Talk:Angry Video Game Nerd/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge proposal

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into The Angry Video Game Nerd. This is linked from the James Rolfe (actor) page. I support leaving the articles separate. It was also suggested to create a "Cinemassacre Productions" article. Cinemassacre is listed on the imdb. At this time the notability is small, so I am hesitant to support without additional input.

  • James Rolfe (actor) - Leave separate
  • The Angry Video Game Nerd - Leave separate, but a lot of self sources
  • Cinemassacre Split? - Need more input

Basileias (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have extended the James Rolfe article massively, I would have to agree with your decision, the article should not be merged Z105space (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well to let the page be seperate and not to make a Cinemassacre page just yet. NackFinch (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely do not merge. He's done other stuff! ResonX (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep I think that, if you merge the AVGN and James Rolfe articles, that the resulting article would be far too lenghty and confusing. Jdaniels15 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal

I have removed the merge tags. Basileias (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Refocusing of Tone and Content

This article is confusing in the sense that it initially discusses both "The Angry Video Game Nerd" character and the web series when the former is already discussed on the James Rolfe actor page. This article needs thorough revision as the main topic should be the web series and not John Rolfe's character of which I will do. Additionally, the language and sentence structure of this article isn't clear and concise as they should be. JoeMeas (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Too much trivial Information in article

This article is riddled with trivial and un-cited information, e.g. the entire Music section. The amount of notable and cited information on AVGN only warrants 3-4 short sections. I would cut the Music, Animated Characters, and DVD sections. They include the least notable information. This article can be short, as their are plenty of details in the AVGN episode list. These are the the sections i would use.

Intro

Angry Nintendo Nerd

You Know What's Bullshit

Reviews with Mike Matei

I'm in the process of writing a more concise introduction, so i will post that later. As for other sections, the existing Angry Nintendo Nerd section needs work but isn't a big problem. Any episode analysis should not be here, but in the AVGN episode list if needed at all. Falseinfinity (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but we have to deal with fans who feel the need to add unnecessary trivia. CTF83! 04:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree also. This article is much better (shorter) now than it has been in the past. "You Know What's Bullshit" and "Reviews with Mike Matei" aren't even AVGN related. They can go in the James Rolfe article. TEH (talk • contributions) 20:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
OP here. I'm a new user and have only made minor edits so far, is this the right place to post a draft for peer review? For instance the new introduction to the AVGN page. Falseinfinity (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Falseinfinity, the right place for article drafts is in a newly-created sandbox under your User space. For example, [here].Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect trouble

The page Angry_video_game_nerd ought to redirect to this article just like Angry_Video_Game_Nerd does. Lord Metroid (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reconsider Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie

Alright, in my opinion it is not true that this page is not suitable for Wikipedia's database. The databse is filled with unfinished film projects, waiting for their respective films to be released. User Little Jimmy was also right when he said this about the decision to delete the page: "Incubation or Redirect, but just don't delete it. The article doesn't need to be canned, it just needs more work. Besides, if you were going to delete it it should have been done months ago, because now it is on the verge of release it's soon going to become far more notable." (source) Why should Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie be deleted just when the page finally seemed to have been accepted by the community and staff? I think the deletion of the page may actually have been a mistake on the staff's end. I think you may have read wrong some information about the page and its state. It's true that it was deleted twice, and then re-created, but it stood there, being built up over the course of a very long time after the second re-creation, so there it really makes no sense to then delete it again this time, unless there was a mistake. I am going to re-create it if you'll allow it. Many fans of the movie and people just following along with the progress of the production of Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie, have been working very hard on maintaining the page, and it's really sad and heart-breaking just to see all that hard work go away. Will you allow the re-creation of Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie? Also, the notion that this film is only starting to receive coverage now is undeniably wrong if you had taken the time to make the right ammount of research. It has been receing coverage and has been in pre-production since 2010. The film project itself and its development phase was started in 2006-2007. And the production itself began in 2012. There has been nurmerous written and video interviews with James Rolfe, the writer, director and main star. There has been online magasines talking about the movie, there has been smaller, independent news companies writing about it. It is true that news articles from bigger news companies are only starting to surface now, but you got to understand that kind of coverage are not the only one that exist. You do, right? It is not too soon to have a page on Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie in my opinion. --Luka1184 (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How come no one has answered me in all of this time? Is it due to holidays or something? I think it's an issue that the page was deleted, and I also think that it should be recreated. Please read my message, anyone... --Luka1184 (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
We're really beyond discussion on this page. Since it's gone through a community wide AfD already, you would need to bring up any concerns with the results of the AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review. CTF83! 11:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

AVGN poster

Hey, I'm just wondering why the AVGN poster got deleted. As far I know, it is official. I'm not there. Message me! 02:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the deleted image? My guess is copyright violation. CTF83! 04:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
File:AVGN Official Poster.jpg. Also, the website here: cinemassacre.com/2013/09/19/avgn-movie-official-poster/ I'm not there. Message me! 17:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the person who uploaded it requested it be deleted. I don't know who that is. It is probably a copyright photo, but you might be able to upload it, while explaining why it is able to be uploaded, via the guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-free content. You can look at the rationale, for example, at File:Dark knight rises poster.jpg CTF83! 00:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Major cleanup, July 2014

Hi guys. I just performed a major cleanup of the article, removing enormous amounts of completely unencyclopedic and disallowed WP:OR, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOTDIR etc. A Wikipedia-educated AVGN himself could have (AND MAYBE STILL SHOULD!) blown a gasket while doing a review of this article. However, I will note that lots of things are actually written as cited (heavily WP:PRIMARY though it is) prose which are often more lazily written as bare lists in other articles, so good job. I linked it in the above statement, so it can potentially be moved to the likes of Wikia.

This follows my major cleanup of Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie. See that talk page for more text on the subject, including the proper delineation between Wikipedia and trivia/fanservice sites like Wikia. My comments at that Talk page are just as relevant here, but I didn't want to duplicate it. Though perhaps it'll move here, if that article gets merged into this one as per WP:N.

I cut these articles down to the point where they could be built up correctly and sustainably. And everyone has the duty to identify or revert fancruft, some of which is probably still present to a more "normal" but possibly still unacceptable degree. We need WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, guys! Most editors here are probably fellow fans, but please read WP:FANCRUFT, WP:N, and WP:RS thoroughly, several times, in order to do justice to the cause. We need sales figures, reviews, unique viewing numbers (from reliable sources, not copied from your surfing of YouTube), etc. I am tempted to reevaluate the assessment criteria because class B seems dubious. We have to conclusively, beyond any shadow of a doubt, prove notability. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 13:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


