Talk:Let's Play

May 2012

Why does this page not mention Slowbeef, the one who invented Let's Plays? Or better yet, the YouTube channel Retsupurae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.52.32 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Because nobody has added it yet supported by reliable secondary references, especially for claims such as "invented Let's Plays". The YouTube channel would be a primary reference. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

While he was one of the first Let's Players, Slowbeef didn't invent Let's Plays. His earliest LP on the archive was started November 3, 2006. The earliest LP on the archive is Final Fantasy VI by Tuckfard — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGN001 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Slowbeef himself doesn't claim to have invented it, only that he was one of the first people to use the commentary over videos format which is now standard. The earliest LPs were either screenshots, or mixed media (screenshots with occasional videos, often without voiced commentary). --86.160.43.229 (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, this needs a reliable, secondary reference. Especially, if he is one of the several, because we need to establish why he in particular should be mentioned and not others. Which, again, is determined by independent sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm obviously not an independent resource, but this is verifiable on the Something Awful forums, if you have Archive Access. Even if I'm omitted from it, the trend absolutely didn't start on YouTube, and SA deserves the credit. I can't find the "First" Let's Play (which is allegedly, Oregon Trail, done by an unknown member of the forums), but the first "video LP" is here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2261297&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=2. Since Archives access costs money, this is a screenshot I've uploaded: http://imgur.com/HxCJb - The date of posting is Jan 5, 2007 - there shouldn't be any earlier ones. The URL linked in the screenshot is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA1kIBwGhrk&feature=gv - please note this was originally hosted on Google Video, which is since defunct and is now pointing at the original video's YouTube migration. Anyway, I get credit for "inventing" them in general (including screenshot ones) since I wrote a humorous "strategy guide" in 2004 which some people liken to to Let's Play, but I have no idea if that would have predated Oregon Trail or if it "counts" as a Let's Play. In either case, I didn't coin the term. Is this helpful? Slowbeef (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The MackNMesh video is not considered a Let's Play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.141.171 (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Why

Where is a description of "Why people make/view LPs"?

Don't need a massive description, but a little depth would serve the non-gamer readers of this page.

e.g: "People make them to entertain/for the money/ad revenue and watch them to be entertained (and likely because the game is of mild interest to the viewer, making any spoilers a non-issue). Often the games lacking in quality make for comedy gold with the better LP hosts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.127.25 (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We need reliable sources (such as these) to back up such section and all similar to above statements, otherwise it will be original research and unsuitable for inclusion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Origin

Stated on the Rooster Teeth podcast (multiple times), Geoff Ramsey came up with the term after using "Live Commentary" for the longest time. Other threads then started using it after the first "Let's Play" usage. Video64Games (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Stated by whom? Can you link to or cite the actual podcasts and times, with participating parties mentioned? Geoff Ramsey is part of Rooster Teeth himself, so the podcast most likely cannot be used to support this (see WP:PRIMARY, we need secondary sources). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gavin and Jack mentioned it very quickly in... I think Podcast 210. They said that they called it "live commentary" and then "Let's Play" after a livestream. Video64Games (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

SA info removed

The citation for this statement is a site created by someone from the SA site. Of course they want to say they created it. It's a rather self-serving citation, and a cursory google search turns up this [1] forum from 2005 which suspiciously looks like a Let's Play to me. Either way, for that kind of claim, some independent verification should be required.--114.205.84.126 (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this looks "suspiciously" like a Let's Play to you? http://web.archive.org/web/20120117203947/http://slowbeef.com/MG2 Jan. 2004. Either way, SA coined the term, and started the trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.141.171 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed some stuff

Removed Smosh and Toby because they are just in it to make money, and have crap LP's anyway. Discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.232 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a reason to remove them (And the fact they are in it for the money supports the copyright issues described afterwards). And no, we're not here to rate on quality of LPs. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's Plays not actually called "Let Us Play"

Adding citation needed to the claim that Let's Plays were at one point called Let Us Plays. I believe whoever wrote this got it from the Slowbeef post in references, but if so it's a misunderstanding of that source. Slowbeef is making a distinction between (older) interactive let's plays where viewers influenced the gameplay and (newer) non-interactive let's plays where viewers have little influence on gameplay and instead watch. He does not mean (or say) that early let's plays were literally named "Let Us Play <game title>" or that let's plays have ever been popularly called "let us plays."

Xxiggy (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Origin of "Let's Plays"

We need to be clear here: there is the idea of screenshot gallerys/videos that are specifically called "Let's Plays" - that term and approach came from Something Awful. It should be clear that before SA did "Let's Plays" there were people recording themselves playing games and just posting videos (even before the claimed Mack & Mesh), but they were not called "Let's Plays" or necessary had the elements of what Let's Play videos (namely commentary alongside gameplay). It's just that the format jelled with the SA forums, and that's what we can source. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have provided a book source that affirms Let's Plays came out of SA, even if there were similar videos before that point. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note for those trying to include the Mack and Mesh video as the first , you need a source that says it was first. You can't just link to the video and claim it was first, because that's original research. You also need to find a source that is counter to the current understanding that Lets Plays started at SA. I had put langauge that acknowledged that there were other similar things before SA's Lets Play, but the actual formalization of the concept is clearly from SA. Also note that these edits scream of conflict-of-interest here without other source backing. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are correct, the M_wikifacts sources are not. They are blogs/forums and primary sources, without any secondary sources being brought up. So no reliable sources at all. Not to mention that its WP:OR, it does not matter how evident something is. We still need secondary sources. NathanWubs (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This shows the 'Mesh Does' series - from a legitimate, reputable source - in a still downloadable form clearly dated 30th September 2004 (http://www.gamefront.com/files/3648231/Mesh_Does_Doom_Videos). I have double checked that this download still works, the vids are in a .zip file and vid4.wmv at the 1m52s shows a 'facecam' on the top left-hand of the screen and the gameplay making up the rest of the screen. The criteria that appears to have been decided - commentary besides gameplay - is entirely met if you are to follow that link, download the zip file containing the videos and watch the said videos. It looks the EXACT same as many of 'Let's Play' videos even today. I do not see how this can be argued. The first couple of 'Mesh Does' videos were just reactions, but from the fourth video onwards, there is clearly commentary over gameplay in a picture-in-picture format. The 'Mesh Does' video fits this criteria. The SA videos are, very clearly, not the first examples of the format. They are merely the first example of the name being applied to the format. That, of course, should be cited; but, I also see no reason for the 'Mesh does'/Mack and Mesh series to be erased from the page since it appears to be the earliest example of this format in action.

