Talk:Humble Bundle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Humble Bundle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Criticism content is prejudiced and irrelevant

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

A relevant critique should have been, firstly, about its policy and ideology (I'm counted amongst the fans, but surely there are opinions that the concept is morally bad and has negative projections), and about technically issues (e.g. very poor download speed from their servers on many occasions (didn't read about it, just speaking out of self experience), a very problematic point when it comes to digital products that in fact you buy the permission of downloading).
Secondly, it could be whether it keeps its standard of quality and attractiveness during the time, or just "rides" its own good label.

However, having first two paragraphs about an inner business issue, dispute about "they didn't want to have my games in it, they didn't pay enough regarding to the impact my content brought", not even a fraud or misleading included - is not a relevant criticism, not to mention obviously partial (that's irrelevant to the point, but it even sounds that the guy should thank them for the chance of publicity he earned from them. He's saying himself that only time will show whether it was a good long-term investment. Indeed, that's a personal business consideration, not an actual criticism). For the most it should be mentioned in a sentence, with a reference, in the margin of the actual critique. Not as the base for it. --Radioactive Grandpa (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree 204.124.67.250 (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then. My claim is standing here for six months. No one has argued against it yet, defending the spoken content. If the only way to get someone's attention and to justify these faulty paragraphs - is by deleting the section - so be it. I'll give another month for someone who thinks else to be heard. So far there was only agreement.
Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated in any way with Humble Bundle, and I am in favor of a criticism section in this page, as I quite lengthily argued above. But there is a way of doing it and this is just wrong. --Radioactive Grandpa (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your sources on the subject? (Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, not the opinions of individuals) Яehevkor ✉ 00:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My sources on the subject? Seriously? My sources are read-properly-the-discussion-which-you-refer-to-before-replying. --Radioactive Grandpa(talk) 13:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I did. You suggest the current set of criticisms are irrelevant in comparison a bunch of other perceived criticisms ("its policy and ideology", "technically issues" etc). Your basis being that these issues are greater than the issues that are covered by the article (I'm not saying the issues covered there aren't petty but they are sourced). Without sources for these your comparison is rather invalid. Either way, I think the issue you're bring up here is one of undue weight - this 2 paragraphs of text backed up by what is apparently an interview (and this a primary source) probably shouldn't be given such prominence. Яehevkor ✉ 17:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at first appearance it seems right to term my issue "undue weight". But I still don't understand what the magic word of yours "sources" is supposed to signify in this matter. I tried to demonstrate what could be a legitimate criticism in the subject (the basis was not that those issues are greater than those, but that those hypothetical issues are legitimate criticism while the current ones are not and should be removed). It's a mere theoretical issue. I didn't suggest that inventedcritical claims should be an actual replacement for the prejudiced content currently presented, if that's what you meant by "sources". Obviously, the eventual content should not be based on the opinions of individuals like you said, and that was my point to begin with. Having those opinions quoted somewhere doesn't make it any more "reliable source". Here, I dedicate you this source.--Radioactive Grandpa (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the first 2 paragraphs of the criticism already? Obviously an upset developer that didn't get his game included when he wanted to or claims he didn't make enough money on a charity event that lets customers define how much they want to give him are not valid points against the concept of Humble Bundle. What "sources" could possibly be needed to not include irrelevant information?204.124.67.250 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? It shows that inclusion in the HBundles is not just "please put my game in, thanks!" It argues some favoritism that we as editors can't discuss without sources. It might not be the best way to lead off that section, but its valid criticism. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Offered"

I'm not sure what "gravy" is supposed to mean, but they're still selling bundles, and there's a "time left" countdown that, as of 3:45 PM EDT on May 14, shows a day and 15 minutes remaining. I don't see any official word that they're definitely going to stop selling the HIB on Saturday afternoon, but implying that the sale is over is manifestly false.19:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

List the Humble Bundle Games as a List

Latest comment: 13 years ago48 comments9 people in discussion

The list of games in the Humble Bundles would be better served in list form than inline in the first few paragraphs for the following points:

putting them all in single sentences makes them hard to pick out and is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists
The list of games is one of the first things people ask when they hear about the Humble Bundles
The list of games is the first thing you see on the official website, http://humblebundle.com thus emphasizing their importance
Although the Humble Bundle is about the philosophy, it is also very much about the games and recognition for their contributors/authors for doing the Humble Bundle.