The Angry Video Game Nerd → Angry Video Game Nerd – The "the" in the name doesn't really seem necessary. Cinemassacre omits the "the" in the title, as does the official movie. I feel the "the" is just a stylization, and as such, should be omitted from the article title. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 22:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • keep as is. It is sometimes omitted, but "The" is still present in the logo for the series. Deunanknute (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    The problem with that argument is that the "the" was left in the logo just for stylization reasons, and that Rolfe doesn't want to change it. Just a thought here. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 23:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Do you have evidence of this? Deunanknute (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just a thought. No proof, just a thought. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 00:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
So far, we have one seeming, one feeling, and one thought. Do we have any facts, for the encyclopedia? Like for example, what exactly the policy problem actually is? Also, it would be possible to search or to contact James and ask him whether he's filed a trademark, an ISBN, an OCLC, entered it in the Library of Congress, launched it into a space probe as humanity's canon for review by alien species, or any such thing to more permanently establish the WP:NATURAL name. Or are we to understand that the WP:NATURAL name is "Angry Video Game Nerd", sometimes WP:COMMONly stylized as "The Angry Video Game Nerd"—possibly based upon some major precedent, guideline, or policy?— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The facts are the "The" is used, and User:Pyrotle just wants to change it. Deunanknute (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
So far, it's even less than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's more like IDONTFEELLIKEJUSTCONTINUINGTODONOTHINGABOUTSOMETHING. So I was assuming that's not actually the case! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a policy about using "the" in article titles, WP:THE, and I feel it doesn't qualify for it. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 15:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say it meets Convention 2 "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not." Deunanknute (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
That's debatable, and some people would say otherwise. Saying "the Angry Video Game Nerd" would be correct, and some people would prefer this over the capitalized version. It can do without the capitalized "the" and still be a correct sentence. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support WP:THE seems pretty clear on this as the "The" wouldn't be capitalized in running text. And it also appears the James Rolfe does not add a "The" on his channel. Unless the "The" was used consistently and was capitalized constantly, the article should not contain the "The" in its title.--JOJ Hutton 16:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    In addition, the latest video from Cinemassacre Youtube page says Back in 2007, on the Angry Video Game Nerd.... Notice the lower case "the". Proof that that its not officially part of the title and is not capitalized and therefore per WP:THE should not be in the title of this article.--JOJ Hutton 15:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll grant that it isn't always capitalized, and per WP:THE shouldn't be kept. But, to me, the biggest reason it should be kept is that it it still used in the logo. Even the character is referred to as "The Nerd". Deunanknute (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
"The" is used in the logo isn't one of the criteria in WP:THE. Only if its used in running text, which it is not. Nor does he use it at all, most of the time. It should only be part of the title if it is capitalized and used all of the time, otherwise the Wikipedia title is incorrect.--JOJ Hutton 16:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Jojhutton  — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Even going purely on the evidence provided by the oppose votes above, the criteria of WP:THE for removing the article are satisfied. Andrewa (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. While the article is indeed about the series and not the character, the character is "the Angry Video Game Nerd" and not "The Angry Video Game Nerd" so it makes a case for the series title to match. ONR (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Angry Video Game Nerd. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ghostbusters

Hello everyone. In the first source, James is mentioned and describe in one sentence.

"And then there’s “The Angry Video Game Nerd,“ a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee."

Attributing misogamy to Ghostbusters is WP:UNDUE as the two sources do not say misogamy.

His observations comes from "Brave, not-sexist movie critic refuses to watch the new 'Ghostbusters'" and "Heroic angry nerd refuses to review new ‘Ghostbusters’ movie"

Both are written in condescending and passive-aggressive tones. Which also seems to violate WP:NPOV. Cheers. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely following you. The misogyny is attributed to Angry Video Game Nerd by Hickey, not the two other sources (he just uses the two sources as his example). He also calls it "crap" in the next sentence. Not sure why it's undue to include that information. The various other sources in the reception and legacy section, which are overwhelmingly positive, are given far more weight right now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with FiveThirtyEight, but is it a reliable source? Because the article comes off as sensationalistic. Additionally, I'm not sure this recent Ghostbusters topic is overall relevant to the article, since most sources aren't "attacking" AVGN itself, but instead Rolfe and Cinemassacre. This Hickey is probably the only article that explicitly attacks the AVGN web show as "misogynistic". κατάσταση 16:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