Some more examples of posts regarding 'Mesh Does' clearly dated 2004:

NSFW website due to some advertising sidebars!!>>> http://muchosucko.com/3659/Mesh-Does-Doom (Full video, dated 2004, in action under the 'Mesh Does' banner if you skip the first couple of minutes. The uploader is notably 'Yak', the owner of aforementioned NSFW website and also an infamous 4chan board member)

http://www.fileplanet.com/144660/140000/fileinfo/Mesh-Does-DOOM-3-Video-Pack- (These 3 videos can, arguably, be discounted from the 'Let's Play' format as it is just footage of Mesh spliced together with footage of him filmed from a shakeycam - yet they are important in the context. The above video is the next in the series, chronologically, and very clearly shows it is from the same timeframe and is the same person)

http://forums.pcformat.co.za/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6701 (Mentions how one of the 'Mesh does' videos was on a PC Gamer magazine disc - I'm sure this can be tracked down for further evidence should this not be enough)

http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?26932-Doom-III-Re-actions

http://hlfallout.net/topic/22747-mesh-does-hl2/ (Talking about 'Mesh does' Half-Life 2 which also followed the 'Mesh does' Doom III series in 2004)

http://www.neskimoforums.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1736

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/212599

http://www.valvetime.net/threads/mesh-does-ravenholm.58839/

http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21828

Lastly, from the Wikipedia page: A Let's Play (often abbreviated to "LP") is a series of screenshots or a recorded video documenting a playthrough of a video game, usually including commentary by the gamer.[1] An LP differs from a walkthrough or strategy guide by focusing on an individual's subjective experience with the game, often with humorous, irreverent, or even critical commentary from the gamer, rather than being an objective source of information on how to progress through the game

1) The video is recorded - gameplay and reactions together on screen simultaneously

2) It documents a playthrough of a video game

3) It includes commentary from Mesh

4) Subjective experience (indeed, rather than commenting on the graphics he is struggling to get back into his own skin after every fright)

5) Humorous (Very, if we are to go on the above links to forum posts)

6) Irreverent ("There you are...come on... shut up" when shooting a monster)

7) Critical ("Carmack I hate you" in reference to former Id Software programmer John Carmack)

8) Features no tips on how to get through the game; in fact, it turns out being rather the opposite

The criteria has been, very clearly, met. I do not see how there is any dispute here. (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources, particularly compared to the sources that identify Something Awful as the origin of Lets Plays. No one is doubting that there may have been videos, like this Mack and Mesh one, that were basically what "Let's Plays" became, but the popularity of them came from SA and that's the only way we can attribute them. In terms of the sources you give, we can't use forum posts or file planet-style download links.

I will say that I don't also think we need to spell out exactly the posts that started in on SA. That said, we can point to LPArachive's history page, after we have assertained by other sources that SA's LP is the origin source, to source a few history things. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Masem is right that the only way to really solve this issue is through reliable sources. If reliable sources identify the "Mesh does" videos as the first of the LP style then they should certainly be included. But mere links to the videos or links from unreliable sources do not prove this despite the very early date of the video. For all we know (on our own without reliable sources) there may have been videos made in this style on VHS in the 1990s. Perhaps "Mesh does" was late to the game. "Mesh does" might still be worth mentioning, but only if it is done so in a due manner. So that means that if it's an important video (like one discussed in a New York Times article or a Government publication or a book from a prominent author, etc) then it would be appropriate to discuss it in this article, but if it only is mentioned by random fans then they can't be considered credible historians and it would be undue to cover the video. For reference, a good list of reliable video-game-related sources can be found at WP:VG/RS. -Thibbs (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

there's a wikipedia page for the French program Level One, hosted by Marcus on the "Game one" tv channel in 1998. You can see him playing the first level of a game and commenting on it, superimposed on the game images, sometimes with a guest. Why isn't he mentioned in the history of Let's play? 2A02:1210:562D:5A00:EDB5:21DD:B4A:C958 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources have documented, and best to my knowledge no reliable source has mentioned this. Masem (t) 15:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

google the french wikipedia page "level one" and look at the show on youtube, it's pretty reliable.

the french media arrêt sur images did an episode with Marcus : https://www.arretsurimages.net/emissions/netscape/netscape-aux-origines-du-lets-play

"Entouré de Julie et Rafik, Marcus revient avec nous sur la naissance de la pratique en 1998, alors que Youtube n'existait même pas."

"Surrounded by Julie and Rafik, Marcus takes us back to the birth of the practice in 1998, when Youtube didn't even exist." 2A02:1210:562D:5A00:A16A:D10D:7D06:45FD (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a very useable source. I will be adding it. Masem (t) 16:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

another one ;)

https://www.technikart.com/streamer-1-marcus-pionnier-du-twitch/

"In 1998, Marc Lacombe, aka Marcus, unknowingly invented what would later be known as “let's play”, a concept so dear to Twitch: to be filmed while playing a video game, while commenting on what's going on. Here we meet the father of French gaming.

If you're a kid from the 90s - with cable - you're bound to know Marcus and his Level One show. In 1998, he was the first person to have a video game broadcast on television, with live commentary - or almost live."

But it was in 98 that things really got moving, when C: became Game One. Marcus came up with his Level One concept. “Canal asked me how to talk about video games on TV, and I told them to do it like at home with friends: “Sit on the sofa next to me, we'll play for 20 minutes and you'll know if you want to buy the game”. We applied this to TV. To show the reality of games, we had to do it in real time, without editing, expressing ourselves the way we talk to our buddies.” Without realizing it, Marcus invented what would later be known as the “Let's Play” format, and which today is the success of Youtubers and Twitchers of all kinds. We weren't sure it would work,” he says, ”the format was weird for the time. But we quickly saw the potential: you could interact with the game's characters on the show, and really feel like you were part of it. It caught on, and that's what people are doing today on Twitch, Youtube and so on. I'm going to ask Twitch for some money (laughs)! Today, anyone can do it from home, and there are hundreds of thousands of people doing it. When I started out, I needed the resources of a TV channel.” 2A02:1210:562D:5A00:A16A:D10D:7D06:45FD (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This is my personal Consensus Statement/Argument which is the deciding factor towards my EDIT:

No one is stating that Let's Plays did not eventually come from the Something Awful website in 2006. It just isn't the first rendition of the fact being demonstrated, which is what the context of the entry was. What Something Awful had done was obviously something that occurred thereafter once Let's Plays became popularized. They worked to try and coin a term in formal context.

Masem, your obscure book source by the way, can be found here and it just references "Something Awful" in context on Page 62 along with the website LParchive.org that is the supposed archive of all Let's Plays, which is clearly not the case as obviously (and logically) there is more than one resource for information over time which has now been discovered, which makes this book erroneous, false by context, and can be seen as a promotional tool to promote the website and company "Something Awful" if it is used to demonstrate origin in creation-based context as opposed to contribution.

Nathan, as for you stating that the sources are correct for Masem, well they are, but only in retrospect to "Something Awful" being a contributor and NOT an originator. This specific information can be added thereafter in another section or within the same section under alternative context, not in relation to an 'originator', but in context to a 'contributor'. This is what your entries lack in definitive detail.