Your thoughts, people? -Object404 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:EMBED, short lists should be written in prose to be more professional. There's no need to split out a list or table for this. --MASEM (t) 06:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

11 games is not a short list. Artist discographies with 4 or less albums/Actor filmographies (some with even as little as one) are regularly placed in list form here in Wikipedia. In keeping with these, the contents of the Humble Indie Bundle are better served in a list. Moreover, with the success of the first 2 indie bundles, more will probably be created in the future so expect the list to grow. -Object404 (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers want the Humble Indie Bundle games in the article formatted in list form:

"@humble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humble_Indie_Bundle Sure could use an update (list of games, formatting, etc) and I'm not clever enough"[1]
Humble Bundle organizer Jeffrey Rosen's reply: "@bwibbwz it's a big no-no to edit your own wikipedia page, but I think the community will update it soon"[2]

Your thoughts, given the above points, which I'd prefer you give your thoughts on individually, Masem? -Object404 (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what readers want: we're an encyclopedia and trying to write it as one. If we wrote as readers wanted things, we'd be full of trivial information and the like. We're not trying to promote the HIB, but instead talk about why it came to be and its impact on indie gamng and charity. The knowledge of what games are in them are important, but it is very distracting and unnecessary to create lists for them when they are listed right at the top of the article. --MASEM (t) 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

They are very hard to read inline in the sentences. I don't like repeating myself, so can you answer my valid points one by one? -Object404 (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Point by point:

This article is about the charity drives called the Humble Indie Bundle which happens include games. They are not the highlight of the point of the article so it is not necessary to be able to see them immediately. However, with the italics, blue-linking, and paranetheseses, and being mentioned in the lead means that the info is easy to locate, even if it doesn't "jump" out at the reader.
The list of games may be what gamers ask, but it is not what the general encyclopedia reader is going to ask. The Bundle has more significant in the longer run than the games themselves particularly if this repeats many times over - the games are less critical about what it is about, and more the philosophy about the sale.
The website's purpose is to get people to contribute to the bundle. The purpose of the Wikipedia article is to inform, not sell.
See second point: As this appears to be a successfully recurring charity event, what individual games were involved become less and less important than those that actually are driving the event. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the charity drives called the Humble Indie Bundle which happens include games. -> Wrong. The Humble Bundle is also the bundle of games, not just the philosophy/event. -Object404 (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The list of games may be what gamers ask, but it is not what the general encyclopedia reader is going to ask. -> Where did you get that information? That's merely your opinion, not fact. More or less all mentions of the Humble Bundle include the games they contain.
The website's purpose is to get people to contribute to the bundle. The purpose of the Wikipedia article is to inform, not sell. -> This is not selling. It is about giving information. Where did you get the notion that listing the games (which *ARE* the bundle) = selling and not about providing information?
That is your opinion. Please substantiate it given the fact that more or less all mentions of the bundles on the internet list their contents.