538 is a reliable source, when it comes to political and sports statistics. Nate Silver in particular is good at predicting electoral election results. However, personally, I feel like the Hickey article is attributing qualities to Rolfe which do not exist. PaintingTurtle (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, it is more of a sensationalistic opinion piece. κατάσταση 19:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel as if the accusations of misogyny are undue weight, given they came from a single author. Neither of the two sources the author provided actually claim AVGN is a misogynist. Furthermore, Rolfe comments made about the new Ghostbusters comments were not part of the AVGN series. If anything, this is a discussion that should be held at his article. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I created this conversation to stop the edit war but it did not seem to work. So this article might need to be protected. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I was going to open a request for protection, but Qed237 (talk · contribs) beat me to it. I guess I'm getting old and too slow on the draw. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There's an article at the Atlantic brings up the issue and mentions Rolfe twice and not in a particularly flattering way. It doesn't use the word misogynistic but it does call all the complaints "logically flimsy". At the very least this has become a notable event for Rolfe. I'm not really following any of this and don't know who Rolfe is or what AVGN is but if the consensus is that this is more about him than AVGN (did his video show up on the AVGN channel?) then I see no problem moving it. SQGibbon (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@SQGibbon: To answer your question, Rolfe is a director who has a production company called “Cinemassacre”, which creates videos ranging from web series, commentaries, reviews, and playthroughs. Angry Video Game Nerd is one of Cinemassacre’s productions, and arguably the most popular thing Rolfe is known for. This Ghostbusters commentary aired on Cinemassacre, but was not part of the Angry Video Game Nerd Web series. There are quite a few sources that discuss Rolfe’s refusal to review (or even watch) the new Ghostbusters, but I hardly feel these views reflect the Angry Video Game Nerd series. I also feel these have little to do with Rolfe, and more with the 2016 Ghostbusters film. Perhaps we can move it to the trailer section of that article? I’m sure there are other famous people who have disliked the trailer as well. I think the general consensus here is to remove the content pertaining to Ghostbusters any sexism accusations from this article, but I look forward to seeing what others have to say. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems that his refusal to watch the film and his video about it have become notable incidents and most of what I'm reading is directed more against him than discussing the film. Whether he deserves it or not people are saying that at the least there are some misogynistic subtexts at play. It doesn't matter if this is true or even a fair description of his intent, what matters is that reliable sources are stating it and thus it is more about him than the movie. I'll defer to others' wisdom as to whether this content belongs here or in the article about him but right now there seems to be enough juice to include it in some article about him. Now also including his review at the Ghostbusters article is fine and there we would just summarize his views about the trailer and the film without mentioning any of the backlash against him because that would not be relevant to the film. SQGibbon (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the content on Ghostbusters should not even be included, since it's hardly relevant and few actually journalistic articles have documented it. But if the consensus is to include it, move it to this article because it doesn't pertain to AVGN itself. The criticism isn't headed towards the AVGN web series, but rather towards its creator (actually, Cinemassacre, but since it doesn't have an article, then post it in Rolfe's article) κατάσταση 00:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that Hickey's comments directly pertain to this article. He even links to this Wikipedia page. He supports the claim with the two links to the Ghostbuster's review, which I guess can be moved to a more relevant page. But the comment itself is about this show. He also calls it crap and says it's an example of a show that is much more favourably reviewed by male reviewers. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hickey's article is the only that directly criticizes AVGN as "mysoginistic". The articles he links mention AVGN, but discuss James Rolfe and his AVGN-unrelated video. Just because one bigot with one sensationalistic article from "538" made such a claim, doesn't mean it's relevant enough to the discussion. Most websites such as AV Club (or the two links Hickey gave) do not have AVGN as the target of criticism. If this were moved to Rolfe's own article, it would make somewhat more sense. κατάσταση 23:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Including a serious slander against a person's character solely on the basis one heavily biased opinion piece seems very flawed. I could easily find articles name calling any high profile person all sorts of horrible things, but it takes more than that to warrant such charges being included in an article. It would only warrant inclusion if it was widely discussed across multiple reputable sources in a much more balanced, measured way. Besides, AVGN the show has nothing to do with movie reviews. Even if this information was deemed valid for inclusion (which I clearly don't think it is), it would make more sense on Wolfe's bio page, rather than AVGN. Zaqwert (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This issue was talked about by more than one source -- a link to an Atlantic article, for example, is provided above. I think consensus exists to move this material to Rolfe's article though. So if someone wants to do it I think it would be fine to do so. SQGibbon (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey everybody, it appears that the James Rolfe article already mentions this issue and does so with various sources and in a neutral matter. Since the consensus was to move this information to that article anyway I've gone ahead and deleted it from here. SQGibbon (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Apostrophe Needed

An apostrophe is needed in a section of this article. It should be "channel's creation", not "channels creation".—Bde1982 22:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of the article's title

Per the official logo of the webseries, the correct title of the article should be The Angry Video Game Nerd. Does anyone have a counterargument? –Matthew - (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this was discussed in February 2015 during a move discussion. The result moved 'The Angry Video Game Nerd' to 'Angry Video Game Nerd'. Wikipedia:THE seems to have been the deciding factor back then. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
That makes no sense to me. This would seem to be a clear case of the example of "The Old Man and the Sea."--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angry Video Game Nerd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angry_Video_Game_Nerd/Archive_6&oldid=1148110982"