# Talk:Steam (service)

@Masem there were zero given reasons as to how the article contains an intricate level of detail, nor has the tag ever been in place since the article entered GA status in 2014. What specific sections are on the longer side / contain an intricate level of detail? Because I personally do not see anything that might be considered as intricate, nor are there really any sections that can be separated from the article itself. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

At the time of the article's promotion in 2014, it was 5000 words of readable prose. It is now triple that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria Okay, but that doesn't answer my questions. I have another question: Why does the length of the prose matter? World War II for example is even longer in length, but has less citations (with most of those being citations from physical media like books). And most of the bulk of the byte size for this article was artificially increased by users adding archive links to the various sources used in this article (wiki markup for citations takes up more bytes than you think). Additionally, Steam has added a significant amount of new features since 2014. I see nothing in the article that genuinely warrants the tag existing, nor are there any sections that were specifically mentioned as needing to be trimmed. Oh and don't get me started on the length of the article of a notoriously controversial American politician.
I just genuinely disagree with the tag being in place when no reasoning was given. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not an issue of how many citations a page has, nor markup - WWII is in fact shorter in terms of readable prose. See WP:AS and WP:SS. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria So then what's the issue here? I don't see article coverage on every single Steam feature that exists on the platform and client. I am still being given zero examples of article sections that need to be trimmed, or what sections contain an "intriciate level of detail". A tag cannot be added without grounds or reasoning to add it in the first place. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
There's an overall need to review the article and trim out some of the things that we go into a bit too much detail. WP articles are to summarize a topic to what the sources give, and unlike WWII where there are hundreds of books written on it, most of what we have on Steam are bits of info here and there. We can keep a good amount of that , but there's clearly things we don't need to focus on too much now that we didn't know in the past. Masem (t) 02:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The article does not go into too much detail. Stop re-adding the template without PROPER reasons that actually explain the problems with the article because the template has been removed by more than 3 editors now. I've read the article in full. There is nothing in the article that is irrelevant to Steam or its history and its not excessively detailed, Steam just has a lot of components that require a longer article. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 03:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I have written a large percentage of this article and even I know it needs to be reworked and trimmed down. Now that we know where things have gone, there are parts that can be trimmed down or removed as unnecessary from a summary point of view. Others who have added the tag clearly agree. Masem (t) 13:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Then do it. This was inappropriate of me to say. I genuinely apologize for this. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 13:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Evelyn Harthbrooke There's no deadline. Multiple maintainers of this article acknowledge that it requires some work. I'll add my support on that note as well. Please don't earn yourself a disruption block over a minor maintenance tag. If you don't personally see anything you can trim, you'd don't have to work on this article, there are many others. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Ferret I don't see anything to trim because to me everything seems concise, with some sections being longer than others due to their depth or functionality / relevance to Steam as a platform and service. Maybe I'm oblivious to the sections that may need trimming, but if there were any issues, how come they haven't been corrected in over 3 months since the tag was first added? I know Wikipedia editing activity has gradually decreased from its peak years ago, but like, that's a long time for a tag to sit inactive especially on an article that receives relatively high traffic like the Steam article. I apologize for my editing behaviour re: the tag, but I just generally severely disagree with its inclusion when there don't appear to be any obvious flaws. People haven't pointed out anything. If there were sections or parts of the article that were pointed out that need some work, I'd be entirely up for making those changes. But so far nothing's been presented and it's frustrating. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 15:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
There's no deadline. I plan to get to it when I get a chance but I haven't had a chance. Masem (t) 15:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

While I don't condone any edit warring, I sympathize with Evelyn's frustration here. Editors who tag an article are generally expected to explain their rationale, particularly when explicitly asked. Several editors here have offered vague generalities, but none have answered the quite reasonable question she asked at the top: Which sections or areas need work? Nor has anyone provided a specific example of something too detailed (although I do see in the edit history that Nikkimaria has now gone in to start the condensing). Providing actionable information about what needs fixing rather than bickering over consensus would have been a much more constructive path.I'm not an expert in this subject area and have only briefly glanced at the article, but I'll try to take small step down that path. I notice that neither Steam Greenlight nor Steam Direct have their own article, and neither are mentioned in the introduction, yet they have fairly significant coverage in the body. So that might be a potential place to trim. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 12:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I can certainly sympathize with her frustration as well, but on the other hand I don't agree the answer she was given is incorrect: as Masem indicated, there was an overall need to review and rework the article. There wasn't a single section that didn't need editing, so there was no satisfying answer on which ones did. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
To explain the issue, the overall article has been built as Steam has developed - which is reasonable for starting and building an article on an evolving service. But that means me and other editors in the past may have added "fresh" content that nowadays is a minor footnote and need not be documented. Or there are features that came and went that we probably cover too much. So the overall article needs to trim this fat, probably may need some better reorganization, and things along those lines that come about with any topic that has continued to evolve and receive coverage in reliable sources. I can't point to any one section because of that. Masem (t) 13:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Masem @Evelyn Harthbrooke @Ferret @Nikkimaria How about something like History of Steam (sevice)? We can put things like changing policies in that article and just have the current state of the service in this one. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
No objections from me. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I would have a problem. The history section is essential but short (nor does it need massive expansion). Moving things like policy changes into that makes no sense because that section nicely covers the history of Steam for its reason to exist.
