# Talk:Commander Keen in Keen Dreams

I suggest that in the "gameplay" section, there have at least one relevant in-game screenshot of Keen Dreams.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Commander Keen in Keen Dreams/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 23:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"known as the "lost episode" of the series" If this is a quote, you should include a reference- even in the lead.
Done.
"being released and a release" Repetition
Changed to 'being published and a release'
"a pseudo-3D effect" We have 2.5D and a host of related articles; would a link be appropriate?
Linked; I think it's technically an oblique projection but I think the 2.5D article gives better context re: video games
I note that some of the gameplay mechanics discussed in the article are not mentioned in the source? Or are you sourcing the videos/screenshots, too?
I was; I couldn't find enough sources that talked in enough detail in the text (haven't found the manual yet, just a dead dropbox link). Is there anything in particular that you don't think is covered?
"Ideas from the Deep, now founded as id Software, used some of these games to prototype ideas for their own games, such as Catacomb 3-D, and in late spring of 1991 a new Keen game they used to develop new systems for their next set of major episodes of the Commander Keen series." This sentence needs to be rephrased (split?), I think.
Split
"For Invasion of the Vorticons, John Carmack and Romero focused exclusively on the programming, and Adrian Carmack joined late in development and had a personal art style that did not match with the game, so the game was largely shaped by designer Tom Hall's personal experiences and intere" This needs splitting too
Split
I'm a little put-out by the lack of a reception section. Indeed, all the sources are incredible recent. On a possibly related note, I'm seeing loads of potentially interesting hits on Google Books.
Yeah, they look nice at first... but they aren't. Going down the list of what I see (it's roughly the same as when I wrote the article): ODROID is just a mention that the article author made a quick port for a hobbyist Android platform; "Commander Keen 73 Success Secrets" is a hackwork book by Emereo Publishing, who you might know from their series of 10,000+ books released in the same week consisting of mashed-together Wikipedia articles; Masters of Doom is used already; PC Mag is a 5-word blurb in a catalog of "here's all the software that's purchasable today + the address to mail off to for purchase", repeated for years in their bi-weekly magazine; "Kids' Media Culture" and "From Barbie to Mortal Kombat" are duplicates talking for a paragraph about a fangame design by a little boy that's a fake sequel to Keen Dreams as part of a discussion on how boys and girls design different games; "ZDNet Software Library 10,000" is a 2-paragraph catalog description of the game (but uses the term "lost episode", so I'll add it anyways); "Retrogame Archeology" is just a short jargony discussion of the actual code behind the parallax scrolling as an example of old programming hacks; "Modem Games" is just a short catalog listing; (page 2 now) "Id Software Games" is a mashup of Wikipedia articles; "Net Games" is another catalog listing (1 paragraph this time); "Властелины Doom" is Masters of Doom in Russian; "Personal Computer Magazine" is another short catalog listing (1 sentence, about a compilation release); everything after that is just mis-hits about dreams (though I did go through pages and pages more just in case).
I'll put in some more discussion about how there's no reception, but the reason is that there is a real reason it's the "lost episode" - Softdisk did not sell this game in stores. Like their other games, they sold it through mail-order, with descriptions in their magazine. The nascent PC games review community did not pay attention to their games- almost all of them were complete shovelware- and the only reason anyone cares at all is that it's an id game in the Keen series, so it got a little traction in people's minds because it was included in later compilation releases. Games reviews at the time were focused on consoles and to a smaller extent games-focused computer types; they didn't have much to do with PC shovelware games that were knocked out in a couple months for a small Louisiana mail-order publisher. --PresN 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Made it a bit more explicit about why there's no reception, along with 3 references calling it the "lost episode".
