Talk:Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing/Archive 1

message: For a January 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Big rigs:over the road racing
Has anybody else considered that tis game was released this way purposefully? If you think about it, it's great way to gain fame; Despite how horrifyingly bad it is, it's well-known on the internet. Perhaps that could be worked in somewhere. E946 07:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pure and absolute speculation.--Drat (Talk) 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I strongly believe this game was a cheap and low scam to get money, this game was obviously not done. yet they released it anyway... And it has nothing to do with racing, it's you driving. that's it. You have an opponent, but the car never moves. and you can drive through any obstacle. When you "win" a "race" the screen says You're Winner! which is grammatically incorrect. And the game has no sound. This game was a big fat SCAM!24.128.186.205 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Game was a scam

message: I loved how this game was designed. From the no hassle interface and objectives, it allows you to do what you want however you want. There's no limits, no boundaries, this may not have been a traditional game but it sure was beautiful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.246.230.245 (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the best thing is: GTA actually works! - 84.27.224.189 15:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, rigist.68.39.16.243 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess it might pass as modern art, but really, one of the levels doesn't even load, and the game sometimes tells you you've won before you've even started. That's not "non-traditional design", that's just plain unfinished. 142.59.175.105 (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Game was not a scam

message: I looked and looked and looked and didn't find anyone who had anything at all nice to say about this game. If positive commentary has been seen in the wild, including it here would be nice. iMeowbot~Mw 01:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a good sign when you have to redefine good and bad in order to save a game.  From a purely marketing point of view, 'good' is what people want, and generally people expect collision detection as a matter of course, not an optional extra.  THe fact is, that the game was released completely unfinished.  It was a sucker trap, nothing more, for the purpose of making a few bucks off casual shoppers who haven't read the reviews.  91.109.150.13 (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check tag

message: No, I'm not kidding, Big Rigs is distributed by a little storage shed and truck rental outfit in Minnesota. GameMill Publishing and its co-brand Educational Initiatives Group are:
 Domain Name.......... gamemillpublishing.com
  Creation Date........ 2004-02-23
  Registration Date.... 2004-02-23
  Expiry Date.......... 2006-02-23
  Organisation Name.... Edu. Initiatives
  Organisation Address. 22595 Pillsbury Avenue
  Organisation Address.
  Organisation Address. Lakeville
  Organisation Address. 55044
  Organisation Address. MN
  Organisation Address. UNITED STATES
 Admin Name........... Gary Miller
  Admin Address........ 22595 Pillsbury Avenue
  Admin Address........
  Admin Address........ Lakeville
  Admin Address........ 55044
  Admin Address........ MN
  Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
  Admin Email.......... GameMill@Frontiernet.net
  Admin Phone.......... 952-985-7545
  Admin Fax............
So what does that have to do with truck rentals and storage sheds? Google for 22595 pillsbury, and we get Lake Marion Storage.  Same building, different people?  Nope! Gary Miller again.
 Registrant Info:
   Lake Marion Storage
   Gary Miller
   22595 Pillsbury Avenue
   Lakeville, MN 55044
   US
   Phone: 9529857545
   Fax..: 9529855763
   Email: LMStorage@aol.com
Note that the phone number is the same too.
The connection is that these folks are about 10 miles down the road from the Activision Value offices. This must be how Activision unloads old stock. --iMb~Meow 20:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameMill's parent company 

message: There is a page of it in the Chinese Wikipedia and a link to it is there,but someone removed it? For what? Just put that link back!
From checking the history.  Someone after you vandalized the page and it was RVed too far back.  lots of issues  | leave me a message 00:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the? 

message: http://hocuspocus.penguinia.net/overtheroad.htm
I worked for quite a while doing research, and this is what I came up with. Contains stuff about the Big Rigs sequel, as well as left behind files and an explanation why the game is crap. ShadowMan1od 02:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An explanation 

message: Although different gaming websites gave Big Rigs unusually harsh/negative reviews, the current Wiki article makes no mention of the BROTRRers (Acronym from the game).  With over fifty members and three different fansites, the BROTRRerhood and the Rigists (followers of Rigism, a religion created from the game) need to be mentioned in the main article (not just in the links at the bottom of the page) because otherwise it would not be fair for people that have different point of views on this game.  Since Big Rigs came out about two years ago, it is safe to assume that the BROTRRers are fans of the game, and that this is not just temporary.
HitokiriFelix- That's right!
Well, I added a "cult section" a few days ago, and some other people have polished it up. Hbdragon88 04:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 190 is nowhere near enough to justify that kind of thing. Even with 19,000, they'd need some sort of reliable, verifiable, non-trivial third party coverage.--Drat (Talk) 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BROTRRers 