As for constantly reverting the entry before a consensus is formally reached, that is an abuse of policy. A revised posting remains until consensus and amalgamation of both the old and new revised data have been formally agreed upon in the Talk Section. There is no one sole version, as the correct version, for historical context. There must be an emergence of both pieces of data in their context to appease both parties, and the facts need to be established, within not only the entry, but within the data itself. In Masem's own words, this abuse of policy is a 'conflict of interest'.

Nathan, as for yourself stating "They are blogs/forums and primary sources, without any secondary sources being brought up". Well this clearly not the case. Within the German Forum website referencing the Mesh Does Series, it in itself is a secondary source when the metadata is listed within the webpage once clicked upon, but obviously, not being in a formal locked state such that as a book which, we both would agree would make it Secondary. Without clicking the sources within the forum postings, the entry is considered Primary.

Metadata is the acknowledgement of a time-stamp. Other website forums also acknowledge this with their own variation of metadata towards these two individuals, but their metadata is listed in another format which can be seen here. These entries, in themselves, are forum entries. This, as it has been stated, is a Primary source, which everyone can agree upon. BUT the Secondary source that contains definitive metadata, that cannot be altered because it has been formally archived and locked by IGN is the FilePlanet Archive, which is a literal archive of data, similar to that of Google Books. The location of the metadata can be seen on Column 10 CSS line 14, which states "8/25/2004". This date is the deciding factor in regards to the facts specified in my entry, which allows all other Primary Sources to be established within context, as they are merely crediting the source of Origin on Column 10 CSS line 14, and in no way act as a Primary Source to be the deciding factor as you and others have specifically chosen to solely specify.

As for the argument of Origin, and the individual known as Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer. I placed him as second. This cannot be argued due to the lack of evidence, manipulation of evidence, and blog post date thereafter the above specified creation date which is supported by IGN and it's locked archived subsidiary FilePlanet. Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer's personal blog entry, which is highly contested as misleading and manipulative of information is in no way a contribution to fact which is what gives the website and LLC company 'Something Awful' the subversive notoriety they claim, which is only supported by a book entry, which was also created thereafter and in no way provides the notion of Origin towards them. In Section 5, titled "5. How I Get Credit for Inventing LP as a Whole", begins as such "It’s this. Starting August 25, 2004, I did a fully commented playthrough of Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake for the MSX using screengrabs and HTML tables.". The date listed is the same IGN FilePlanet archived metadata date, and is seen as a manipulation of truths once a formal investigation of Facts is performed. The individual, Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer also provides a dead link to the data within their blog entry within the quote provided above. The actual date of entry is listed as "November 14 2014" which can be seen here via public archival retrieval. It also must be said that the blog posting, and information provided in this posting, are Primary in nature and cannot be used as a reference for any future data. Also, the blog post, the individual 'Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer' 's personal dictated information, and the blog itself which already demonstrates a manipulation of data under two separate instances (misrepresentation of dates from a first-hand account, misleading links to data from within their own controlled resource) should not be considered as Primary/Secondary/Tertiary sources in future Wikipedia entries, and should be considered an immediate reprisal of information until, and after a formal discussion of Consensus has taken place in the Talk Section of any future pages involving this individual.

Since my compilation of data does not contain any falsehoods, I will now go ahead and UNDO the actions that have taken place to remove the new data before a formal discussion of creation and consensus has taken place with the amalgamation of old and new data. Removal of the new data, and replacement of erroneous data as fact is against policy. A discussion and formal layout must take place if you stand by your erroneous data as sole fact. M wikifacts (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Using your so-called "metadata" is what Wikipedia calls synthesis - you are making a claim based on a bias approach to sources. Just because Mack and Mesh' video existed before the 2006 point in SA does not make it the origin. It is an earlier example of a "video game playthrough with commentary" but to the industry, the origin where the format solidified is SA. You need a reliable source that says otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You were reverted, and then you reverted someone again. I already explained on your talk page. That the moment that you were reverted you would have to go to the talk page to get consensus. You did not. You WP:EW that is abuse of policy and disruptive editing.You clearly do not have the consensus when multiply editors are against your WP:OR that is not backed up by reliable sources. If you just go ahead and place your information now in the article, you will once again go against consensus and will continue your WP:EW and at the same time your disruptive editing. So if you want to get what you suggested in the article, I suggest you get consensus first and come with reliable secondary sources. I also implore you to study wikipedia its policy about sourcing and that you click the WP:OR link that I have provided to understand that your approach is wrong. NathanWubs (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence available that state 'Mack' or 'Mesh' are connected with 'Something Awful' as you state in the acronym 'SA'.

Secondly, the approach of using metadata is not "Synthesis" when the statement of metadata is literal in context and not adverse to itself when you observe the actual context of which it is used in regards to this instance; We are referring to 'History' - Dates need apply. By stating they are synthesis, that logic would only be factual toward argument if we were stating non-historical references in this section. Metadata has been used by libraries as a reference-to-fact for generations.

As for their compilation of original videos existing before 2006, they are observed, locked, and archived by IGN, and in fact does make it origin in reference-to-fact, whereas until someone else can find a more original resource with accompanying references to support their context, this should be the basis of historical reference because of the viral nature of the data, irrelevant of the fact that in another part of the world this data was chosen to be unobserved or ignored by certain parties.

The demonstration of the individuals in front of a camera with gameplay footage on-screen was not just displayed to industry. It was displayed globally to all facets in a viral fashion. This demonstration was the synthesis of the idea of a Let's Play and layout that would drive viral content which was then synthesized to production of a numerous amount of videos in the weeks following. The format, which you say was solidified and created by 'Something Awful', is not representative in any way in reference or in context in a schema format or display, that is before said metadata of the locked and archived data in question which demonstrates the earliest compiled form of the schema. In fact, 'Mack' or 'Mesh' are not even referenced on the 'Something Awful' LParchive.org website, which in turn makes the LParchive.org statement within the book erroneous, nonfactual, and very questionable in nature as it is omitting the first viral gameplay video displayed on numerous computers and television stations across the planet.

Your reliable source book, which is the book in question, is incorrect. Just because a book states it's own truth doesn't make it so when there is verifiable evidence to prove the book incorrect by merely going to the website they mention and typing in the words within their search 'Mack' or 'Mesh'. Your definitive source book that was referenced on page 62, along with the website referenced within it as LParchive.org also does not mention 'Mack' or 'Mesh'. This in turn means the information you are providing is selective in nature and omissive.

Nathan, consensus is done by numerous individuals within the Talk page. The new entry would stay, and the now new and then old entry would be brought into a consensus discussion within this Talk page to compile an amalgamated entry to appease all parties so no one is left out. There is no one entry that supersedes all entries forever. M wikifacts (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, the page uses the existing version, not the new material (per WP:BRD).

