Talk:Phil Fish/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fez II cancelled, someone edit it to be more coherent and well made.

I added some information + some important references, but it would be nice if you guys could tidy up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advancedlamb (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

People, don't bother adding stuff if you can't even get the date right or avoid redundancy. The moron who added the giant block of original research bullshit said the "controversy" with Gametrailers began on July 28 -- except topday, even as I write this, it's only July 27. I would lock this article until serious editors can look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.173.214 (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Then how's about actually adding information rather than being condescending and deleting all the completely legitimate information that is cited accurately and correctly?

Sean Hollister quote

Hi! I'm not entirely comfortable about Hollister quote, "notorious for voicing angry, controversial opinions about the state of video games", as it seems an isolated bit of criticism which may not represent Phil Fish. It does seem accurate to a degree, but there is also a lot positive said about Fish, so I think we probably need to expand the account of him, rather than highlighting a single issue.

That said, although Hollister's quote was stated in relation to the cancellation of Fez II, I'd rather keep it separate from the cancellation. Earlier it read:

On 27 July 2013, Fish announced that Fez II had been canceled, following a Twitter dispute with Marcus Beer, a game reviewer with GameTrailers. Phil Fish has been characterized by Sean Hollister of The Verge as "notorious for voicing angry, controversial opinions about the state of video games".

Although it was inadvertent, it seemed to make the claim that the cancellation of Fez II was in regard to his opinions on the state of video games, which puts the blame more-or-less on Fish. But the dispute was quite different, and the dispute appears to have been created by Beer. So I think it works better if we keep the two claims separate, more like:

Phil Fish has been characterized by Sean Hollister of The Verge as "notorious for voicing angry, controversial opinions about the state of video games".

On 27 July 2013, Fish announced that Fez II had been canceled, following a Twitter dispute with Marcus Beer, a game reviewer with GameTrailers.

That way the comment about Fish can stand, even though I'd like more balance, but it doesn't lead the reader to assume that one is the cause of the other. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a fine quote, because it's relevant to what Phil often talks about. It isn't at all fictitious. Lucas "Shank" Nicodemus (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it is fictitious, just that it isn't the full story. But my primary concern is that it is separate to the cancellation of Fez II, so it would work better if we don't join the two statements together. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yea, it wasn't my intention that those two statements should been seen as connected, so if putting them in different paragraphs helps clarifying that, I think that is fine.

I included the quote because I thought it would be appropriate to at least have a mention of Phil Fish's somewhat controversial statements here, given that maybe a good third of all the mentions of Fish I could find in reliable sources (mostly gaming news articles) were either those controversial statements, or responses to those controversial statements. I also thought that to have at least a mention of these concerns might help keeping some of the vandals and writers of poorly balanced criticism at bay, if at least a bit of their concern were expressed (in an appropriate balanced manner) in the article. I am aware that WP:BLP asks us to be very careful with such critical statements about living people. That is also the reason why I chose to include this statement only as a direct quote attributed to a specific person, as that to me seemed the most cautious way that such statements can be included in Wikipedia articles.TheFreeloader (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise, then. I think it works as it is - if anything, it's more content for the page in general. Lucas "Shank" Nicodemus (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Da fuq"

Da fuq happened to this page? Lock it bro! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.170.42 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 March 2013‎ (UTC)

I changed his nationality to Canadian. French Canadian (written as "French Canada") is not a nationality, despite what some separatists may have you believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.109.24 (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Quebec secessionists would never use the term: "French Canadian, as the whole point is to see Quebec as independent of Canada, so that's a pretty ridiculous remark. Also, "French Canadian" could absolutely be a suitable term(which is why it's there now) There are "Italian Americans", "Ukranian Australians", "Jewish Canadians" and so forth, "French Canadian" is a completely suitable term, in the same vein, obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability

I removed the notability banner from the page. There are copious sources on Fish's controversial statements (esp. those related to gaming writ large), most of which have little or nothing to do with Fez. There's more than enough to sustain an article. As for leaving the industry, notability is not temporary. If you hold your GNG bar high, keep in mind that Ben Kuchera recently cruised through AfD and Fish has plenty more significant and dedicated secondary coverage. I added a few sources, but I'm working on building the Fez article right now. czar ♔ 23:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Combining this meager article with Fez

Looks like Fish won't be doing anything anytime soon. He's also only known for FEZ and has decided to quit the industry, therefore I propose a merge. Feng277394 (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - just because he claims to have left the industry doesn't mean that he won't do something in the near future. If anything, the page aught to be renamed (and thus a discombobulation page would be generated when searching) - but I disagree with a merger. Lucas "Shank" Nicodemus (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, but I still ardently support the merging of this article with at least the Polytron Corporation since the two are totally synonymous as of now. (both articles, of which, lack good factual detail with the only significance of the two being Fez (video game). Feng277394 (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging with Polytron sounds like a good idea, then. Lucas "Shank" Nicodemus (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion was started in August 2013: Talk:Fez_(video_game)#Merge_Fish_with_Fez czar ♔ 02:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fez II is back on.

And, Phil Fish is now posting.

https://twitter.com/PHIL_FISH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.105.175 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That tweet was commonly regarded as an April Fools joke in the reliable sources. czar ♔ 00:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

{{Did you know nominations/Phil Fish (video game developer)}} czar ♔ 01:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Masters of botany

Phil Fish has requested masters of botany to accompany him in the article picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.82.118 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that—more info? czar ♔ 01:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the top right of the first image on the page. Then look at the image metadata for a 2008 picture and see it was photo shopped just before it was uploaded in 2013.

Then look up mystery of the druids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.64.74 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the duplicate merge wasn't a duplicate merge after all. Thanks for the heads up czar ♔ 02:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Druids

The photo taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/50642338@N00/3069071319 has a druid edited into the picture, and it appears on more than one page Rundeer (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, already addressed czar ♔ 02:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phil Fish (video game developer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll field this one, as I happen to have read through the article before. I'm not sure whether it's there yet, but it's definitely close. Oh, and I realize we've had some recent disagreements on the notability of articles I'm involved with, and will probably continue to have more, but I don't want that to interfere with this review. With that out of the way, I'll be back in a couple hours. Tezero (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've made some copyedit-type fixes, nothing major.
• Not an issue for GA, but "for which it received some notoriety" could be elaborated on.
• The mention of The Golden Compass in "Works" doesn't need a citation.
• I'd remark after the initial mentions of Power Pill and Super Hypercube that the games would never be released. If I didn't know Fish had quit the industry (though honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he came back in a year or two), I'd initially expect that the games had been released, and would not realize the contrary until paragraphs later.
• I seem to recall that the Fez cover art is free-use. That'd be nice to include somewhere on Fish's page.

That settles it! Quality work as usual. I'll stop by if you ever elect to take this one to FAC. Tezero (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: move both pages, with the character page moved to Phil Fish (fictional character). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

---

• Phil Fish (video game developer) → Phil Fish
• Phil Fish → Phil Fish (Barney Miller)

– The game designer (more precise than developer) is the primary topic by any measure of ghits. The game designer also has more Google Scholar mentions, for what it's worth. The fictional character is mentioned in a few encyclopedias in Google Books, but doesn't have nearly as much coverage. I proposed its new name based on NC-TV. The game designer also gets roughly 15x the article hits as the fictional character despite being at the disambiguated name. czar ♔ 02:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support the move. In general, I think WP:VG may be a little meek with claiming non-parenthetical article titles, and in this case the Fez guy is head and shoulders above the fictional character in importance and frequency of searching. Tezero (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support for move but the fictional character article may require a different disambiguating parenthetical since the character starred in both Barney Miller and Fish. - Dravecky (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Real people should almost always take precedence over fictional characters, unless those characters are hugely well-known. If he was in more than one series then the character can be moved to Phil Fish (fictional character). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, with the character at the title Phil Fish (fictional character). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:19, 11 May 2014 (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.

Possible source

I have a feeling that Phil Fish opened a new can of worms with his recent outing. Might as well start with this link: [1] GamerPro64 03:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing more than the usual pageview clickbait, but I'll look into it. By the way, I recommend that video linked towards the end of that GameSpot article (Fish as cultural symbol)—I wish a RS would do the work of republishing something similar as their current analysis is somewhat more shallow czar ♔ 09:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2014

I would suggest removing the classification of Fez II as "one more thing" (in the paragraph before the subsection Polytron Partners) because it is quite colloquial and Fez II does not really match the definition of a "one more thing." EyesClosed JustSwangin (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That was just as the source put it, so I don't think it's an issue czar ♔ 22:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request - August 23

Can someone change

He graduated from the 2004 Design and Digital Art for Video Games program at the Montreal NAD (National Animation and Design Centre).[4]
to
In 2004, he graduated from the centre national d'animation et de design's Design and Digital Art for Video Games program in Montréal.[4]

108.58.107.174 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Done czar ♔ 23:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Polytron hacked, Phil Fish selling the IPs of Fez and the Polytron company

Recently Polytron was defaced by 'hackers' https://twitter.com/renaudbedard/status/502765383410266112 (Fez developer), which has lead to Phil Fish once again leaving the gaming industry and deleting his Twitter account. http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/phil-fish-puts-polytron-up-for-sale-quits-twitter-again/0137346.

Should we write a section on this, as it seems quite major. However, the issue is, Phil Fish is quite prone to using hyperbole excessively, which means his statements can be... misinterpreted. In terms of sourcing. MCV is listed as a trusted source for video game related content, but the Twitter source isn't as reliable as he isn't verified. Phil Fish did have a Twitter post regarding the matter, but he has since deleted it, and the current 'Phil Fish' account is untrusted. arivie (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There is (currently) a dearth of reliable reporting on the incident. It isn't clear who hacked who and what claims were the hackers' as opposed to the company's. Wait until reliable sources figure it out, and then we'll know what to add. There's no rush, and it's better than adding unreliable information (WP:BLP). czar ♔ 16:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Some further sources have appeared, namely http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/22/6057317/fez-developer-polytron-hacked-harassment and http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/22/hackers-post-fez-developer-phil-fishs-personal-information-and-take-control-of-his-studios-website/, which do continue on the claims of who hacked who. Obviously, yes, there isn't any rush to add information, but we might as well keep a record here.

In addition, http://www.dailydot.com/geek/4chan-hacks-phil-fish-over-his-defense-of-zoe-quinn/ also has screenshots of the text file included within the leak, and further details about the intentions. arivie (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Some further sources regarding the matter: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/08/22/fez-creator-sells-company-after-hackers-expose-his-personal-info and http://www.gamespot.com/articles/phil-fish-selling-rights-to-fez-after-being-hacked/1100-6421882/

I'd say it's about time we integrate a section into the article about it? I'd suggest wording it like this:

In August 2014, Polytron was hacked by a group pertaining to be users of the 4chan's /v/ board. This attack was reportedly done because Phil Fish announced his support of Depression Quest developer, Zoe Quinn. Included within the hack were contents from the corporate Dropbox , as well as banking information relating to Polytron, and Phil Fish's home address

Following the incident, Phil Fish announced he was selling rights to the Fez series, and the Polytron company.

arivie (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think we should wait until there is a more definitive report of what happened. The above reporting is not conclusive. czar ♔ 02:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the importance of this issue to the article (selling the company and IP he created) it seems worth covering. What is the issue that is inconclusive? - Bilby (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically anything other than that they were hacked—who did it, why they did it. I'll use the Polygon article as it is the most even-handed about acknowledging that the doxing happened, but re: the inconclusive details of who did what (as outlined in the draft above), I still don't think it's appropriate to say much more until some more definitive report is made. czar ♔ 13:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Phil hacked himself and released his documents to the public.

The files that were on polytroncorporation.com after he had it redirect to a game he didn't even code, had a .exe file which led to a .zip which had a multitude of personal information that were planted inside.

A 1.6 gigabyte file was inside this .exe filled with bank information, PS3, PS4, PC, tours, press releases, conference dates, things that would never even be expected to be found inside of a website in the first place.

Here's the theory going around, he hacked his own site 5 hours before he zipped a large file of information onto his flash drive and uploaded it when he made it look like his site went and got hacked at the lowest point of traffic possible so the change would presumably look hacked.

Here's some information of the metadata concerning the .zip file, implying it was infact created on a flash drive. http://i.imgur.com/bCnF8ZM.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.203.220 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't give voice to fringe theories. It has to be covered in reliable sources or else it has no place in the article. czar ♔ 02:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Legacy section

• http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/15/6152423/notch-sell-minecraft-microsoft-phil-fish-video

Not sure there is enough for such a section just yet, but I'll collect links here just in case czar ♔ 01:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I was looking to see a list...

12.25.54.154 posted this comment on 4 December 2013 (view all feedback).

I was looking to see a list of the games he had made and worked on.

I added a list:

== Works ==

• Fez (2012, Polytron, as designer)
• Super Hypercube (unreleased, as designer)
• Power Pill (unreleased, as designer)
• Open Season (2006, Ubisoft, as level designer)

But I'm not sure it's worth including. Thoughts? Also resolved the rest of the remaining feedback tickets.

czar ♔ 02:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

→Hi, fwiw Super Hypercube was released back in 2008: http://theinstructionlimit.com/super-hypercube 2601:9:1B00:A62:B57B:A51B:24FA:2BFD (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Specific Phil Fish birthdate?

Instead of having a vague estimate of his age range in the article, does anyone happen to have something verifiable from a reliable source that clarifies his actual day and month of birth? This is what I found, but not sure how true the info is in this article. http://www.vbprofiles.com/people/5225bfde1dedae0dcb00126c Thdegy (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Thdegy

(1) It's user-contributed and thus unreliable, (2) it looks like it was copied from Wikipedia itself. There was no good source for Fish's birthday last time I checked. – czar 00:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I feel like reopening this debate since after I digged a bit I found some intriguing evidence. I don't know how reliable it is, but according to Renaud Bédard on his old formspring account in response to the question, "How old are you and Fish?" he responded, "I'm 27 and I'm pretty sure Phil is too, 1985 represent!" I think this reply provides some confirmation to at least the year Phil was born in. Of course this reply is three years old as of me typing this but it's fairly interesting. link: http://theinstructionlimit.com/other/formspring/renaudbedard001.html (scroll down the formspring page and you'll see this question and response) Thdegy (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a debate. We have a print source that says 1984. You'll need much more than a guess on a Formspring.me page to unseat that. czar 08:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The tweet I had earlier inserted confirming Fish's birthdate was reverted by Czar, which is especially understandable given that the tweet on its own doesn't really explicitly state outright it's his birthday. However, consider the question that he was asked preceding the tweet:

when people ask you when your birthday is do you say "one november"

This is immediately followed by the tweet from Fish (an implied affirmation of November 1st).

i say november 1st and i spell it like that too.

Presuming that his birthdate is not actually November 1st, why would he respond in a manner affirming the question's assumption? I guess it's not really possible to cite a Twitter conversation, but I believe this is a strong, while not direct, affirmation of his birthdate. —0xF8E8 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a great example because Boyer isn't asserting that Fish's birthday is November 1st, but asking a question where it might as well be hypothetical. Best route is to ask him directly. czar 03:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversies

Nothing about the couple of controveries he was involved in? Normosphere (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. It's pretty asinine that there isn't, seeing how the backlash from that resulted in Fez 2's cancellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliow1 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016

Super HyperCube is now relesaed

Chrisrowenet (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems as Phil Fish is back to developing games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b3c1eNYA24 77.8.175.172 (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Article severely outdated

It seem to have stopped being regularly edited six years ago. Fish has dabbled in video game development since then and even some music production. It really needs to be taken off of semi-protect, I don't think the vandalism from 2014 is going to be much of a problem anymore.

On a side note, how is this labeled as a good article? It's missing quite a lot of controversy surrounding the man, it reduces his infamous public breakdown into "Following an online argument in July 2013". It barely mentions the Fez II cancellation at all. 93.107.153.40 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What recent reliable source coverage is missing from the article? I'm not seeing even so much as mentions since 2017 and even those mentions are already represented. As for "his infamous public breakdown", what more needs to be said, minding that this is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid? czar 04:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, don't mistake my surprise as an attempt to stir drama. "Severely outdated" was probably an overstatement on my part, I really should have said "The lead is outdated against the rest of the article". I was just a bit shocked how much info in the lead is old how it still maintains its "good article" status in spite of that. I also believe there's absolutely enough written in professional outlets like Gamespot and Giant Bomb about his various outbursts for them to be mentioned, and I feel they should be considering how said outbursts and the reaction to them is the entire reason he left the industry, but I suppose trying to add them in a non-scandalous way would be difficult and hard to implement without leading to an edit war. As for sources, I found two articles that mention his post-2013 work just by checking results on the first page of Google: https://www.svg.com/108081/where-is-phil-fish-fez/ and a much more reliable one here https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/technology/personaltech/virtual-realitys-possibilities-lure-video-game-developers.html. Both talk about SuperHyperCube, the NYT one isn't cited in the article and I feel it should be considering the two mentions of SuperHyperCube aren't even cited at all currently. The article also says SHC is unreleased, which isn't true. The game's own Wikipedia article mentions it was released in late 2016. The infobox should at least say "Years active: 2006-2013, 2015-Present" or "2015-2017", as you said it's hard to find website reporting on anything he's done past 2017 so I'm unsure if he's left the industry since. The SVG article, while likely not acceptable as a citation due to the nature of the site, contains a good summery of the events that lead him to leave the industry as well as what he's done up until 2018 in case you were curious. It's nothing that isn't already mentioned in the Polytron section.

I haven't gone through everything but what I'm trying to say is that there's some confusion going on across the article, the later paragraphs in the Polytron section are fairly accurate while the leading section isn't, causing them to be a bit inconsistent with each other, like how it says he left the industry in 2013 yet worked on a game that released in 2016. They're quite simple things to fix but I still think they're important. Apologies if I came across as acting in bad faith. 93.107.153.40 (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, just sounds like you're looking for a few updates but nothing I'd consider severely outdated. There's little to add on SHC besides that he is listed as involved. The NYT says he apparently has returned to the industry after quitting twice, so can add that too despite it being murky. Correct that SVG.com has no hallmarks of a reliable source, so not something we would cite, but even looking at its post-2013 summary, as you said, I'm not seeing much to add.

re: "outbursts": I haven't looked at those sources in a while but from what I recall, there was little detail apart from that Fish said something inflammatory and that social media was inflamed. That's already covered ("notorious for voicing angry, controversial opinions", "his outspoken public perception", "caustic use of Twitter") without going into a tabloid-like accounting of specific claims. If the claims or response itself was noteworthy enough for a reliable source to analyze it, certainly would be worth considering. But otherwise, after cutting through the clickbait and hyperbole, the extant sources are a whole lot of sensationalism.

The "Good article" rating means it was peer reviewed at a point in time. It can be re-assessed if it has fallen out of the criteria. I've added a few clarifying details but mostly minor so let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks for your help czar 21:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)