message: I highly doubt the factual accuracy of the section titled "Original Product."  This section is based off of the opinion of one web page.  I suggest removal. thelistman
I spent about 2-3 hours researching. The thing about it being an "early release" is based on assumptions, but all the "Midnight Race Club" images, vehicles, and other leftovers were found in the retail version of the game. I also verified this by finding screenshots of the final version. Might need a bit of revising, but the fact that the game was intended to be Midnight Race Club and shipped with the big rigs working is true. ShadowMan1od 22:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Product? 

message: I am aware that "YOU'RE WINNER" is grammatically incorrect, but I don't think that needs to be pointed out. I'm sure that anyone with a basic grasp of English would be aware of this.
:Bugger off. 72.144.60.229 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "YOU'RE WINNER" 

message: Okay, I'm sorry if you feel that I've "vandalized" your page, but try to see it my way. I live by the RIGIST principles set forth by STELLAR STONE, seeing you call BIG RIGS the "worst game ever" is like walking into a mosque and calling allah the "worst god ever."
Basically, your page is very offensive, and I was annoyed. Now you spread your message of hate by showing that you don't even consider RIGtopians to be a race, our culture is zillions of years old and I don't need your prejudice added to the strugle of my people. If you're interested in making your page politically correct, you can fix it by:
Not calling big rigs the worst ANYTHING ever, that's the opinion of hate groups, it doesn't belong on wiki. Also, you shouldn't trivialize it by calling it a "game."
Another thing is that you've got to stop calling RIGISM a cult. It's a philosopy, not a cult, and we wouldn't have anything to do with cults anyway because the supreme council has declared them LOSER.
Another thing you should remove is the Alex Navarro links, that's like me going to the Christianity boards and linking to satanic websites. 
If these demands are not met, I'm afraid it will be very hard to avoid open war on Wikipedia. That means that the big rigs army will hunt down the editors, overthrow their tyrannical rule, and set up a new RIG-friendly government.
If you need any help making this page more WINNER, I will be glad to help. I'll be adding a section on the code of WINNER and of course a section on the three-handled tropy of WINNER when I have the time, just please be patient, and don't go letting your anti-rigite tendencies get in the way of making wikipedia a better place.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.52.67 (talk • contribs) .
:We are NOT calling it the worst game ever. That's an opinion. We are saying that it has been rated the worst ever by numerous professional publications. That's a fact, and can be verified by reading those publications. On top of that, the edits you make regarding Rigism are not sourced, which means they can be removed at any time, even if they weren't so obviously made-up. If you would like to write something sensible about Rigism, please remember to use reliable sources.--Drat (Talk) 14:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the average hate site would not be considered a reliable source, that's not surprising. Now could you please just quit this fake religion BS?--Drat (Talk) 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Having a website does not, by itself, make it legit.--Drat (Talk) 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, fine. 

message: Your stupid joke is going too far, as he said stick to verifiable opinions. Wikipedia is a factual website, not a biased one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deepdreamer (talk • contribs) .
I'm not trying to vandalize or joke. Let me try a more diplomatic way, do you think it's possible to cast Big Rigs in a more positive light?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.52.67 (talk • contribs) .
:There has to be a positive light to cast. Do you have one? It must be reliable and verifiable. Good luck, you'll need it.--Drat (Talk) 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pack it in 

message: Could there be a section about the patch? It is quite important, since it tries to trick people into believing they could actually lose. Alx xlA 00:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patch? 

message: I believe that a screen of the infamous trophy would add to the article, since that is one of the main reasons the game is so popular --Cirus206 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. It might even go some way to shutting up the nutters who keep causing trouble.--Drat (Talk) 06:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YOU'RE WINNER screen? 