Further, we cannot make original research. All this evidence you have about Mack and Mesh predating SA's versions is interesting, but you are creating original research to the fact that "the concept of "Let's Play" videos originiated at SA". There is plenty of room in that statement that other videos, like Mack and Mesh's, might have been before SA's version, but the organization and archiving of the videos by the "Let's Play" name is all at Something Awful. This is the fact that you have yet to counter from other sources. Anything less than that is original research that WP cannot use. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again you are wrong. "appease all parties so no one is left out." Consensus on wikipedia is ruled by the majority that is backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not here to appease to everyone. That is why the articles on evolution, Creationism and, Intelligent Design are not full of creationist/intelligent design placating. Please instead of just reiterating your points in different words come with reliable sources, and read the five pillars and once again WP:OR, then the discussion can continue. NathanWubs (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC) According to WP:CON that is not the case. The edited version stays up and slowly becomes altered within the discussion here along with the old version being amalgamated in some way to appease. UNDO-ing the version completely is an abuse of policy when there was no Talk to a final consensus completed.

I have not created original research that the concept's origin was created by 'Something Awful' as you state.

The metadata speaks for itself to represent it's own factual reference on the IGN locked and archived page, which negates the historical reference correctly that was previously stated incorrectly.

The only notion of research was completed within the Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer edit to state the revised edit appropriately in historical context correctly which was incorrectly stated previously. If we were to remove him completely from historical context it would in fact not be a problem at all, as the book source on Page 62 you referenced does not even have him listed, which in turn mentions the website that he was connected to in the original posting. This again calls, ironically, this book reference into question, and is a reaching-point for the deciding reference-of-fact towards Origin.

As for the name of "Let's Play", it is not called into question who originally created the physical form of the name. That is a separate section entirely, or even a subsection within the 'History' section itself that can be dated afterwards. The production of a 'Let's Play' video's design, schema, and commentary in any sense of the word in relation to 'video gaming' albeit text-based or audio-based predates 'Something Awful' and their organization via 'Mack' and 'Mesh' and their viral video of 2004. If 'Something Awful' chooses to not properly recognize them, albeit via a simple blog post or referencing the IGN archive, that is their wrongdoing as the 'Something Awful' website was created in 1999, which in turn negates them as a source of all things Let's Play related in regards to origin because of this mistake. The 'Something Awful' organization, in no way, represents a global common-place for Let's Play videos or a globally recognized governing body towards the fact.

Also, it should be said, 'Something Awful' does not officially own the phrase "Let's Play". They may have used it in context, but in no way is there reference-of-fact provided in reference within their entry albeit to trade mark, copyright, or patent. If you can counter that claim feel free, because I think everyone wants to see it. In my eyes, their involvement towards the phrase itself holds speculation unless that reference is mentioned. A book postdated after the fact by literally years is in no way substantial when it is highly contested. M wikifacts (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree that what SA did - whether the screenshot or the video based playthroughs with commentary - did not originate from them. Mack and Mesh are one example, but I know for a fact that I can find earlier cases. (I've done work in the Marathon game community back pre-2000, and there were such examples then). What is recognized is that the terminology "Let's Play", and subsequent drive to do many such games, came from SA's forums. That we cannot change. We can work the language - as I've tried to do - to indicate that SA only formalized something that was already there. I dare say we can find the so-called "first" Let's Play-style video without a full web crawl and even then we will miss information.

What does become a problem is to try to identify Mack and Mesh's work as any more important than SA here. They are a example of early videos but they are not described by sources as the earlier or a major example of such. That's why we cannot include them, but we can rework the language on the SA part to note that they didn't necessary start the concept, but they are credited with the name. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can find earlier cases referenced similar to that of 'Mack' and 'Mesh' to properly establish Origin in the History section, then by all means I invite you to add it here first to be discussed for consensus.

The terminology of "Let's Play" has to be referenced correctly in a formal manner...we can all agree on that. There is no existing reference legally tied with 'Something Awful'. In fact, if you read the 'Legal Issues' section of this same wiki entry, I believe you are even over-stepping by trying to include 'Something Awful' in some way, in this fashion, by misrepresenting facts without a legal reference. I want it to be said publicly, here and now, that I have no part of the inclusion of what you are choosing as the entry in regard to the phrase "Let's Play", and the ramifications that will transpire afterward in regard to legal issues. My personal suggestion is to include what you intend to say in regard to the invention of the phrase "Let's Play" as a subsection within the 'Legal Issues' location in some way, or to create a separate section altogether as to not inflict possible legal ramifications across all person(s), company(s), bodies, or parties listed within a section.

As for the notion you mentioned toward 'drive' or to be mentally driven to do something; This is done obviously by social influence or social encouragement of some sort. The video's completed by 'Mack' and 'Mesh', and the viral activity of them being placed in numerous locations across the internet, this reference being one such example, is representative of the 'drive' that you describe being injected into society which predates 'Something Awful'. As for the 'Something Awful' website being the source for that notion of influence, well, clearly there needs to be a reference that predates the sharing of the files of 'Mack' and 'Mesh' as well as the general discussion.

In regards to the term "formalized"; 'Something Awful' did not create any sort of open and free public medium to allow the ongoing public of the world to access the age-old data that acknowledges this formalization over an indefinite time. In other words, the access to the formal guidelines is located on a pay-to-access forum server that cannot be referenced, or even checked, for verification through reference listed here by the public new to the culture of 'Let's Play'. BUT, in regards to the term itself, a more appropriate phrase in this instance would be "private socially generated creation of guidelines". These 'guidelines' however, are not advertised or written to be taken literally across the entire internet by multiple companies, and there is no definitive precedence in place to regulate future productions enforced by them. They were only created and enforced on their website, which is not the only website available in regards to Let's Play material.

The "so-called 'first' Let's Play-style" is open to discovery for anyone to post the entry much like it had been with this entry, done with references. What is mentioned in my entry is the earliest and publicly known form which is representative of today's version of a Let's Play in social context.

Again, I think we are going in circles here Masem in regard to content. These two individuals don't have to be described in formal context as a Let's Play in this resource. The wording or context of a 'Let's Play' need not apply in direct relation to the word for historical purposes, but in the design of the production in this instance to directly relate to what a 'Let's Play' is considered formally today. For instance, if eating an apple on camera is considered a 'Let's Play', then by definition in the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, if they were recorded eating said apple, then they would be the first production of a 'Let's Play'. That is why 'Mack' and 'Mesh' are legitimately the first instance in comparison to the 'Let's Play' genre, unless another can be properly referenced accordingly.

As for the last thing you mention, which I am going to quote "That's why we cannot include them, but we can rework the language on the SA part to note that they didn't necessary start the concept, but they are credited with the name." --Can you specify whom you are referring to above in the bold reference? It's incredibly difficult to decipher this. Please clarify.

M wikifacts (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You're making this way more complicated. These types of videos today are called "Let's Play" because the Something Awful forums called them that. Period. All sources on this matter agree on this point. That's not saying they created the concept of commentary-added video game playthroughs, only that the terminology they came up with has stuck today. I reworded the paragraph to make it clear SA wasn't necessarily the first, but they are credited on the name. To exclude that is falsely misrepresenting the topic.

We can't include Mack and Mesh because there are no reliable sources for them. GAmefront is a file server service and not a reliable source. Forums are not reliable sources. You also haven't shown that they are the "first" (as I said, I know personally of earlier instances). --MASEM (t) 22:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Masem, you need to provide reference-to-fact in regards to the phrase that you are claiming they own, which is "Let's Play". Everyone knows references need to be applied. There is no special circumstance that gives you special permissions to avoid this notion. On top of that, there is a whole 'Legal Issues' section specifically made in regards to specificity, in regards to ownership (copyright, trademark, or patent). This is incredibly irresponsible of you with no care in regard to action.

As for the references you have provided, they are not cohabitant towards sources agreeing on the points you claim, in these recent edits, that have not been fully discussed in this Talk section. This is a public page. We have to come to a consensus on any upcoming edits in here, along with others, during this Consensus Discussion period. Editing right now to place what you wish is not abiding by policy. The rules apply to everyone.

The references-to-fact, in detail, that you list, are listed as such in reference to the statements currently on the page. I advise you not to change them on the public page, but in here instead, so a consensus can be made;

Reference 3 "One such form these took was the addition of running commentary, typically humorous in nature, along with the screenshots or videos; video-based playthroughs would typically be presented without significant editing to maintain the raw response the players had to the game.

---A video provided reference would be more appropriate than an obscure German website in this instance. This reference you provide also does not mention the 'Something Awful' website, which you state supports your claim. It merely mentions "America", which in itself does not provide reference on the referenced pages that the article is written. "America" in itself can seen in 3 parts; North America, South America, and the United States of America (this list does not include partial countries that coexist with familiar namesakes). This is an incomplete resource in regards to supporting the notion that the 'Let's Play' phrase was invented by 'Something Awful', especially when it is postdated in 2013 and the rights to the article can be obtained openly as stated on the bottom, to not just force a position of fact, but to manipulate the usage of the article as well.

Reference 4 "Though others had used the same approach at the time, the forums at the website Something Awful are credited with coming up with the term "Let's Play" in 2006 to describe such playthroughs. Something Awful's forums also established a process to create these and the development of a large archive of such Let's Plays."

---The statement within the book on Page 62, that states that "Let's Play" .."Origninating on the forums of 'Something Awful'" does not state the phrase "Let's Play" is owned by 'Something Awful'. Like I said, you need to provide proper reference-to-fact to some sort of Legal document that states this, in regard to Patent, Trademark, or Copyright somewhere on the planet. The fact that there is a Legal section created within this topic is more than reason enough to caution against placing this information in this article without a supporting document as a Legal claim. This is not a credited resource for this Legal claim just because it is a book. It needs to be Legally substantiated through a Patent, Trademark, or Copyright. This page is not a Legal playground to specify Legal facts such as Patent, Trademark, or Copyright incorrectly.

Reference 5 "Though others had used the same approach at the time, the forums at the website Something Awful are credited with coming up with the term "Let's Play" in 2006 to describe such playthroughs. Something Awful's forums also established a process to create these and the development of a large archive of such Let's Plays."

---Again, this reference does not acknowledge the formal date in question in reference-to-fact. This is a page that was not created in whole in 2006, that does not describe playthroughs in 2006 in an exacting reference-to-fact whereas examples can be found on the page to demonstrate reference-to-fact. The only thing this reference provides is unsubstantiated information created by the source in question, that does not provide active links that can be accessed by the public, which we have already discussed is not a proper reference. A reference that subversively makes it difficult to substantiate accuracy is not a reference. You need to provide accurate references to what you state. Not a page that states claimancy to links of which represent reference-to-fact that lead no where. This exact problem was with the Michael "slowbeef" Sawyer page and it's content which was found to be subversive in nature in reference-to-fact that we agreed upon. In other words, I believe that 'Something Awful' may have some sort of guideline that was made up in 2006, that has been built upon over time, but without a proper reference-to-fact in regards to 'playthroughs' and so fourth, it's not substantial if I, or someone else new to the genre of "Let's Play" cannot view them via a reference-to-fact listed.

I understand entirely when you mention that 'Something Awful' invented the 'Let's Play' phrase. But provide a Legal reference to a supporting document of ownership. Not doing so is misrepresenting facts when you are stating claimancy to ownership.

Again, Masem, it seems we are going in circles. In regards to 'Mack' and 'Mesh', their sources are backed, in regards to IGN provided metadata, and in the process of archival, by IGN, to permanently stay on their servers. This can be seen at the top of the page in a red banner on the IGN website. Simply stating that "Gamefront" is not a reliable reference-to-fact does not make it so, when the 'Gamefront' reference is posted in regard to demonstrate "Their production was even copied and placed in numerous obscure locations for download unbeknownst to the creators, in a viral-manner" as a community altered location. As for the forum references, they are demonstrating the viral substance of what was created at the time in regards to context of the entire entry to provide reference-to-fact as a Primary reference, which was already discussed previously.

Again, as for you mentioning that you know of earlier sources, I will quote myself from before "If you can find earlier cases referenced similar to that of 'Mack' and 'Mesh' to properly establish Origin in the History section, then by all means I invite you to add it here first to be discussed for consensus.". M wikifacts (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. No one is making the claim of "Something Awful owns the term "Let's Play"." I don't think anyone could even own the term (an attempt to trademark it would likely fail). So no, there's zero need to show that. We can show that the action of calling these videos "Let's Play" started at SA, that'd documented.

And no, the problem with the sources you have provided for Mack and Mesh are not reliable sources. Fileplanet is not an RS, Gamefront is not an RS. Thus we have to ignore these. WP has a very strict reliable source policy and for video games we have compiled a list here, which none of your sources qualify for. Ergo, we can't use those sources. To attempt to use them in the manner described fails synthesis. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC) You state in your EDIT, and I quote "Though others had used the same approach at the time, the forums at the website Something Awful are credited with coming up with the term "Let's Play" in 2006 to describe such playthroughs". This alludes to the fact of ownership. It creates a Legal precedent, because not only are you not providing an early account in 2006 that represents the usage on the site 'Something Awful', but stating they are "credited" which is a baseless form of promotion that has no consequence to fact if you don't provide reference-to-fact from the 'Something Awful' website.

Also, having a cavalier attitude towards the phrase does not make the entry justified.

As for stating that the videos being "officially named a Let's Play in 2006", they cannot be from the book. It must be from the website 'Something Awful' that actually states the reference-to-fact, which I have already discussed earlier on that, which for some reason, cannot be accessed to be verified by the public. If these facts cannot be verified, of which 'Something Awful' own and control, then they don't officially exist in this context whatsoever. At this point, it is merely rumor of the happenings in 2006, with absolutely no connection to reference-to-fact other than the own acknowledgement of 'Something Awful' with links on their website revoking access to demonstrate fact. I would have to see this myself, as I believe anyone else in the future who explores this Let's Play genre should.

The references-to-fact for the production of the 'Mack' and 'Mesh' videos that occurred in 2004 are reliable, verifiable, and follow procedure accordingly in retrospect to their context. In regards to the reference you provide ( here ) to observe, the references-to-fact that I mention are more relevant than irrelevant in comparison, as the production databases are hosted by "Reliable" databases according to here, such that GameSpy hosts for FilePlanet, which is owned by IGN, and Defy Media host for GameFront, which their relationship can be observed in an up-to-date manner via their Terms of Service.

It should be stated that the resource you mention here is incomplete in nature in regards to your argument as it does not specify GameFront as being connected with Defy Media, or GameFront at all for that matter, in any context within here, such as in the tables between "Reliable" and "Unreliable". Since this is the case, this resource you state here, is not a valid measure of Accuracy and Validity even though it is incorrectly stated as a "Guideline", and not kept Up-to-Date, which in turn makes the Article here Out-of-Date, Invalid and Inaccurate. That being said, the "Guideline" here, cannot be used in this instance as it is improperly kept, and the claims within it that state a claimancy of accuracy are false and misleading within context. This erroneous "Guideline" can be compared to even the 'Something Awful' website, or the Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer blog post that doesn't even contain complete reference-to-fact. To use here as a "Guideline" in this instance, it would be a reaching-point to produce fact in an accurate manner since the "Guideline" is incomplete. In other words, if one were to use the "Guideline", they would incorrectly invalidate or validate their references-to-fact as certain connections to appropriate and inappropriate companies are incomplete. M wikifacts (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea how Wikipedia works or what we're establishing here. No one is trying to say Something Awful has the legal rights to the name "Let's Play", they are only being coined for where the term came from, which we can document from third-party, secondary sources. And you don't understand reliable sources or how they apply to this topic. There is no point in continuing this discussion. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Legal implication is what you are trying to incorrectly apply by stating they are "credited". You cannot imply falsehoods without establishing verifiable reference-to-fact. Simple as that. As it has been stated previously, if a generic user decided to research the topic of the 'Let's Play' genre, and you mention the term 'Let's Play' being "credited" towards 'Something Awful' without proper reference-to-fact that states both the reference that applies said 'credit', AND the reference that the 'credit' originated from in original formal context, the 'credit' you are implying will be in a state falsehood.

You, as well as anyone else that researches the topic needs verifiable reference-to-fact to justify what they are reading is fact, and not an implied falsehood in this instance. The website reference you mention does not offer appropriate links to the fact in question. In fact, it can even be seen that the reference you previously listed is a promotional tool to generate income for 'Something Awful' from this Wikipedia Article, that is directed towards users that intend to verify said fact because of the nature of the 'Something Awful' website's pay-to-use service to observe the links supporting the statement of "credit".

This was similarly discussed above in regards to "Reference 5" in greater detail.

If you choose not to continue the discussion then it is seen that you also choose to not support your entry in further research to apply appropriate reference-to-fact (that I would also want to see by the way), and wish to withdraw the current entry in the History section. Is this the case? M wikifacts (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR - we as editors cannot do research ourselves, outside of finding sources and summarizing what they say, not making novel conclusions. We have sources that credit SA with the term "Let's Play", and nothing else. That is what we include, irregardless of all these other little things that you're trying to assemble into a novel claim that Mack and Mesh were first (which doesn't matter any more with how this has been changed around, we're not trying to identify the first such LP-type work, simply that SA is the source of the term). You need a source, explicitly, from what is identified as a reliable source (none of what you have given fall into that definition) that called "Mack and Mesh"'s videos as earlier "Let's Play" examples. We need that statement explicitly or otherwise it is continued original research that cannot be included. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Game Informer Issue 251 credits Something Awful as the origin of Let's Play. Is this independent enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.141.171 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Game Informer Article - http://imgur.com/a/x75dR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.141.171 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the link, and that would indeed also work nicely a source. NathanWubs (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, and that means we can credit Slowbeef too w/o have to refer to SA/blog posts. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Irregardless of any of the 'Mack' and 'Mesh' claims that you mention, and focusing just on your entry, the phrase created by 'Something Awful' cannot be verified from the published source that you reference-to-fact, because of the nature of the 'Something Awful' website and it's pay-to-use locked design, which in turn, demonstrates that a reference-to-fact towards the 'Something Awful' website is a promotional tool within this article when a reference is applied to such notion in historical context. Also, a user should not be forced into a pay-to-use position in regards to a reference-to-fact that you are stating from your published source. Your published source, in regards to this reference-to-fact, is an unreliable source regarding this context discussed.

I am not arguing against you placing the information in this article. I am for it. BUT the 'Something Awful' website is the problem here in regards to the references-to-fact or anyone in any reliable publication that has the 'Something Awful' website mentioned. The website of 'Something Awful' needs to be an open reference that is not behind a pay-to-use locked structure. If the information is not an open reference, then it is unacceptable across those that reference their website that contains the literal contextual fact of the information that you wish to state in this article. If 'Something Awful' does not remove their pay-to-use locked design which locks the information from view from being dismissed as rumor, then it remains as rumor and nothing more in this article, as Wikipedia does not provide funding to access the 'Something Awful' website's information, or any website's information behind such pay walls.

In regards to the Imgur images, you would have to provide reference-to-fact toward the user on the Imgur page holding said magazine in hand, of whom, is not a reliable publisher of information in this context. Not only that, there is no image of the magazine cover, issue number, volume number, and so fourth to properly address a citation in an accurate manner. To even acknowledge this as legitimate is foolish and abusive in context when the 'Something Awful' website is inaccessible to prove references-to-fact.

In the meantime I suggest you remove the content of your entry until you can find a Published source that demonstrates references-to-fact of the phrase "Let's Play" that does not lead, within the Published source, to a locked location behind a pay-to-use locked design within itself, that you currently have. As for myself and the content I have placed earlier, I am in the process of obtaining specific international televised footage, both foreign and domestic in nature, and developing a rewrite of the entire entry in regards to 'Mack' and 'Mesh' within this article and another article altogether. I suggest we both in the meantime, lock this page from further outside abuse, remove the entries in regard to historical context, and report accounts that do not abide by what has been discussed within this formal Consensus Discussion between you and I that will continue on a later date. I believe we can both agree on this. M wikifacts (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

At this point, you need to stop, as this is becoming disruptive. You have no clear understanding of WP's sourcing policies. (We don't restrict sources that may require paid access per WP:PAYWALL, and we can validate GI 251 has the needed info per WP:V, it's not the imgur links). You clearly have a conflict of interest in trying to promote a non-notable set of gamers over what is clearly shown to be the origins in two separate materials now. If you continue to push the issue without understanding how we evaluate and use sources on WP, you will likely be blocked. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Masem, the link WP:PAYWALL refers to Books that cost money and so fourth that present a location for the reference, such as the book you referenced yourself. It does not refer to the content of the reference within it. That is what you do not understand. The content of your reference leads to a locked and secure location that cannot be verified. As for this Imgur image, you do not know for a fact all the details needed to represent this citation accurately. Threats do not validate your actions if you choose to post this information without proper observance of the materials appropriately.

I do not have a conflict of interest. That is a baseless claim with you trying to manipulate and defame me within these discussions, which I am not going to stand by. This article demands improvement based on the abuse and manipulation it has received over the years. I suggested alternative action that would benefit us both which dismisses your claims. There is no question of that. My involvement is factually sound and nothing more. Accusations into the matter will not be tolerated. You are approaching a legal matter at this point if these accusations are persistent. You have been warned. M wikifacts (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

PAYWALL covers the content that you think is an issue - but it should be pointed out that the refs to SA forums directly have long been removed. And between reviewing GI's site and the imgur images I can provide enough details to meet citation and WP:V. (Issue #251, Jan 2014, pp16-22). You are trying to force the inclusion of a random video or set of game players that have no reliable sources that we can use to justify inclusion, without trying to understand WP's policies. That, per WP:DUCK, implies a conflict of interest either pro "Mack and MEsh" or anti-Something Awful. Neither is allowed here. (Neither is pro-SA, but I have no bias. I'm trying to write what is accurate to reliable sources.) --MASEM (t) 22:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts, legal threats are not tolerated on Wikipedia. You have received a warning on your talk page. Looking over the discussion, your arguments have been dismantled over and over by Masem, having been shown to go against or completely ignore Wikipedia's policies. If you want to sway anyone, please learn Wikipedia's policies on no original research and verifiability and construct an argument that abides by those policies. Otherwise, this discussion will only continue to go in circles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

use logic. You cannot verify that Imgur image. You cannot. It was placed by an unknown account.

I can verify from GI's website they ran a Lets Play story in their Jan 2014 issue. And I can see through forums that what is shown there is what others read too. Yes, I haven't picked up the actual mag, but I really doubt there is any fakery here, given that all the other information about Let's Plays today matches with other sources we have. That would be basically an incredible trick to play. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems you have edited the page again, forcefully, before Consensus has been made amongst the editing party within this Talk section, which is all of us. This demonstrates a Conflict of Interest, outright. Revert the page immediately.

As for WP:PAYWALL, it does not refer to what you want it to refer to. It refers to what exactly is stated, and it seems it is also irrelevant because the information no longer exists.

As for the the 'Something Awful' information that has long since been removed, that mere fact negates it's entry in this article as the 'Something Awful' website still exists, and any mention of this notion outside of the company's own Wikipedia Article is a promotional tool.

The only thing we can do in regards to the magazine is, as for the Issue, date, and page numbers, of said magazine, provide an image of the binding within this Talk Consensus Discussion, along with the inside cover of which would contain the formal location. Not doing so is a blatant disregard toward citation within this Consensus Discussion. BUT I am of course calling in to question the contents because they do not relate directly to all your subsequent resources. For instance, the year 2006 is mentioned in the book resource from before as a specific Origin date, and the year 2007 is mentioned in this magazine resource as the Origin date. This section is a History section which deems accuracy towards dates. These two resources do not correlate and are in fact conflicting resources. If we can call into question dates with your resources, then we can call into question much more in regards to the History section itself.

As for the mention of Michael 'Slowbeef' Sawyer, we had discussed this person before. This person's own information, on their own personal blog entry, in regards to this topic, negates the information in said magazine. Not only that, the mere of mention of him is called into question which we have discussed also previously due to the fact of manipulative tactics of dating, and false-linking information surrounding the individual which is demonstrated on his own website, which cannot be verified on the 'Something Awful' website, and is excluded from your book resource.

Applying all said parties above within this Wikipedia Article as an entry, with these highly controversial conclusions, is a clear abuse of this website and is reaching. The very act of you avoiding discussion before an edit as well, is a demonstration of Conflict of Interest when you know from observing the information, that it itself is highly inaccurate when you posted it.

Also, we need to agree to Lock this Article, remove the controversial History section altogether, and report those that try to manipulate this page in the future thereafter, immediately. There are too many unknown editors becoming involved, and clearly getting involved in the Talk section that is causing us to not communicate in a civil manner, as well as, usage of their materials in an improper way that is not properly analyzed.

M wikifacts (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you have demonstrated zero understanding of Wikipedia policies. You have been shown to be the minority, and have not shown any comprehension of how we source things. There is nothing controversial about the conclusions made as we now have 2 sources that affirm SA as the source of the term "Let's Play". To continue to challenge that without proving any equivalent evidence (none of the sources you have listed so far are equivalent) will likely result in your account being blocked for being purposely disruptive. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Masem, avoiding discussion doesn't negate what you have done along with your cohorts. If anything all the accounts will be called into question. This image states 2007 as the origin date. The book dictates 2006. This is a major conflict in the History section. Your way, with your cohorts, is not the end-all result. A Consensus deems we all have to agree, which we do not because of your reference conflictions, hence the definition of a Consensus. You are wrong, as you always have been, as well as your cohorts. You did not check the information thoroughly for conflicting data. The entire is entry is erroneous with falsehoods. M wikifacts (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no conflict. Slowbeef's first LP is dated 2007. Slowbeef in the GI article acknowledges there was an earlier one at SA for I have no mouth..., which LPArchive credits as 2006 [2]. No conflict at all. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:M wikifacts, User:Masem is correct here: we edit based on reliable, third-party published sources, though they need not appear online. We also edit by consensus, not by unanimity. Woodroar (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) The book dictates 2006 which predates the magazine as the Origin. This is also the case in actual print as well of both publications. Hence conflict. There wouldn't be a conflict if a previous date didn't exist. You adjusting the entire entry to suit that magazine does not change the fact that you are manipulating this discussion for your own benefit. That magazine is not an accurate resource. This is fact. The book negates it. We have to come to a Consensus. Besides, on Michael 'Slowbeef' Sawyer's own blog in Section 5, he himself negates the date you mention. Do you not understand this? By you leaving this up you are leaving a falsehood, and selectively choosing to get your way as opposed to working with others in this arena.

You have to take into account what can be proven factual. The Magazine that you just added which contains inaccurate information cannot be considered. The Book which references the phrase and the location cannot be confirmed because the information doesn't apparently exist. The Michael 'Slowbeef' Sawyer blog contains dates, but those dates after the investigation that we completed earlier has been proven to be manipulated through research. There are no factual references in your entry. Just references. Have you not read anything that we have discussed? Clearly not based on your actions.