A nice article; my concern is about sourcing on two levels; one, ensuring that the cited sources do support the material you're including, and two, ensuring that there aren't good sources you've missed. I've no doubt I will be promoting soon, but if you could put some checks in in this area, that would be appreciated. (Please double-check my edits.) Josh Milburn (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comment: I also note that there is no information on reception. I would imagine that sources that are contemporary with the release of this game include reviews. Is broadness of coverage really met with such an omission? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree; I suppose it partially depends on whether (reliable) sources are out there. Could you give us an idea of where you've searched? Alternatively, if you have a source saying that it was little commented-upon or something similar, that would be useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I did a lot of hunting through google books, google regular, and old archives of PC World, PC Magazine, Dragon, and Computer Gaming World, which were the ones that even had mentions of the series at all that I could find; I certainly don't like not having a proper reception section. There's just... nothing there. It's a mail-order release (later "shareware" aka download and mail in money if you keep it lazy publishing) in a series of monthly games from a no-name publisher; the only reason anyone cares about this game is that it's in the cult classic Commander Keen series, which got it no points in the magazines of the time. If Finnusertop knows of anything I missed, I'd love to have it. Anyways, @J Milburn: addressed all of your points above. --PresN 16:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm satisfied by your effort. Thank you, PresN. Now we can be ascertained that the lack of coverage regarding reception is not the problem of this article, but of sources. I think this article is broad enough in its coverage to satisfy the relevant GACR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you, for this. I've noted that you've responded to my comments and will aim to find time for revisit the review soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'm happy enough to promote. The writing's solid, sources and images seem to be fine, and, based on the above, I'm happy that the coverage is suitably comprehensive. I'm not as worried now about the article's claims reflecting source content, but perhaps it's something to be aware of in the future. Anyway, nice work, as ever. Interesting series of articles you have going. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Rather than edit war, taking to talk: I think that the change you made to the organization of the article is a bad one. It creates 3 tiny sections ("Release", "Re-releases", and "Reception") for no real gain- "Releases" does not include the original release of the game, the latest re-release is split out from the others for no clear reason, and "Reception" includes no reviews, instead covering the games legacy. Additionally, while you claim that WP:VGORDER is a guideline that this article should be following, it literally states "Here are a few ideas for how to organize articles. These do not necessarily have to correspond to the actual section headers and divisions, and they are no more than suggestions." While VGORDER is usually a good starting place, in this case I don't think the "suggestions" are good ones. --PresN 20:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Structuring and breaking too long sections apart helps readability and is therefore good. Sub-section are painfully underused in WP; vice versa normally articles are understructred, this is not overstructured. Also, a reception section was missing overall, I added one. Also, I followed WP:VG/GL which is: "guidelines about article content established by consensus among Wikipedians and members of the WikiProject Video games. " so it is a recommendation good established  for good articles. I don't see much room to classify these changes as non-improvement, quite the opposite, as this more or less following literally: "History: discuss development, release, impact, critical response".  Shaddim (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Since we appear to 100% disagree on this change, rather than spin in circles about it I've asked for a 3rd opinion at WT:VG#3rd opinion needed at Commander Keen in Keen Dreams. --PresN 21:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with PresN. I interpret the VGORDER's "history" as "describe its history", not name a section "history". I think Shaddim and I have disagreed on this before... soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and I don't understand why everyone is is ignoring WP:VG/GL. You should not do that. Shaddim (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
VG/GL is based upon community consensus. Wikipedia's guidelines are not set in stone. It looks like we've got a different consensus; VG/GL should be changed accordingly. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Currently it is not, community consensus is WP:VG/GL. Change it if you believe this strange non-chronological, non-structured movie articles inspired mix up style is anyhow better than WP:VG/GL. Shaddim (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
PresN's edits tie the information together in well written full hearty paragraphs. Feels more like a professional encyclopedia. While sub-sections can be helpful, the information is too bare here to stand well on its own and it comes off looking amateurish. Support PresN's version. TarkusABtalk 23:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Shaddim: I agree with PresN. You said that "Structuring and breaking too long sections apart helps readability and is therefore good", yet you decided to simply split a one-paragraph section into three small subsections. Why? The article doesn't have a reception section because the game did not receive substantial coverage from reliable sources upon release, so a retrospective "Legacy" section makes more sense. Also, please don't significantly change the style of an article without discussing the issue first, per WP:STYLEVAR. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, I can change bad article structures to follow the guidelines. Don't tell me what I can't do. Shaddim (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
So you're saying we should follow VG/GL, but you can ignore STYLEVAR? Your lack of a collaborative attitude is something to be desired. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, I follow the recommendations of WP:VG/GL. You are ignoring the recommednations and impose a quite bad mixed up style. Shaddim (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
No, you are enforcing your interpretation of VG/GL. And if it is a "recommendantion", like you said, it certainly is not a requirement. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@all: It is quite simple: before my edit development, release, reception was mixed up in a chaotic, non-chronological & unfocused section. Which feels not at all encyclopedic and is hard to understand and hard to search for a topic a reader might be interested in. Separation of concerns, like the recommended reception section and the sub-structuring of a history section. Also, the strucure I proposed is for good reasons "recommended" in WP:VG/GL. That many articles does not follow this recommendation without good reason is not an argument to enforce this style everywhere. Shaddim (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You are ignoring local consensus. Besides, your revision is not chronological either: the rerelease would come after the intial reception section. The Steam sales can easily be part of the rerelease section. I see no point in having an initial releases section with a one sentence entry, can easily be part of development. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes it could be rearranged, while often "release(s)" is often broad enough to deserve an own section. Shaddim (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with PresN's formatting, which follows what articles actually use when following WP:VGORDER, rather than what it literally says. We should probably change it to "Development" and include history there, as that is misleading. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