message: As anyone who has frequently watched this article knows, there was a section concerning the issue of Big Rigs being a pre-released version of Midnight Race Club: Supercharged.  The section was removed due to it being an iffy source.  However, running another Google search, this has shown up.  A collection of screenshots from Midnight Race Club, showing even more detail as to how it could be a finished version of Big Rigs.  The logo for MRC is located within the game files for Big Rigs, as are many of the textures for the bicycles and cars.  Also, the levels shown in one of the screenshots shows that the same five levels are in both games.  Lastly, a big rig can even be seen in one of the screenshots.  Is there any way to implement this into the article? CirusTalk/Contribs 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that would constitute original resarch to claim that they are related.  Someone's gotta say it, and then it has to be backed up by a couple other verifable people as well. Hbdragon88 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I have found out that unzipping Big Rig's CARZ.RES file reveals the whole game's resources (as the filename says). Inside it there are hidden cars (Hummer, Ford SUV, Celita and Z350) and in the Credits PSD image it says "Midnight Race Club: Supercharged!". So I guess this settles it, right? -200.159.197.19 (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that this was originally meant to be "Midnight Race Club: Supercharged" in the games files, but because of the way Wikipedia works, we currently don't have enough information to include it in the article. Any claims put on wikipedia must be backed by 100% confirmed facts, authors aren't allowed to make a claim based on their common sense, it has to come from a reliable and accurate source. For all we know, the MRCS elements could have been put in the game for the hell of it, or to intentionally mislead people. We know that's not the case, but the only way to prove our claims is with a statement from the person who made the game. It is possible to contact him but whether or not he'll be willing to talk is another story.--ShaqZigWINNER64 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Should there not at least be mention of this evidence? What is necessary for there to be "enough information"; does someone have to write a page showing how to reveal the hidden content? 142.59.175.105 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable, verifiable source needs to point it out, or, better yet, the developers need to post it on their official site (not some forum)--Drat (Talk) 08:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midnight Race Club: Supercharged 

message: I read the deleted sections.  Yes, I'm aware that that it is unsourced from any reputable publication, and I'm aware that the proof for the connection to the Supercharged game is only in the game files which make that original research, but I believe Wikipedia should go for the "completion" of information not "restriction."  As the nomination above added, there is NO reputable publication to refer to.  When you look up the cult status of the game, there is NO article about them, they are only in a few joke fan sites and message boards.  When you look up for information on its development, there IS no information, while some can speculate or even conduct research (but that would be original research...), there is no place, not even in Russia except the developers themselves that can gives us a real source to cite.  
When the rules for citation and original research was made, it was to make sure articles would be reliable and accurate, it was for the critical articles in physics, mathematics, and history where the article have to be absolutely accurate right from the start.  Fandom, analysis, literature, and many others subjects, just don't have the attention or sources to cite from.  Too many times, things such as controversy or content that need inference are not published and are only acknowledged in discussions.  Big Rigs is not a major game, it did not gained massive attention, there is just no place for anyone to cite the cult status of the game (since fan sites and message boards don't count), the development, or anything else really.  Since what the article information only exist in original research or in some message board, this article is likely to be doomed to B-class, and I don't think deleting massive content on what we do know will help.DarkGhost89 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's just the problem when Wikipedia is not paper or a typical encyclopedia.  Wikipedia shouldn't "lower its standards" for articles simply because they have varying amounts of coverage.  How do we decide which article includes OR or not?  WP:NOR is important because it reduces major problems with what to include or not to include.  For instnace, I was just in an argument over the A-Squad Power Rangers.  Do we include the "fan generated" names for four nameless rangers?  Only a minority of the fans adopted those names .  What about other names used by other fanfiction writers?  No, we remove them all, as it was never stated.  Likewise, we have very limited capabilities to infer anything, and we cannot put forth the original theory that Supercharged = Big Rigs or mention its alleged cult status. Hbdragon88 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Content 

message: I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the some of the loading and menu screens in Big Rigs have cars in the background.  Such as in this screenshot from Big Rigs.  --Bears54 05:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More possible evidence for Midnight Race Club Supercharged 

message: This game is not winner. Wikipedia is meant to be an factual encylopedia, and it's fact the game is really bad. This article should be locked for editing.
::Look, YOUR OPINION is that the game is not good. I myself have found a lot of enjoyment out of this game, and since the entire point of a video game is to entertain you I think its safe to say that the game accomplishes its goal and can be considered good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.93.108 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a place for showcasing your opinion as a random person on the Internet. Practically all reliable sources that have reviewed this game rated it as being terrible.--Drat (Talk) 09:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why bother? They'd only come back after the block was raised. They'll grow out of it one day.--Drat (Talk) 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we'll grow out of liking a game. Maybe its you who should grow out of spending your lives feeling special by modding wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.93.108 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant growing out of vandalising the article. And I fail to see how contributing to Wikipedia is a childish act.--Drat (Talk) 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop this editing and WINNERness