There is a lot of noise in the other sections that we should strive to remove first before trying to split off the article. Masem (t) 03:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
>Moving things like policy changes into that makes no sense because that section nicely covers the history of Steam for its reason to exist.
Can you expound on this? Some of the paragraphs from the other sections look like they really should mainly be in the history section of this article anyway. When I said policy changes I also meant feature developments etc. by the way. Some examples:
1. 'In November 2007, Steam achievements were added [...] In September 2008, Valve added support for Steam Cloud,[...]' - history of steam cloud (with one out of place sentence in the beginning of the paragraph about achievements . I guess the achievements are synced to the cloud? Seems like a strange opening.
2. 'Users of Steam's storefront can also purchase games and other software as gifts for another Steam user. Before May 2017, users could purchase these gifts to be held in their profile's inventory until they opted to gift them. However, this feature enabled a gray market [...]' - everything besides the first sentence here is history of gift policies
3. 'In 2013, Steam began to accept player reviews of games. [...] To prevent observed abuse of the review system by developers or other third-party agents, Valve modified the review system in September 2016 [...] - history of reviews
4. 'During mid-2011, Valve began to offer free-to-play games, such as Global Agenda, [...] Later that year, Valve added the ability to trade in-game items and "unopened" game gifts between users. [...] In May 2015, GameStop began selling Steam Wallet cards.' - This section in particular seem like it really belongs in a history section. The main article should just say that free to play games are supported, if that. Are there any video game marketplaces or even software marketplaces that do not have free offers? Seems like a completely trivial point outside of a historical context.
5. The "Privacy, security and abuse" is mostly a history, although I can also see it being relevant enough to stay on the main page
6. Steam Greenlight - discontinued so this is clearly a history section, although it is tied to Steam Direct which still exist so I can see arguments either way.
7. Games discovery changes - This seems like a clear history section to me. Nobody reading this section would read it as anything other than within a historical context
In general, it seems to me that for a lot of these section you could summarize the current state of them in one or two short sentences. Looking at this article again to write this reply, I think this page is already History of Steam (sevice) which is why it is so unwieldy. The "excessive amount of intricate detail" is mainly just the decades worth of facts about each feature, where we could just describe the feature generally here and have a separate page for those that want to know more (which I think is a complexity valid desire and is in line with most History of [x] articles).
For example, for 3, it could just say "Steam lists user written reviews for it's games." 2 and 4. Could say 'valve offers free to play games on its store, with the ability to gift games to other users.' That combines 3 paragraphs ('Users of Steam's storefront', 'The Steam store also enables' and 'During mid-2011, Valve began')  into one sentence. You could also get 4 paragraphs ('In October 2012, Steam introduced') with the sentence 'valve offers free to play games as well as non gaming applications on its store, with the ability to gift games to other users.' 'Legal disputes' could also go in a history section, although I can see that going both ways.
If we don't split it this way, the only way forward that I see is to simply delete a lot of the history, as each section itself looks notable so we can't just delete some sections and leave others fully intact. At that point we may as well have a history page instead for those that want to read the history, which is a valid article but not relevant for someone that just wants to learn what steam is. Also, this page is listed as "Top‑importance" in Internet culture, so it makes sense that the article (or it's history page) should be in depth, and not simply delete most of it because it is too long. The main issue with this approach is maintaining two similar articles and deciding what goes where although I don't see any other reasonable way and I don't think the current state with the excessive detail detail message is a good long term solution. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Masem @J2UDY7r00CRjH @Ferret @Nikkimaria I have a potential idea that may work. What if the Features section was split off into its own article? It would make the article a lot more concise, as I believe that this is where most of the intricate detail lies. I don't exactly know how this would be handled, but I believe that as the features section is so long, it would be better off as its own article and would allow for more in-depth coverage of Steam's feature set. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 10:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This page is pretty much all about features. That makes no sense. — Masem (t) 12:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
That is very much not true. With that reasoning you are ignoring literally every other section that isn't under "Features and functionality." - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 12:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The next two sections after Features are also similar features, even if they more apply to developers and publishers than the user. It would be a very weird split of information.