the argumentation: "many articles do that therefore we should do that here too" is not sufficient. also, it is against the recommendations of WP:VG/GL. Shaddim (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, "development" chapters are insufficient too. The history of a software piece is much more than the developemtn phase. And the whole "development" + "release" separation is an unfortunate transfer from movie articles where this was invented. Video games as dynamical software are not movies which is a much more rigid media form. Shaddim (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Still no reception chapter.... *sigh* Shaddim (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Correct, because there still are no actual reviews, contemporary or otherwise, in the prose, aka "reception". Given its lack, I prefer to refer to the section that covers the impact that the game has had post-release "legacy", and not to make an ugly 1-sentence section that just says "there are no reviews". --PresN 13:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I object this "vote" and this pushing through of an objectively worse structure which is clearly in violation to WP:VG/GL, which is ignored by you. Shaddim (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is "voting" here or ignoring VG/GL; we've brought it up repeatedly. We're saying -- if my fellow editors allow me to paraphrase -- that we think your reading of VG/GL is too strict. I do have to ask you take a different tone, @Shaddim, "imposing quite a bad mix up of style", "objectively worse" and "clearly in violation" is not helping the discussion. We are all trying to improve articles, you're making it sound as if we're deliberately trying to worsen it. You're not helping yourself either with your lack of a collaborative attitude here. Please remember, VG/GL is an editor's guideline, not a Wikipedia policy. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I also want to point out that over a year ago the article was promoted to GA, without your rigorous reading of VG/GL. While I am in favor of a general layout in VG articles, you're pushing things too far. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the one who ignores VG/GL so I don't think I'm the one who pushes something "too far". And, as I stated before, I'm quite unimpressed with PresN's focus on pushing articles to GA, this is mostly a circle jerk of fellow editors. For instance: there is here again no reception section so I don't see how this article anyhow would deserve such award. Shaddim (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are pushing too far with your accusatory tone, now you're saying that everybody else besides you is ignoring VG/GL. Again, a different opinion on the matter is not ignoring. If anything, you're the one who is ignoring your fellow editors. Anyway, I guess I'm not getting through to you; I've asked you to drop the attitude and try to be collaborative, but instead you're now calling us "a circle jerk of fellow editors". That, to me, is WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, @Shaddim. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 @Shaddim:- this wasn't a vote. You had one opinion, I had another, so we got a consensus of other editors to decide. You know, exactly the same way VG/GL was written. I'm sorry that you find my "focus" with getting articles that I write classified as GA unimpressive; I for one find your obsession with rigidly adhering to a guideline that explicitly calls itself a "suggestion" over and above actually building flowing content that reflects what information is actually available/proportional, as well your derision of one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia (WP:CONSENSUS) to be, frankly, bizarre. I note that this is only the second time that I've interacted with you, and the first time was pretty much the same thing- you came into Homeworld, which I had completely rewritten and recently gotten to GA, and restructured the entire article to match your interpretation of VG/GL, creating multiple 1-sentence stub sections. Notably, after you left, it got promoted to FA without your structural changes. I'd ask you to please pause and consider why it seems that no one else, even FA reviewers, even the most active VG editors (many of whom are in this conversation here), seem to agree with your interpretation of how rigidly to apply the VG/GL suggestion. That guideline is meant to help editors that need guidance, not restrict everyone to a set format. --PresN 13:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, I refer to your horrible Homeworld action. You plopped in a big change of the homeworld article in, not multiple reviewable and debateable single edits, everythign at once. I worked before on Homewold for years in small manageable and reviewable edits. I should have reverted this horrible blop instantly but I took up the work and fixed the most glaring mistakes and unbalances. Your response was an revert which I still consider arrogant hubris from your side. Shaddim (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
PS: and it was the same as here: homeworld does not fit the structuring recommednations of "VG/GL", only the parts and interpretation you had. Also, here was argued VG/GL is not important (if you violate it), if you use it to defend your edits it is, surprise, surprise, somehow important. Shaddim (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I've said it before, a different opinion is not violating an edit guideline. We're not even discussing the article anymore, and somehow you, @Shaddim, still manage to be uncivil. Could an uninvolved admin like @Czar or @Masem take a look at Shaddim's tone and behavior? We're all a bunch of "circle jerks", and now Shaddim is saying @PresN's edits are "horrible", "violating VG/GL" and considers them to be "arrogant hubris". This is anything but assuming good faith, accusatory and it borders on the offensive. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
[1] It's generally accepted that single-sentence sections make for bad reading. If you have sources with substantial content—enough to warrant separate sections—discuss them. If not, there's no point to this discussion. Separately, if talk page discussion upsets an editor to the level of name-calling, I'd take it as a of needing a break, however long as necessary to break pattern and return to fruitful collaboration. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning behind Shaddim's edit. The suggested structure at VG/GL is a good one. However, the needs of the individual article have to dictate how it's applied, and the article doesn't flow well under Shaddim's organization. For instance, you've got a sub-section ("Re-release") which opens with a "however"; trains of thought should not be fragmented by the divisions of sections and sub-sections. Also, shuffling the development and release sections under an overarching "History" section is excessive; readers don't need to be told that these sections qualify as history, and the article isn't large enough to make hierarchical classification necessary.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Commander Keen in Keen Dreams. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313231525/http://www.keendreams.com/gameplay.htm to http://www.keendreams.com/gameplay.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://cd.textfiles.com/maxgames/GAMES/CATACOMB/PRINTFIL.TXT
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)