message: Hey, guys, just ignore the, "Rigists". This fad will die out like the Chuck Norris one if we just ignore it. Believe me, I've dealt with these guys before, and I find that just ignoring them pisses them off the most (I fought back, they acted satirical. I ignored them, they massed threads trying to taunt me). Like Jimbo Wales said. "We laugh, edit it, and move on." Don't pour fuel into the fire. --YoungOcelot 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A curse upon YoungOcelot for insulting the almighty RIGS and all that is RIGISM. Remember, followers and followers-to-be, RIGISM is a full-fledged philosophy and not a fad. Do not believe the words of HWSNBN and his minions and remember, YOU'RE WINNER! Absolutely Curtains 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rigism

message: I have requested semi-protection for this article. --YoungOcelot 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: This is a review at points. It talks very negatively about the subject, and seems to just drag on and on with criticisms. This isn't helped by words like "Furthermore" putting the emphasis on all of the glitches. When it mentions the patch, it mentions the 'fixes' but emphasises the shortcomings. 
The article kicks off straight away by quoting Gamespot, setting the tone for this article as a collection of quotes from reviews. Not many 'Reception' sections have as many quotes from reviews as this one.
And what sums up the poor POV of this article is this sentence. "It is widely considered to be one of the worst video games, if not the worst, ever." I can almost understand the first bit but saying "if not the worst, ever." just isn't neccessary.
I hope you now know why I added this tag. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It talks very negative about the subject because there simply are no positive sides to this game, it has an 8 out of 100 score on Metacritic with the highest score being a 10 out of 100, which means a 1.0. Furthermore, Netjak specifically rewrote their site code to be able to give them a 0. Bananas 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly — many review sites just technically cannot give a score lower than "1 out of 10", hence why the Metacritic score is as high as 8 out of 100. The game really is that bad. The article appears to be in line with the describing points of view guideline. -- intgr 08:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Show us at least ONE reliable source that seriously praises the game. I dare you. Good luck.--Drat (Talk) 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say it was good? I wasn't saying it was good at all. I understand it got 8 on Metacritic. That's how I found out about this game. I know that a site actually rewrote their code for it. I know everything that I've been told about it from you! What I am saying is the removal of phrases, such as "if not the worst, ever" which I notice is still there. However, I have to say, a little bit has been done relating to the POV of this article which I'm pleased about. I can't believe how negatively you have received this, I am merely trying to follow Wikipedia policy. Any sentences that try and sound negative, should, in my opinion, be quotes. Not all of them are. That's all I'm saying. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your quote is taken out of context. The entire statement is "It is widely considered to be one of the worst video games, if not the worst, ever." While this fails WP:WEASEL, I would personally consider it a statement of a fact — the article does not say that the game is bad, it says that the majority of some unnamed entity considers it bad. I'll go and fix it. -- intgr 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added POV tag 

message: This line: "Netjak had its code rewritten just to give the game its first ever 0.0" is incorrect. The article states: "The only reason this game doesn't get a negative score is that I don't think our php gurus envisioned us ever giving a game a negative score, and because I reserve negative scores for a game that makes me physically ill.". He/she/it doesn't state that their website couldn't give out 0s. They said that the only reason it doesn't have a -1 or lower is because the website probably wouldn't be able to show it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm John Zeitler, lead programmer for Netjak.  While the Big Rigs review was written prior to my assumption of programming duties, I can confirm that the code indicates that a score of zero was impossible prior to a certain point, and that the comments indicate that the ability to award a zero was added specifically for Big Rigs.  Our current editorial policy is that no game warrants a zero score unless it is fundamentally unplayable, and Big Rigs fits that description.  Thanks.  198.140.4.205 (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netjak 

message: Per the later parts of the "A modest proposal" discussion above, mention of the "rigger" community is undue weight. Countless notable, reliable sources have negatively reviewed this game. The rigger community is very small, and has not been covered non-trivially by reliable, third party sources.--Drat (Talk) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: I changed
Big Rigs received universally negative reviews with the critics considering it to be one of the worst video games, if not the worst, ever.
Big Rigs received almost universally negative reviews with the critics considering it to be one of the worst video games, if not the worst, ever.
That was added because of the fact there are a small group of people who like the game and wouldnt give it a negative review  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.24.187 (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not a reliable source. Every review from reliable sources that could be cited gave this game a thumbs down.--Drat (Talk) 05:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  However they do exist maybe it should be reworded to mention that there is a small fanbase Coho (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The group is so small that it's not worth mentioning, per WP:WEIGHT.--Drat (Talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworded scentence