I am at a point where I have to report this entire discussion and all those involved, because clearly there are ulterior motives at work, instead of being dedicated to accuracy within this section. This is a sensitive section that should dictate accuracy correctly which none of your references can. They are all conflicting as we have discovered, and posted evidence of said conflictions earlier on.

Woodroar, clearly you are coming in here a little bit late, so please have a read of what consensus means in regard to decision making. No offense. M wikifacts (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop playing games. You have shown no argument for this. If you continue to disagree with two very reliable sources, you will be blocked. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the book Videogames doesn't even mention a date tied to "Let's Play" so this supposed conflict is non-existence. You are either being purposely dense or trolling. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I have read and understand it, which is why I linked to Wikipedia:Consensus. While I can understand the confusion, it is not consensus decision-making as you linked. And while I am late to the discussion, I have read it and find that Masem's statements align with our policies and guidelines such as WP:V.

I'll give you what may seem to be a ridiculous analogy: if we had but one single reliable source discussing the Sun, and this source said the Sun was formed last week, then we state that the Sun formed last week. It doesn't matter that we seem to recall—or can find our own evidence—that the Sun existed prior to last week. Now obviously situations like this rarely happen—reliable sources are reliable because they tend to describe reality—but our job is to make statements based on what reliable, third-party published sources say. That is all.

If you would like to "report" this discussion, there are avenues for that. Masem has already started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Some help needed at Let's Play (video gaming) and it's not going your way. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QtOj7rNFCY It's from a Spring 2014 Nintendo Power issue. ;) And yes, that's the infamous chris-chan.

Kotaku article and need to check against GI

[3]. The information is mostly the same if not more than what we have but it does conflict with who did the Oregon Trial LP. I cannot find the GameInformer article ("Watching People Play" by Mike Trinh in GI #251) this is attached to (not that it doesn't exist, I just don't have a ready copy to double check) but I want to verify the conflict of this. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

• Let's Play (video gaming) → Let's Play
• Let's Play → Let's Play (disambiguation)

– Let's Play (video gaming) is clearly the primary topic. It's the sole article listed on the Let's Play disambiguation page called "Let's Play" that isn't a redirect, with the other entries being NN songs, albums, and television episodes - so no real competitors for long term significance. The only other article there is Let Us Play!, which could not occupy "Let's Play", and gets significantly less views. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Support - I think some of those disamb links might have articles before but no longer, and the application to video gaming is clearly the most common use. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support with the exception of a recently created two sentence article about the British TV show nothing else is even an article.--76.65.40.153 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support clear PT.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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

long reference list

Rename

I think you must rename it to letsplay. In English "Let's play" translate like "go play". And a letsplay is a separate term, which doesn't means "Let's Play, Go Play" . And who record letsplay is letsplayers. Oh stupid Amerikos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F41:D2D0:404F:6CF6:35D2:250A (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Let's Play" is the most common name; never seen it anyway else, even if it doesn't make sense in translation to other titles. --Masem (t) 22:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Video illustration

If the video File:Let's Play 0 AD.webm is supposed to illustrate this genre of video to people who wonder "what are the kids watching on their devices?" it is unbelievable insufficient in this regard. Is it possible to find some free footage of a more energetic and/or younger player? --SVTCobra (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization question: "Let's Play" vs "let's play"?

I don't understand the capitalization policy here. The only reason I can think of for "Let's Play" making sense is because the phrase appears commonly in video titles... but that would make its "true form" "let's play", and it's simply title case that's causing it to be displayed frequently as "Let's Play".

Am I missing something here? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to add here and @Empire of Grammar: on the recent move - all the reliable sources capitalize "Let's Play" based on how it was used over at Something Awful forums, so that's why we use the capitalized form here to describe it as a media type. Also, we do not use "curly" punctuation at all in titles which causes a mess of problems. --Masem (t) 19:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. Sources capitalize, so that's what we use (barring excessive stylization). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a capitalization error Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization errors...

"Let's play" is one of the most generic terms ever and 100% doesn't need capitals. This capitalization error is Wikipedia-wide. Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It is commonly capitalized as a proper noun which originates from its days at Something Awful. This has been pointed out before. --Masem (t) 05:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Just because it is capitalized in its origin doesn't mean the capitalization is correct. It is still generic and it isn't a brand name or anything.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't go to some random forum for capitalization guidelines.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We're using the reliable sources that point to the SA forums as the origin, and to how its capitalized. --Masem (t) 05:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Here, for example, is a Eurogamer article from 3 days ago that uses caps, as well as Financial Times from a month ago. --Masem (t) 05:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It totally doesn't look like a case of citogenesis. After all, Eurogamer and Financial Times are well-respected sources when it comes to English grammar. Also, dictionaries like Wiktionary and several others surely use the same capitalisation, so there's a clear consensus. Miyamoto Hachimaro (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2023

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus that it's not a proper noun, so we go with the status quo ante. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Let's Play → Let's play – no reason to capitalize "play" -- FMSky (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It's not a proper noun and thus should not be capitalized. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Preliminary oppose per the above section. Reliable sources are split, owing to the term's genesis as a proper noun at Something Awful. O.N.R. ^(talk) 01:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As previously discussed. Its considered a proper noun from its origin. --Masem (t) 01:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

it isnt anymore, its a generic term nowadays --FMSky (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Scanning through recent sources (eg 2023) the casing is still mixed between being a proper noun and the generic phrase. That would still lead me to use the proper noun version given the history of the term. Masem (t) 02:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It appears to be a proper noun, i.e. a "Let's Play" of something. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely not a proper noun any more than a "concert" or "performance" is a proper noun. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as a proper noun in the gaming world. If this RM is passed the entire name "let's play" would be lowercased in running text, which in most uses wouldn't make much sense in describing the term. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

A is a subset of B.
B is a superset of A.
(Illustration from the Set (mathematics) article.)

People should really learn a basic lesson of logic: the fact that "All A are B" does not mean that "All B are A". The fact that proper nouns are capitalized does not mean that everything that has been observed to be capitalized is a proper noun. This is clearly a common noun, not a proper noun. It is a category or a genre. It's OK to say "let's capitalize it because practically everyone else capitalizes it", if that's what you want to say, but let's not pretend that any phrase can somehow become a proper noun by being frequently capitalized. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be this case if it started off as a generic then used on some cases as a proper noun. But in this case, this was a proper noun to start, and only more recently has become more generic. One could argue it is a similar track to generated trademarks like aspirin (which initial marketed as Aspirin), but based on current sources, iys not yet clear if the term has become generic. Masem (t) 13:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

When was this phrase the name of a single unique video clip rather than a category of video clips? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Rreagan. Not a proper noun in my vocabulary. Wiktionary rightly has it lowercase. Capitalization is frequent but less common in newer sources. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's always been "Let's Play", from the days of the SA forums to its mainstream spread and significant reliable coverage of the genre. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:05, 17 October 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.