There is trimming that can be done, I just haven't had a good change to sit down to actually do it. Masem (t) 13:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
There's some trimming and cleanup to be done but the article is only at 81kb readable prose. I remain opposed to any splits. For myself, when I'm reading articles, I just sigh when I hit what should be an in-depth article and find 1-3 sections have been split out, so now I have to read multiple articles. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
FWIW I still think this should be split into a history section. It seems hard to argue that this isn't already a history article when there is a full timeline starting from 2002 and detail on multiple discontinued features and products. We also have two paragraphs on "Steamworks on consoles," 5 paragraphs on "Linux," aside from the points I already mentioned earlier. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


### Steam (service)
Maybe i will add it soon Copp93 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Not really, per WP:NAMB. IceWelder [✉] 08:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Saying they're a nonprofit fighting the exploitation of women and girls is such a pov description that only reads as neutral if you consider porn and abortion as automatically exploitation. Meanwhile, let's examine how many RS have described the group as anti-porn[1][2][3] or anti-abortion.[4][5] Snokalok (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Masem Snokalok (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
We go by what they call themselves (which is anti-exploitation). That others call them anti-porn or the like is the subjective view of that group by sources, and not what we should be objectively calling them, or at least not without attribution. Masem (t) 12:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
We absolutely do not go by what they call themselves, that has never been wikipdia policy. We go by how reliable sources describe them, and we have enough reliable sources describing them as such to not require attribution Snokalok (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
However, in that case, we need to be using far better sources than works on video games for that description. Those are all labels and would need stronger attribution, and should be representing the best sources. Right now, the view of that group from the video game world is not very high so I would be careful of using any labels coming from these sources as they do have a bias here. (Further, getting into those details would be far better on the page about Collective Shout, not here, since this event is a tiny part of the larger story) Masem (t) 13:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I mean, none of these sources seem particularly unreliable except Kotaku, and this isn't a BLP, it's an org, so I'd argue that for the threshold of labeling an activist group, I'd say PC Gamer, Polygon, The Gamer meet that threshold just fine. Snokalok (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
You need to look at the situation here. Nearly every video game source has criticized the actions of CS for causing Valve to remove games from Steam (and that is absolutely something to be concerned about). But as all these sources are generally passionate about video games, we do need to be wary of how they are presenting this including how CS is represented. Hence why I'm looking to see what more mainstream sources say.
If we go back some years, I'm seeing terms like "feminist group" from CNN, the Guardian, and BBC. Vice identifies their goal as to stop objectivation of women. I do see a neutral "anti-porn" here in The Guardian and news.com.su.
The anti-abortion aspect is far more difficult to talk about, and not relevant here (that's not a part of what games were removed). Given all this, I would not have an issue describing, for the purposes of the Steam article, CS as a feminist group campaigning against pornograghy and exploitation of women. That would help address why games around the topic of rape and incest were targetted for removal. While "anti-porn" may be true, this is a more neutral phrasing that gets the point across. Any further criticism of CS should bein the CS section on Reist's page. Masem (t) 19:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Unless those reliable sources say they campaign against exploitation of women, we can only say they're anti-porn, MAYBE "An anti-porn group that says it is against the exploitation of women" Snokalok (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
The Guardian, peer-reviewed paper are at least a couple. I will also point out this recent Wired piece which notes that the "anti-porn" is a label by the group's critics. Masem (t) 12:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
From my review of the sources currently used on Collective Shout:
Some form of the group's own description of being against the objectification of women and girls - RealTime, SMH, Reuters, Mumbrella, SBS, PC Gamer, News.com.au, The Guardian
Activist group or organization - TheAge, SBS, PC Gamer, SMH
Feminist group or organization - Pitchfork, BBC, SMH
Pressure group - Rock Paper Shotgun
Radical feminist organization - Vice
Far-right activist group - Inverse
Daisy Blue (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Recently, Valve has announced that support for 32-bit Windows will be dropped on January 1st 2026, ending the reliance on 32-bit Windows libraries since its launch in 2003.
https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/49A1-B944-48B8-FF00
The Microsoft Windows sub-section of the Platforms, Devices and Countries section needs to be updated to coincide with this announcement. DeveloperPudú (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)