I'm really sorry but your reasons for "de-listing" the individual games (which also *ARE* the humble bundles themselves) aren't valid and are full of non-sequiturs. What's a good way to get other editors to participate in this discussion as it's just the two of us? Happy New Year! -Object404 (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Masem here. I've never read the list of games before (or if I did it was back in May), and had no trouble with the way they were presented. Perhaps the article as a whole could be a bit better formatted, with more separate paragraphs, but I don't see how it's problematic at the moment. There's not so many games here (11 between two packs?) that any sort of distracting table needs to be there. Now, while I might agree that readers who come here are likely looking to IN PART find out what's in it, I'd say that if they are coming to read about the thing on WP they probably aren't looking specifically for what games are in it BY ITSELF. Why? Because if they already know about the concept and so forth they are likely to know where to go for more official info. As Masem said, WP's job is to inform about why things are notable, and the bundle, as a concept, is what this page is about, NOT the games within them, which is secondary. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Even as people are complaining about a hypothetical bulleted list of games distracting from the article, the non-bulleted lists in two of the opening paragraphs are even more distracting. Since the bundles consist of the games, the games should be listed, but listing eleven games in the opening is too cluttered. Therefore, the list of games should be removed from the opening to a separate section. --MarkGyver (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There is need to reorganize the article in general, as there's likely to be another HIB in the future. But even with that organization, I don't see the need to break out the games as a bulleted list, just move them out of the lead. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Put it into a list - What is with the VG space's aversion to lists. If I'm going to want to find out about the Humble Indie Bundle, I instantly want to see which games are in which bundle. That's the single most important piece of information in the article, it defines the subject. If you're arguing about where to put it, put it where you'd normally find an infobox. - hahnch e n 22:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No, that's the point, is that the games -- in this case -- are NOT the most important, as they aren't the reason it's notable. What games are in it is secondary to its reason for existence. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Without the games, it'd just be a donation. Neither the humble, the indie, or the bundle would factor into it. For a charity album or a charity single, we list the participants - because lists make important information easy to digest. - hahnch e n 23:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Right now, the lists are split across two paragraphs, placed into the prose "name (developer)" style. WP:EMBED is cited above claiming that prose is more professional. But it's not, we currently have a list, only formatted into one line. The article should start off straight away explaining that there are two bundles, released at different times, then break them down into a clear, instantly identifiable list - efficient delivery of information is professional. -hahnch e n 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember, you can't buy the HIB anymore (at least, not until the next one). It was a temporarily charity drive, where with your donation, you got games. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. The two Humble Bundles still exist and are available as distinct downloads to all supporters. It is not a temporary charity drive. Also, it is not just about donating to charity, but also supporting indie games and indie game developers. -Object404 (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You've got your definition of the Humble Bundle mixed up, Masem. The Humble Bundle *is* the bundle of games -> [3] -> "The Humble Indie Bundle is a unique kind of bundle that we are trying out. Pay what you want. If you bought these five games..." -Object404 (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
But you can't buy it anymore - the only people that can get it at the moment are those that already donated to the drive. And the only reason this has any notability is the charitable aspects of it; if it were just 5 games for sale at name-your-price, it likely wouldn't have got much mention (see the World of Goo sale before). It's the charity factors that are first and foremost here. And Wolfire's called it "an event" and "an experiment" as well, and that's how much of the industry sees it - not a collection of games, but a way to test the markets with gamers. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
So what? The bundles still exist and they still are bundles. Just because you can't buy DeLoreans anymore doesn't mean they don't exist. Please just stop reverting it. It is very hard to read as it is. Breaking the long sentence into lists is clearly within the Manual of Style. Why are you so dead-set on making the article less readable? Can you provide citations for all of this view you keep stating that it's not about the games and it's all about charity? Yes it is an event and an experiment, but they still also are game bundles. Unless you can provide clear-cut reasons on why the last edit (which was highly readable) was unacceptable, I shall be reverting it to that format in 3 days. It was perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)#Appropriate_use -> lists preferable to long sentences section. I would like to escalate this to other admins as you have not made sound reasons for reverting prefectly valid readability changes wholesale and keep reverting them. It's extremely frustrating as it takes me quite some time to fix wording and formatting with a click of a button you just undo them all for no good reason. -Object404 (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
We are still discussing this and there's no clear consensus , so your changing it now is akin to edit warring. I point a point to WT:VG to get more input (that's wehre three others have commented). You're also misreading how WP:EMBED suggests when in-line lists should be used: this case is not like where we have sentences that are child sentences of a leading paragraph, nor do we have a lot of terms in a single long list. A point to make that I am going to do is that the article does need reorganization to call out the two bundled separately (better than it is now), which may alleviate some of the problems that you think you're having with it. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No it's not "edit warring" as I added more than just "lists". If you had objections to the edits, then fix the objectionable parts, don't just revert everything wholesale as I had spent quite some time adding edits. It's extremely rude and inconsiderate of you, you know? I didn't revert your revert anymore as you'd do a revert war just like you did the last time. It still stands, the lists of games would serve better as inline bullet points. -Object404 (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Put it into a list - The list of games is still the first thing you see when you go to the Humble Bundle website, underlining the importance of the list of games. They need to be broken out into a section separate from the opening paragraphs and clearly seen in list form, along with their authors/game studios. Without these games and authors that supported the bundle, the bundle would not exist. The bundle *is* the collection of games, not just the event/Philosophy. It's important to list all the games & participants clearly. -Object404 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
While I disagree that it's unclear at the moment, making a list in the way it was done pre-revert was certainly the best way, instead of a silly table or something. Probably shouldn't be under top headers though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Have any of you studied usability and web design basics? Please read Jakob Nielsen's article Top Ten Mistakes in Web Design, and scroll down to section 4. The article is formatted as awall-of-text. It's not easy for the reader to scan, so the items need to be broken down into lists for ease of navigation and readability. For the sake of user navigation, it's either all the games are going to be listed at the bottom as a "See Also" or "Related" section or placed as bullet points in their respective Humble Bundle sections. The last option is the most preferrable one to avoid redundancy. -Object404 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The style used in the article at the present time is currently in line with WP's own style guidelines. Prose over lists, short paragraphs (save for the one leading "Analysis"), and more; we are writing a work that has to serve both online and offline users which means we do sacrifice some usability aspects to make everything accessable to all readers. The information about the games are now found within two sentences of the bundle headings, so there is no way you can complain about being hard to find. Remember, we are writing for the general reader who may never have played a video game in their life nor ever will, and thus , again, the focus of this article needs to be the concept, success, and outcome of the charity drive, and not looked at as "hey , 5 games for cheap!". --MASEM (t) 04:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
You're imposing your own personal definition of the Humble Indie Bundle. The humble bundle is not just a charity drive, it's also about supporting indie developers and their desire to offer games in a pay-what-you-want DRM-free manner. They also *ARE* the games themselves. The listing of the games in no way detracts from the tone and focus of concept, success, and outcome of the experiment. How does breaking the list of games out of the sentences detract from the article accessibility to offline readers? We need third party mediation for resolution on this matter as this conversation has become extremely circular with you refusing to yield. -Object404 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Formal mediation is not appropriate at this point. There are other avenues to gain comment - like what I have done at WT:VG - to get comments, but I'm trying to find what may be a better place to request input. And mediation over a small style difference is likely not going to go anywhere or be accepted. --MASEM (t) 07:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally , if there are no noticeboards or project pages, the next step up is requesting a third party opinion. --MASEM (t) 07:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a personal attack, but I find the manner in which you revert edits wholesale and impose final say on the article to be quite rude and aggravating. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, nor to keep going back to this article to check for edits and wish for a speedy resolution so we can move on. Editing this article has taken too much of my time when it can easily be resolved by third parties. I asked for help at irc.freenode.net #wikipedia-en-help and <+sonia> indicated that this would not fall under WP:3O as more than 2 editors are involved. She also indicated that the bullet-point list style is more readable. Can we just get this over with and move on? Mediation seems to be the fastest method for resolution. -Object404 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with Masem. We are not trying to create a "guide" for those interested in purchasing the Humble Bundle; rather, we are trying to provide information for information and education's sake. The only middle ground I can think of is making a separate list of Humble Bundles, but as it stands, the list seems like it would be quite light. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Which I can see, particularly if this is a semi-regular thing - I try to imagine if there were 10 bundles, certainly we likely would not be keeping track of each bundle in as much detail but instead start replacing mundane prose with a quick and easy table. But we're not at ten bundles, we're at 2, both significantly discussed in sources on their own. So a table at the bottom of the article to summarize things could be a possibility. --MASEM (t) 07:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree that we're not trying to create a "guide". The point we are raising is that the participating games/developers of the bundles are extremely pertinent information of interest to the article and they need to be easily seen at a glance. Yeah, a table would be a good place for them. There is no need to create separate articles for Bundle 1 and 2 at this point - they both fit nicely in the article. -Object404 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, if you extrapolate to where there have been ten HIBs, is it the games themselves that matter or the name of the effort? At some point, the specific games themselves are noise within the pertinent information about the bundle, and thus putting them to a table at the end would still highlight them but avoid diluting the text.--MASEM (t) 14:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Per the suggestion, I have added a table at the end of the article to list out the bundles and games. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I like what was done yesterday better. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm here because this issue was raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Do we have a MOS noticeboard?. Let me quote the Manual of Style twice. I'll do it as a list:

"Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." (WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists)
"Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists))

The choice of whether to use a list or prose is stylistic, but the MOS prefers high-quality prose when possible. Beyond that the MOS is silent; neither prose nor a list is ever a requirement. For instance: (I'll use a list again)

At Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)#Lists versus prose there is an example of good prose and a poor list. Here the prose is better style.
The first example at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)#Appropriate use gives two acceptable presentations of the same information, one as prose and another as a list.
When high-quality prose is not available, as in the second example at the above link, it may be better style to present the information as a list.

If there is a dispute over what the best style is, I suggest mediation. If anyone thinks the MOS's guidance is inappropriate, I suggest proposing a change at theMOS talk page. Ozob (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps Masem, but putting info in a list or table is not just about having the "what" easily readable. It's also going to make the good "how" and "why" content paragraphs read cleaner. Right now, you have these leaden "what" sentences that are really not developed further or crucial, in almost topic sentence prominence. So don't think of it as the lists winning. Think of it as kicking them out of your golden paragraphs! ;-)

It would be different if the paragraphs went on and told a sentence about each game, but they are mostly not developed that way. Segregating the what from the how and why, the way that it looked in that diff up the page, will really make both stronger. The what can be easily abstracted. The more intellecucally interesting how and when and all, is more suitable to prose.

P.s. We should all hold hands and sing kumbaya and not be enemies when we are on the same side. One team one, fight! :) TCO (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally! Now we can put all of this behind us and make more productive use of our time. Thank you all! Cheerios and peace out! :) -Object404(talk) 06:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The current table at the bottom seems like too much detail - it's OK staying there, but I'd like to see the games clearly labelled in the lead. I would personally prefer the two lists placed into the space we normally reserve for the infobox. Just list the games, the developers, the date, and the money raised. I'd do it myself, but I need to head off, and will not have access this weekend. - hahnch e n 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there is potential more HIBs coming, we can expect the list of games to continually grow, and thus not appropriate for lead or infobox. It's still important that the games get highlighted (now in two places), but the focus of this article is the concept of the bundle pay-what-you-want sale and the success that it has had. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would say that the table ought to be made a bit more neater-looking (Don't ask me, I'm very bad with wikitables). At the moment, it only has two entries (We can change the format when there are more), so both lists and tables are a bit excessive, unless they can be spruced up properly. Making sections sounds nice at the moment. Even if there are more HIB's coming, we can always reformat to table/list/section/thingy. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we mention that World of Goo was once separately offered in a "pay what you want" thing? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Already in the Concept section (since that inspired the creation of this). --MASEM (t) 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, guys, just a friendly note, this argument is coming close to Wikipedia:Don't_edit_war_over_the_colour_of_templates. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gone stale. If there are no responses in five days, I shall close the Mediation case. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 13:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am closing the case. If anyone feels it should be reopened, I shall do so. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 04:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

wikipeace

It's progress. Good job for trying things, man.

Peace friends. Page going on unwatch. Periscope down, heading deep. Just a turtle shake before I leave.

#3 "FrozenByte" is here with 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Let's edit the wiki, shall we? 5 games, which 3 are full games for Windows/Mac/Linux, fourth game was under developement but was stopped developing and fifth is a pre-order. --Ju ze 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"bypassing middlemen and going directly to the indie developers and charities"

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's my understanding that Humble Bundle Inc. is no less a middleman than EA when it comes to distributing games and taking a cut. The default cut for Humble Bundle Inc. in the humble packs is 15% which means they've made well over $1 million, which can't be seen upon as removing the middleman. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Ramvi (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I've reworded that part of the introduction. It is different than Steam or the Apple App Store because users can choose the cut going to the "middleman", but it doesn't cut them out by default. strcat (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Introversion bundle and donations

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

One of the latest additions contains a paragraph about a donation. Is this deemed notable enough to be included? None of the previous Bundles had any mention of donations, which is why I find it not exactly necessary to mention. 78.102.164.9 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. If third parties in the gaming world note it, maybe, but not now. (And we did mention some donations, like Notch's, but that came from thirdparty sources noting it) --MASEM (t) 01:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Indie" should be dropped

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I think the page should be renamed from "Humble Indie Bundle" to just "Humble Bundle".

Rationale:

Half of the bundles the page describes are non-"Indie"
The company is "Humble Bundle, Inc."
The website is "humblebundle.com"
All emails refer to it "Humble Bundle"

Any objections if I do a move? --AM088 (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact they still call the main bundles "Humble Indie Bundle" and how most articles that refer to these deals call it that means that's the more common name. (8M hits vs 687k hits for "Humble Indie Bundle" and "Humble Bundle") And while they lose the "Indie" title for the company specific ones, they are still "indie games" for the most part, ergo, the "indie" part is true. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Am088. The "Indie" title is a name for a certain product, not the entire project. You wouldn't name Volkswagen's article "Golf" just because they have a line called that way, right? The project itself is called Humble Bundle, and the numbered Indie Bundles, as main as they may be, are only half of the whole deal.80.74.111.178 (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But again, per WP:CN, there's more hits on HIB than just HB. The "brand" (which consists of the Wolfire team to support the sales as they run) may be "Humble Bundle", but the recognized term for the actual sales, the subject of this article, is "Humble Indie Bundle", via google hits and common name --MASEM (t) 13:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Although I was introduced to this as "Humble Bundle", Masem is right about the common name used:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

-- Trevj (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Humble Android Bundle

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where is it? Shouldn't the initial games be listed at least? Not sure when it launched, but it says 14 days and 1 hour currently, so it must have been up for a while (unless they aren't running for an exact number of days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.40.208 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's there, there's just no table for it yet. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)