message: This article on Big rigs over the road racing should refer to more websites giving it a bad review.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.193.137 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much the only well-known gaming sites that have reviewed the game are linked to in the article. There are plenty of reviews from places like blogs or user reviews on sites like GameSpot but apparently they're not neutral enough for wikipedia's standards or something. Aside from that there are some reviews that aren't in English.--85.211.97.223 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more sites 

message: I've seen various claims about the location of the game's developers. Most Rigists believe that the company was based in Russia (likely considering the number of Russian employees), but the Stellar Stone article said until recently that they were based in Los Angeles (also likely considering that Sergey Titov, BROTRR's lead dev, still works in LA). But now another user has edited the Stellar Stone and Big Rigs articles, now saying that the company is based in Canada, whilst others believe that the company no longer exists (their website is down).
So basically, do we have any reliable sources proving where Stellar Stone was based? Stellar Stone's website is no longer active, so it is impossible to do a whois (not that whois queries are always reliable for finding this information).--ShaqZigWINNER64 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Stellar Stone LLC? 

message: It was developped in the US; the company just recently moved to Canada.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Rigs is NOT made in Canada. 

message: Sergey Titov, who is credited as the lead programmer for Big Rigs, contacted us on yourewinner.com and answered several questions. Firstly, Stellar Stone is ukranian, and Sergey Titov liscenced his game engine to them in exchance for a chunk of the company. It was produced in the US but written in Ukraine. He also added that Midnight Race Club: Supercharged was indeed related to Big Rigs.
Thread is here.
The thing is, I'm aware that content from forums isn't considered reliable enough. We do have proof that it's the real titov, since his account was created from an e-mail address whose domain is owned by sergey (tsgroup-inc.com) and on our forums, all users have to validate their accounts through e-mail meaning that the only way he could put the e-mail address in his profile is if he had access to it. Is there any rule in wikipedia that would allow us to post this info?--79.64.113.111 (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of new info on brotrr, but not sure if it's allowed here 

message: In the article, it states that the video game was developed in the Ukraine, but it's still in this category. Am I missing something or is it wrong? Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 12:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Video games developed in the United States 

message: This game does not have enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a separate article. It is best (and only) known for its negative reception, and is already covered in a section at List of video games notable for negative reception. The only major reviews are from GameSpot and G4, and any other details about the game adequately fit in the aforementioned section. czar 17:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[List of video games notable for negative reception]] 

message: I made an edit to pint out that the start and the finish line are one and the same, which I think is of nontrivial interest given the game's claim that the challenge is to "safely deliver illegal cargo". To where? Where you started? The edit, however, was removed. Can we have a discussion? Porphyro (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating full-length that a circular track (which is, well, circular) ends at the start is a doubling of statement, and rather trivial as I pointed out earlier. IIRC there also was one track that was not circular, but I'd need to check that again. Arguing that the box states something of delivering cargo, which is in no form at all present in the game, just like anything printed on it (like police, chase, functional enemies), so that should not at all be taken into consideration. Lordtobi (✉) 10:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd tend to agree with you if the article said anywhere that the track was circular- but discrepancies between the claims on the box and gameplay are absolutely relevant content for the article. Porphyro (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circularity of the track 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. 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/20140201150355/http://www.yourewinner.com/index.php?action=stitovinterview to http://www.yourewinner.com/index.php?action=stitovinterview
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I really wish you hadn't done this rewrite in a single edit. I see several issues, but because you lumped so many changes together I can barely tell what content was moved around, what was removed and what was added. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , the rewrite was made to ensure that all content is verifiable, which it now is. It was done in a single edit because I prepared it on a local MediaWiki instance first. Past the rewrite, the article successfully passed GA and DYK. This would not have been possible before due to unsourced content, original research, NPOV issues, unreliable sources, and the like. IceWelder [✉] 11:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would appreciate it if you could try to submit a bit more often when you work on an article locally. It's just much harder to figure out what changed like this. Btw, I'm fine with You're winner !, I only opposed "You're Winner !" as it felt invented so that's fine now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but that wasn't exactly possible since I rewrote the article from scratch; I first drafted a source-list stub and then incrementally wrote up paragraphs. I didn't want to patch on a half-baked mess every two days until I'm finally done with all major changes. As for the trophy phrase: "YOU'RE WINNER" goes against our MOS (since it's a stylization), while "You're Winner" is the casing used in both sources from the Gameplay section. I suppose that the sentence-case "You're winner" is equally fine. IceWelder [✉] 13:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite