Talk:International Game Developers Association/Archive 1

Why does Computer Game Developers Conference redirect here?

It seems like it should redirect to Game Developers Conference, no? 67.170.193.194 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is a completely different foundation. -- Steven Stone 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Links

Surely we do not need a link for every SIG, especially since they all link into the main web site of this organisation, given, as one would expect, under External links. "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles". Similar remarks about the four External links into the main website: I think that anyone who can navigate to the front page can find all of these other pages easily enough.

One of the other extlinks has gone 404: in fact its main page is 404 as well.

One of the references, "Monster.com - Tech Resource: International Game Developers Association. by Allan Hoffman, Monster Tech Jobs Expert", is no longer valid. I think it may now be here, in which case it is an article about game developing as a career (which happens to quote from IGDA website), not the subject of this article. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs or interests

The "needs" of the industry do not include opposing censorship, although the interests surely do. I have changed the wording accordingly. Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Professional association or advocacy group

The latter of course. It admits right there in the article (which seems to have been written by its own staffers) that it has a political position (on censorship) and that anyone can join. A professional association imposes entry conditions on skills, knowledge, responsibility. I have changed the Category. Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Your changes were simply vandalism and have been reverted. IGDA (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

COI and references

It is obvious that much of this article has been contributed by editors with a conflict of interest, and that almost all of the material is sourced to a single regerence, which is the subject's own web site. I've put up tags accordingly. An independent source of information on the subject would be welcome. Otherwise it may not be clear that it is even notable. Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On the COI. Contributors to this article include User:IGDA, who has the same initials as the outfit and edits mainly on gaming; User:EWAdams, who has the same name as the founder; User:Elonka, who works for the outfit. That adds up. Thompson Is Right (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I prefer to use the editorial hatchet and solve the problem. :) This does sometimes lead to conflict. *blink*sinneed (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability

A quick internet search on the GDC and the GDC awards will generate plenty of hits to show notability.sinneed (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope someone adds them then. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we care? They are there. If no one cares, they will never be added.sinneed (talk)

Tim Langdell

With the current controversy surrounding Tim Langdell, should this not be mentioned in this article? Tim Langdell is still currently a director on the IGDA board (even though members are contesting his credibility and ethics). I'd be interested to hear other thoughts on the matter. If I don't hear anything I'll add a section with overview of situation and link to the main article. --Glitchd (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

He has his own article. Other than the fact that he may be kicked from the board due to the petition, how does this affect the IGDA?- sinneed (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it mentionable in the article because Tim Langdell is renown for not having developed a game in roughly 15 years. He's also used his position on the board of the IGDA to boost his appearance in court cases where he sues companies/individuals of their 'infringment' of his trademark 'Edge'. (wp:BLP applies everywhere, don't do that again-Sinneed) This can be backed up by the references on his article or by simply Googling "IGDA". I feel the controversy should be at least mentioned in the article, as the criticisms of Peter Molyneux are mentioned of the Lionhead Studios article. --Glitchd (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• wp:BLP-breaker redacted above. All that is focused on the person Tim Langdell, and this article is focused on the IGDA.- sinneed (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Global Game Jam

I just added a WP article for the Global Game Jam. This is a notable IGDA event, is there a place in this article for it to be mentioned? I was thinking we could add something to the SIG section, since the GGJ is an event organized by the Education SIG. Dariusk (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Chopped the board notables list

One would expect that, over time, that list would become unreasonably long, and I am dubious of its value to the article. I don't think I will kill it right away if restored but... why does it belong? They have articles. If the IGDA is an important part of their careers, I am sure it will be mentioned. If not, it seems to serve as bragging for the IGDA.- Sinneed 19:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly worth inclusion

Games Convention Asia scrapped.http://digital.asiaone.com/Digital/News/Story/A1Story20100324-206388.html - Sinneed 19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dropped unsourced stuff and article source flag

...and the just-tagged unsourced bits. They don't seem needful... the organization itself doesn't seem even to have a history page. If the press doesn't care and even the organization doesn't care, I don't see why WP will. Easily restored if someone feels they should be. My objection is not a strong one.- Sinneed 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)