouldn't put criticism in the same league as harassment. An online encyclopedia shouldn't be politically biased. Traptor12 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC) @TheDethklokGuy I don't want J.K. Rowling, a notorious transphobe, to get more money so she can more easily influence the removal of my basic human rights as a trans woman. How is that left wing extremism? For the record, I don't want people to get harrassed over this, but with how much it's been drilled in people's heads that the money goes to Rowling, I think it's understandable that people are upset. [stay on topic, please] LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC) So .. you do not want to get harassed yourself but talk it down when its a group of people that you do not care about? Sounds like a double standard to me. [stay on topic, please] Anyways, back to the topic, I would simply wait this out a couple of days and see how the situation is covered in other sources. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC) @Vestigium Leonis seems you would be well educated by https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance your take is rather undeveloped and well refuted [stay on topic, please] 171.50.246.162 (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Everything containing this entry has been added or at least discussed, therefore it can be closed.Vestigium Leonis (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Plot info?

I think we need to put a better plot because what we have here simply does not cut it. HiGuys69420 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Polt

We need the full story description, not the summary! Please include the full story description 192.15.172.78 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Silvervale

Should we add examples as to how bad the harassment as gotten? Silvervale, a VTuber on Twitch, just got doxxed for merely playing it and broke down in tears due to the insults and death threats. Traptor12 (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

In order to extend the section, we would need reliable sources to further cover the situation. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the section is already lacking in sources and exhibiting a clear POV. The sentence "The web tool filtered accounts streaming the game and encouraged people to invade those livestreams, resulting in the harassment of some" (emphasis mine) is an unsourced claim using non-neutral language. Citations 105 and 106 also make no account of any actual harassment, and digging into the sources of *those* citations also reveals no evidence of actual anti-Rowling activists harassing streamers. If it merits a whole section in this Wikipedia article, surely it should at least be verified to exist in any notable quantity. I, personally, have seen *far* more harassment directed at people who are opposed to playing the game, but I don't think that anecdotal experience is sufficient to warrant mention. ZagOnEm (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

No. It's completely unrelated rumour primarily spread by the Usual Suspects to discredit critics of the game. There's been speculation that the Comicsgate crowd may have been behind the more egregious online harrassment to turn the public against transgender people, but that's about as reliable as any other claims about the alleged harrassment and doxxing. Until reliable sources cover it, providing enough information to determine what actually happened, it's irrelevant information, that doesn't belong on the site. 46.97.170.164 (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of a rumour if there is a video of her sobbing, claiming the abuse directed not only at her, but also people associated with her. However, reliable sources are essential. Also, you're trying to counteract what you suggest is a politically driven conspiracy with another politically driven conspiracy. Please keep unsourced speculations to yourself. Traptor12 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that harassment occurred, there's plenty of evidence that it did (waiting for the New York Times or some such to report on it before calling it "reliably sourced" smacks of special pleading to my mind, but that's just my personal opinion). It's more that there's not really any sense in mentioning every single person who was harassed over it. As it stands, the article mentions that some Twitch streamers have been harassed for playing the game, and it cites as sources two articles which give more detailed accounts. From an encyclopedic standpoint, I don't see any need to go into any more detail than that. 2600:2B00:8202:EF00:D55D:371B:17C3:E3CA (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That is not evidence of anything. Until we have reliable sources covering this incident, this is all original research. Also, I didn't make the claim that the harrassment is coming from transphobic trolls. People working at Twitch did. 46.97.170.164 (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It has been quite a while since the initial comment - the situation of this particular streamer was not covered broadly and I would therefore keep the section as it is. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2023

Fig and the protagonist escape Rantok and reach Hogwarts, right as the Sorting Ceremony is about to end. The protagonist begins their term at Hogwarts. Change Rantok to Ranrok. JohnnyBoyJR43 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern with the Mary Sue article

This article was added today to support some text regarding the allegations of anti-semitic tropes. The section is overall well sourced and of good quality, so I was a bit surprised by the low quality of this particular Mary Sue article. It draws the frankly strange conclusion that a reference to another goblin rebellion in 1612 was included in the game intentionally because it coincides with the pogrom that occurred during the Fetmilch Uprising. There are two reasons for my concern:

• Despite its name, the Fettmilch Uprising was not an uprising by Jewish citizens of Frankfurt, but rather an uprising against the city council that later directed its aggression towards the Jews. That pogrom happened in 1614, so any comparisons between the two events are dubious at best. Even if it had been in 1612, or if we ignore the two years difference, this type of logic is often used by conspiracy theorists (e.g. Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend) and can be explained by apophenia. The high prevalence of violence against Jews in renaissance Europe also makes this something akin to the birthday problem.
• More importantly, the Goblin Uprising has apparently been canon since 1999, having been mentioned in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. That makes it odd to imply the year was picked by the game's developers. The article draws attention to the game for it, but this implies that J.K. Rowling herself wrote that detail in the book in 1999, years before you could find facts like this in a Wiki rabbit hole, as an extremely obscure (and factually incorrect) dog whistle hidden in a a side note.

The Mary Sue states that "[t]he date feels too specific not to be a reference," which frankly reminds me of conspiracy theorists even more. Also a bit inappropriate is them including the phrase "even Jon Stewart has spoken up about the shady depiction of the fantasy species" when the author links these words to their own article which details Stewart angrily criticising media for taking his words out of context, saying that he made no such claims and telling "Newsweek et al" to "eat [his] ass". I can't judge the blood libel comparison accusations because I haven't played the game, but the rest of the article is concerningly badly researched. I recommend removing it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it can be included if it's presented a bit differently. The article gives a prelude to the note about the "parallel" rebellions (your point here is accurately well-taken) with a note, "As some have pointed out on social media," before directly quoting from a number of tweets. I think the better way to cite this source might be to say, "A subset of social media users drew parallels between the game's Goblin rebellion plot and a historical pogrom that occurred in the 1600s, while critical social media users also noted that the game's plot to the anti-Semitic blood libel myth."

I think that couches the source with the "This is said by other people on social media and is demonstrating the reaction" and not commenting necessarily on its accuracy? I don't know if that's the best approach (and I'm not making this change in the article right now because I'm unsure if it is or not). Nomader (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I do agree on the concerns of quality of this article and would exclude this particular source. The Mary Sue is obviously at war with the game, which results in putting out any content that is controversial. There is nothing wrong with covering the controversy, but it should not lead to low quality articles that look like a conspiracy. If other reliable sources do their take on this, I would prefer to use them instead. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I made a compromise based on the above 2 comments. The pogrom bit was removed because it's misleading. It's now phrased to say that the Mary Sue has reported that some have compared it to blood libel, which is by definition true. Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I would further clarify that it was some social media users that have compared it (as said by The Mary Sue in the source), since these are not critics or experts by any measure. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

All of this appears to be WP:OR. The question is not whether we believe the article is biased, the question is, whether the Mary Sue is a reliable source, Which is a matter to be discussed on a different page. If the Mary Sue is reliable, I see no reason to arbitrarily cherry-pick their article based on what we consider to be misleading. Yes, this includes the reference to the pogrom. If comparisons have been made and the Mary Sue reported on it, then excluding it could potentially be seen as WP:WHITEWASH. 46.97.170.164 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Mary Sue has come up several times at WP:RSP. It is seen as generally reliable in its own reporting but not very reliable when it reports things from others, as the latest discussion there explains. This is clearly one of those cases. The Mary Sue repeated something as fact that was in fact not a fact. It is what they are repeating - which is user generated content - that we do not consider reliable. As for the Jon Stewart bit, that is directly contradicted by their own article and several others. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it works. When citing material from the Mary Sue, it is the Mary Sue's reliability that's important, not what you think about their sources. If you think the Mary Sue is not reliable, take it to the appropriate noticeboard. 46.97.170.164 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE. Are you really clinging to rules when something is objectively bad / wrong? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that is generally how it works. A reliable source makes a relevant and notable claim, we include it. But notice how in the article the Mary Sue doesn't actually claim anything? It's important to pay attention to that stuff when quoting sources like the Mary Sue. The article's wording is specific in that it very strongly implies things without outright stating them. Phrases like "there has been talk", "people are seeing parallels", "it looks like", etc. are a common tool for that. Any direct claim made in that article is uncontroversial "this happened" or quoting conclusions made by others. In order words, it's a disguised opinion piece, and while opinions can be reported when attributed (as one of them still is), they should not be presented as fact. On top of that, historical "opinions" have no place in the article. Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There have been such talks and the Mary Sue, a notable source reports on those talks. So, what's the problem? 46.97.170.164 (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

And those talks and them reporting on it are menioned in the article. So indeed, what's the problem? Prinsgezinde (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Trailer freeness

I'm not sure if that trailer actually is licensed properly. It may need double-checking for licensing: File:Hogwarts Legacy Official 4K Reveal Trailer.webm. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I was questioning this as well. Unfortunately, I do not have much experience with media on here yet, maybe someone of WP:VG could look into this? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on my social experiences on Wikipedia, I have noted that works of other people generally should be only posted with fair use attached unless specifically stated a Creative Commons type of license, but the file above clearly looked like it was ripped off a YouTube video. I am not sure if the Hogwarts Legacy Official 4K Reveal Trailer itself is actually Creative Commons, since I would imagine Hogwarts Legacy contains a lot of copyrighted content owned by Warner Bros Games and/or Avalanche Software, and simply ripping off the entire trailer video from YouTube is questionable. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 14:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I am the one that uploaded the video. Wikimedia Commons allows videos to be uploaded if they are published on YouTube with a Creative Commons license. As seen in the video description on YouTube, it states "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". There is no licensing issue. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I wasn't able to find how to see if that YouTube video was under Creative Commons, but it looks like a YouTube search of that exact video with and without the Creative Commons tag would show it as a Creative Commons video and thus should be compatible with Wikimedia Common. However, I still think the video may need some review to check if licenses are still met even if the YouTube video itself was marked Creative Commons by the official channel of Hogwarts Legacy themselves. An expert of Hogwarts-related information who is also an admin may also help with determining whether that video still meets the requirements for being able to be on Wikimedia Commons. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 12:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

We've had issues before with people who don't really have the right to declare something free leading to bad commons uploads (notably, some miscommunication with an Ubisoft staffer led to a bunch of screenshots being used for free when it was clearly not someone with the ability to declare the company's content CC-licensed.) That might be the case here, but there's at least some arguments against it: first, it's still licensed that way on the live video (you can see the license under the description, License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)). On Youtube, you have to specifically opt-in to make content CC-licensed. So while it doesn't look like any other recent videos are similar attributed, I think we're safe unless they specifically contact Wikipedia or Wikimedia about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

There is something else that came across my mind, isn't it unusual to show a full gameplay trailer? I did not see this on any article before. I have only either seen a screenshot or a short clip / GIF being used. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the article at present

Vestigium Leonis asked on my talk page to take a look at the article with the aim of getting it up to Good Article status, so putting some high-level thoughts here. While it's pretty decent, I think there are obstacles with meeting GA quality:

• My main concern is with the organizational choices made in the article. In particular, the controversies section seems ill-shaped. A lot of it is coming after relevant details have already been discussed (for example, most of the stuff in the section about Rowling's views seem like they should be mentioned during the release section, since that's where it matters, or the bit about some reviewers boycotting should be in reception. The developer leaving should be in development, etc.) WP:CRITS is an essay, but one that I think has common sense advice that should be followed.
• You're going to want to audit some of the sources used. At a glance, I saw the IGN wiki is being used to source content (unreliable) , while other content is sourced to primary sources and probably needs a secondary source to demonstrate its importance (why are we using a Youtube video from Unreal to source that Hogwarts Legacy uses Unreal, when there's already a secondary source right alongside it?) I'm not sure about some of the non-English review sites, but they should probably get checked. Lots of refs are missing formatting details (work/website, etc.)
• The development section itself is a bit skimpy. There's a single line about the voice cast, tacked onto a line about budget. There's very little meat about game design or graphics, and the section focuses on PlayStation 5-specific features in a way that I presume isn't actually reflected in sourcing.
• The entire article needs a copyediting pass; it doesn't have to be brilliant for GA quality, but it should be better than it is, with lots of unclear or repetitious phrasing (why does the development keep adding "In terms of" in front of things? Why are events in the past still described using present tense? etc.)

-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your detailed input, I agree on your points and will take a look at it during the weekend. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I followed your input and did the necessary changes. I also compared it to some of the more recent GA's and think that nothing is missing. I will go for a nomination and in case I did overlook something, I am pretty sure the reviewer will point it out. Once again, thanks for your support on this. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Synopsis: Characters

Should there be more info on some characters? Or was the coverage not broad enough? 2A02:908:893:FF40:D13B:651E:DFFB:BDCA (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hogwarts Legacy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Night Watch (talk · contribs) 20:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I will take a look at the article this weekend The Night Watch (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Video

Quick note before I begin the review sometime tomorrow: the video should be removed because it appears to be not uploaded by the copyright holder, and is likely a copyright violation (see Wikipedia:Video links#Use. I also don’t think it can be considered valid under WP:NFCC as it is two minutes of content, which is certainly not minimal use. The Night Watch (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done I was already not 100% on board with this, but the discussion above (Trailer freeness) seemed to be reasonable. Anyways, I removed it for now, as your argument of the length of content is valid. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I saw that the YouTube video was listed under Creative Commons, but I'm a little skeptical of that still, as that might have been done by a staffer who didn't have authorization. Anyway, other images look good. The Night Watch (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio

Passes Earwig's, appears to be no Copyvio. The Night Watch (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Prose

Infobox and lead appear to be solid prose-wise. Planning on taking this to FAC? The Night Watch (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I would be interested to do so, yes. I would have to get familiar with the FAC process and requirements though. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't too bad, just some copyediting and reorganization to help bring the writing up to scratch. You'll also get a source review where they look and see if your sources are all high-quality, and do "spot-checking" to make sure the cited information is right. I suggest you take notes on a few other video game FAs, and ask around for some advice if needed. The Night Watch (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I might take a look at it once the article reached good article status. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Gameplay

• The organization of Gameplay is a bit strange. The writing kind of abruptly changes from talking about the locations, and then goes about the four houses even before it is mentions that players can join one of them. I suggest that you reorganize and first talk about the character creation and how the player character is formed, and what they can do (i.e. cast spells, brew potions master combat abilities) then talk about the four houses and their exclusive quests/rooms. After that, you can discuss the familiar locations and specific gameplay mechanics such as quests and challenges.
• Also, I'm surprised that the open word mechanics are only mentioned in the lead, and aren't given any information about how they work in gameplay. Can you explain how the game and its mechanics relate to an open world?

 Done I did an attempt on this section, is it sufficient? Or would you like to see more here? I am struggling a bit on what to include and what not. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks better now. I think we can give this section a pass. The Night Watch (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Synopsis

• I'd suggest that go over the article and remove a few of the wikilinks, as it is customary for them to be only be included twice in the article: once in the lead or infobox, and again on the first time they appear in the text. (See MOS:DUPLINK)
• The game introduced several new characters, with Professor Eleazar Fig being an essential character as the mentor in the player's journey. Yes, this is true in regards to the Wizarding World, but the plot section should be considered to be self-contained, and not talking about the Wizarding World as a fictional universe, and the new characters introduced to it (MOS:UNIVERSE). So the part about them being "new" characters should be removed.
• Plot section otherwise looks good, but there are a few things that I will clarify within the text.

 Done I fixed the few wikilinks left after you already did most of it yourself. I adjusted the part about new characters to make the section self-contained. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Development

• I found quite a few unnecessary links here. Most people will know of art design, direction, and the like, so the links are likely not necessary. A look-through the article to find other wikilinks may be needed.
• Five years in the making, experts estimate Hogwarts Legacy's budget at $150 million. "Experts estimate the game's total budget to be $150 million."
• I'm concerned about the neutrality of talking about Leavitt's departure. I think this could be something delegated to release, and it feels rather jarring to move from Leavitt talking about development, then the controversy, then someone else taking about development.
• The magic village Hogsmeade was created to feature well-known establishments like The Three Broomsticks Inn, a popular gathering place for both villagers and students. Other created locations in the area include Hog’s Head, an inn with a less favorable reputation, and Zonko’s, the go-to store for novelty tricks I understand that this is what the writers intended to make and eventually created, but how is this important to how the game itself was created? The following sentence about populated areas gives more insight into what the writers were going for.

 Done The link issues seem to be fixed already by yourself, and I did not see any other necessary addition in the development section. I fixed the budget sentence, moved the Leavitt part to release and excluded the Hogsmeade description completely. I would assume that it is a bit too detailed and we already have enough information in the synopsis section (where I would place it if we want to keep it). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Release

• What are the differences between the editions of the game? If you mention them, I think you should also mention the differences.
• Further review forthcoming. I'll take a look at Reception first. Then we can move back to this and then spot-checking and sourcing.
• Shortly before the release of Hogwarts Legacy, a dedicated page was created with the sole purpose of targeting Twitch streamers who played the game. The web tool in question filtered accounts streaming the game, leading to the harassment of some. A dedicated page of what exactly?
• The Release section appears neutral enough, and provides a variety of different opinions on this controversial game. I think I can give the article a pass for neutrality.

 Done Editions info added and page sentence fixed. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Reception

• A discussion a little while back at WT:VG had a consensus that Sales sections should avoid becoming somewhat of a "hype list", and should only document the Sales figures at launch and the most recent figures. (See MOS:VG#Sales)
• This section was quite well done overall. The commentary flowed quite smoothly. I'll give the article a pass on prose and grammar.

Regarding the sales section: It reports on its success in pre-orders, sales and player engagement based on multiple reliable sources. Per area or country, it features 1 sentence of the debut and an additional on records or total sales. I do think it is written according to the manual of style, but some sentences could be reduced. If you really want to have it trimmed a bit, I would probably exclude the parts about HL surpassing Elden Ring's lifetime sales and the part about HL being the best selling game of 2023 so far in US. The three sentences about player engagement (from 267 to 280 to 400) could probably be reduced to two sentences. The Steam part could also be put into two sentences but it would not reduce it by a lot. I will do that later and you can let me know if that is what you would have expected. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The sales section is a full two paragraphs, when with most best-selling games (See here, here and here as examples) are much shorter and focused mostly on sales rather than the hours played or other details. Since this section is supposed to be focused on sales, I'll be culling this section to focus on that topic mostly. The Night Watch (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. I would suggest to add the information that is not traditionally "sales" at the end of the release section then? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Typically yes, but some information, although true, may not need to be included in the article at all. It's the whole thing with WP:SS; Asking yourself "Will the average reader benefit from all this information?" is usually how I try to determine what to keep or omit, but still there will be editors with different opinions on what to keep or remove as superfluous material. The material I removed from sales appeared superfluous, as I'm not sure whether average readers will find value out of every topped chart or sales prediction. The Night Watch (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Alright, makes sense. I considered it as interesting to read, but seeing it being cut now does not change much for me - so we can move on. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ll have to postpone the review for a little while. I just came up with a health issue requiring surgery. Nothing too serious, but I’ll be out of commission for a few days. The Night Watch (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem, get well! I will remain available so we can finish this as soon as you are ready. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'm back from the hospital and making a swift recovery. Bedridden for the most part, but that gives me lots of time to look over the sources The Night Watch (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• I've never seen the term (website) listed after an online ref in an article, and it creates some inconsistent referencing because not all of the webpage sources have the term (website) listed after them. I think you need to remove the term (website) to make the citation style consistent throughout the article (MOS:REFERENCES)
• I'm checking over WP:VG/S to make sure all the refs are reliable or reliable within their areas of use. Most appear alright, though there are a few that stand out:
  • What makes GameByte a reliable source?
  • Game Rant is not a high-quality source, and you'll run into some trouble if you use it at WP:FAC. I also see that the website appears to be focused around content farming, so I'd appreciate its removal or replacement.
  • Same case with Screen Rant. It appears to not be supporting any controversial statements about living persons in the article, and is borderline alright for use (WP:VG/S), but other sourcing would definitely be better.
  • What makes Yahoo! Movies reliable for reporting on Gameplay?
  • DualShockers is considered "situationally reliable", and should be replaced if any other sources are available. Did anyone else report on the video that the article is talking about? The WP:VG/SE might help with the searching.
  • Although The Mary Sue is considered to be situationally reliable, its usage in the Release section appears to be giving a little undue weight, as reporting on a social media rumor, and then immediately saying that the rumor may be relying upon a mere coincidence, does not instill with me the confidence that this is a prominent viewpoint that needs to be included in this section about controversies. The other viewpoints talking about Antisemetic tropes are more widely supported, and I am sure they give due weight, but I'm concerned that this specific point relying mostly upon social media chat and possible coincidences has a neutrality issue and should be removed.
  • Allmusic appears alright, as its sister website Allgames is considered to be generally reliable, and the webpages are really only used to source the names of the composers for the soundtrack.
  • What makes Apple Music a reliable source?
  • Destructoid is situational, but discussions at WT:VG/S imply that Chris Carter is fine for writing game reviews
  • Wccftech is of inconclusive reliability, and Gaming Bolt is already reporting on the same information, so it should probably be removed.
• More forthcoming... Spot checks forthcoming.
  • Spot checked refs for Gameplay: 1, 2, 3 (WP:AGF on content, locked behind paywall) 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 17,
    • In ref 17, there is nothing talking about Floo Powder being a fast travel option. What's up with that?
  • Spot checks for Synopsis/Development: 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 12, 40
    • For source 12, the source did not say that the game was designed to feature less populated areas to help with exploration, but that it may have been designed with less populated areas to help facilitate exploration.
  • Spot checks for Music/Release/Sales: 42, 46, 47, 51, 70, 73, 71, 72, 76, 80, 90, 39, 152, 171
• In general, the sources look to be for the most part fine. FAC reviewers will have their opinions and reservations, but aside from the issues I highlighted above, I think this will be good enough sourcing for GA. Once this section is finished up, I'll do one last sweep of the article. The Night Watch (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I took care of the GameByte, Yahoo! Movies and Wccftech comments and fixed the spot check issues. I also agree on the undue weight of The Mary Sue here and excluded it. I do agree on your comments on Game Rant, Screen Rant and DualShockers. I would assume that they are sufficient for now but should be replaced once this page is planned to go as a FAC, correct? And lastly, I replaced the Apple Music sources with the Allmusic sources. Is that sufficient? Otherwise I would probably just exclude it for now as well. I will look into the (website) issue now. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Yes, they will be good enough for GA, but FAC will be a different story. I'll take one last look while you finish up with the website issue. The Night Watch (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if something else is left. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll give this one a pass. Well done! The Night Watch (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That's great to hear. Thanks for your support and detailed input, I can take a lot of this into consideration for future noms / reviews. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Boycott

Why don’t you also add that the boycott didn’t work, for it was one of the most bestselling games? 2603:7081:6901:9C3A:B5F0:F031:4496:DE58 (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, or at least making our own conclusion, which is WP:SYNTH. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I did a quick research and there are sources available, and should be fine if attributed correctly (The Telegraph (UK)[9] and Fox News [10]). It will most likely only end up to be an additional sentence in the release section though. I will look into it to see if an addition makes sense. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

With those sources, I don't see any issue with stating this, and even a mention in the lede saying about it's sales numbers. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry, if it's mentioned by reliable sources, then sure, we can mention it. Without it, it would've been our own conclusion: "the game has been a financial success and so the boycott hasn't worked". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

i feel it should also be noted that many sales were also politically motivated, just as the boycott was. i've noticed that many people who didn't believe in the transphobic and antisemitic criticism would boast about buying another copy or the deluxe edition i don't know how we'll source it, as original research is looked down upon. 51.37.222.58 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct, if you are not able to provide reliable sources, it would count as original research. I did a quick search and could not find anything about it. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Political criticism

@Saimcheeda @Vestigium Leonis Please discuss [11] instead of just reverting. The status quo seems better as labels the criticism as being from conservatives, and doesn't group all three refs together. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly as you state, the status quo points out that only conservative sources voiced criticism on this matter, which is why it was attributed. The other source simply states that it was politically focused but did not go into further detail (which means, they did not criticise it so it has to be split up). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible grammatical error under 'Reception'

There may be a grammatical error in the section 'Reception', under the subsection 'Critical reception'. In the last sentence of the fourth paragraph, there is this sentence: "Other reviewers found the narrative it to be lacklustre, and at times illogical". Here the word 'it' is not needed and its usage is incorrect, so, if others agree, it should be removed.

83.177.155.88 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Done. Y Seasider53 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hogwarts Legacy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hogwarts Legacy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MC":

• From Lego Harry Potter: Years 1–4: "LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4". Metacritic. Archived from the original on 2 July 2010. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
• From Prince of Persia 3D: "Prince of Persia: Arabian Nights for Dreamcast Reviews". Metacritic. Red Ventures. Archived from the original on 1 January 2015. Retrieved 29 April 2014.
• From Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Game Boy Advance video game): "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Critic Reviews for Game Boy Advance". Metacritic. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94 There seems to be an issue with the notes you implemented, I assume that is the problem the bot points out? When I click on the notes and on the stated sources, it says: Cite error: The named reference MC was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Apologies, yes, the ref names were wrong. Now corrected. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2024

Change Pending on the steam awards Game of the Year Award to lost and the best on deck award to won with this source IndexERR (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source linked is a primary source. Please see WP:Original Research for more information about primary, secondary, and other sources. Thickynugnug (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)