Talk:Steam - Revision history

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: /* Sorry I don't know if this is a good place to ask this but.... */ Reply

2025-09-18T16:01:04Z

Sorry I don't know if this is a good place to ask this but....: Reply

LeaMonera: /* Sorry I don't know if this is a good place to ask this but.... */ new section

2025-09-16T21:49:09Z

Sorry I don't know if this is a good place to ask this but....: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 16 September 2025
Line 15:		Line 15:

	I'm getting some weird errors on mobile (including using the desktop site version) while editing, such as repeated references that don't match the problems visible on the page, outside of editing. So I will refrain from editing, in case it's an error on my end. But on both mobile and an actual desktop, I've noticed that the body of the article and its references are repeated. It looks like a copy & pasting error. Since my ability to edit this article is compromised, can someone else fix this issue? Additionally, does the source need to be cleaned-up? [[User:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes]] ([[User talk:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|talk]]) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)		I'm getting some weird errors on mobile (including using the desktop site version) while editing, such as repeated references that don't match the problems visible on the page, outside of editing. So I will refrain from editing, in case it's an error on my end. But on both mobile and an actual desktop, I've noticed that the body of the article and its references are repeated. It looks like a copy & pasting error. Since my ability to edit this article is compromised, can someone else fix this issue? Additionally, does the source need to be cleaned-up? [[User:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes]] ([[User talk:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|talk]]) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Sorry I don't know if this is a good place to ask this but.... ==

			Does it make sense to make a seperate page for each game that cannot be preserved, and is being sold as a product, whereas it is actually a rental.

			When the developers of the game decide to turn off the servers there is no way to preserve or play the game anymore.

			I was first going to make a single page dedicated to this specific game "Warhammer Darktide".

			Here is the steam thread describing in a way how I want to make the page sound:

			https://steamcommunity.com/app/1361210/discussions/0/572641938359327796/


			Or does it make sense to create a sort-of sub-wiki as a list of games that are sold as products with hidden expiration dates? [[User:LeaMonera\|LeaMonera]] ([[User talk:LeaMonera\|talk]]) 21:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes: /* Repeating Sections */ new section

2025-01-26T17:28:43Z

Repeating Sections: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 26 January 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:: If I may, under Privacy, I recommend: "Collects much personal data...", "Records and stores all user communications across platform features", "Keeps certain user data indefinitely, even after account deletion" Under Freedom, I recommend: "Access to paid content can be ended at Valve's discretion" [[User:SouthPaw\|SouthPaw]] ([[User talk:SouthPaw\|talk]]) 00:45, 19 Jan 2025 (UTC-6)		:: If I may, under Privacy, I recommend: "Collects much personal data...", "Records and stores all user communications across platform features", "Keeps certain user data indefinitely, even after account deletion" Under Freedom, I recommend: "Access to paid content can be ended at Valve's discretion" [[User:SouthPaw\|SouthPaw]] ([[User talk:SouthPaw\|talk]]) 00:45, 19 Jan 2025 (UTC-6)

			== Repeating Sections ==

			I'm getting some weird errors on mobile (including using the desktop site version) while editing, such as repeated references that don't match the problems visible on the page, outside of editing. So I will refrain from editing, in case it's an error on my end. But on both mobile and an actual desktop, I've noticed that the body of the article and its references are repeated. It looks like a copy & pasting error. Since my ability to edit this article is compromised, can someone else fix this issue? Additionally, does the source need to be cleaned-up? [[User:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes]] ([[User talk:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|talk]]) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

SouthPaw at 06:46, 19 January 2025

2025-01-19T06:46:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:46, 19 January 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:

	::actually I'm not sure that what I said above makes complete sense in this context... might be too late at night for me to be going around having opinions on things! If I were to reconsider some of it, I'd agree with you that the main issue is the scoring aspect of it. everything else is very clearly factual and based on the content of the SSA or other steam documents. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)		::actually I'm not sure that what I said above makes complete sense in this context... might be too late at night for me to be going around having opinions on things! If I were to reconsider some of it, I'd agree with you that the main issue is the scoring aspect of it. everything else is very clearly factual and based on the content of the SSA or other steam documents. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			:: If I may, under Privacy, I recommend: "Collects much personal data...", "Records and stores all user communications across platform features", "Keeps certain user data indefinitely, even after account deletion" Under Freedom, I recommend: "Access to paid content can be ended at Valve's discretion" [[User:SouthPaw\|SouthPaw]] ([[User talk:SouthPaw\|talk]]) 00:45, 19 Jan 2025 (UTC-6)

Keith at 00:33, 18 January 2025

2025-01-18T00:33:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 18 January 2025
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:: The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)		:: The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

	::actually I'm not sure that what I said above makes complete sense in this context... might be too late at night for me to be going around having opinions on things! If I were to reconsider some of it, I'd agree with you that the main issue is the scoring aspect of it. everything else is very clearly factual and based on the content of the SSA or other steam documents.		::actually I'm not sure that what I said above makes complete sense in this context... might be too late at night for me to be going around having opinions on things! If I were to reconsider some of it, I'd agree with you that the main issue is the scoring aspect of it. everything else is very clearly factual and based on the content of the SSA or other steam documents. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Keith at 00:33, 18 January 2025

2025-01-18T00:33:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 18 January 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:

	:: The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)		:: The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			::actually I'm not sure that what I said above makes complete sense in this context... might be too late at night for me to be going around having opinions on things! If I were to reconsider some of it, I'd agree with you that the main issue is the scoring aspect of it. everything else is very clearly factual and based on the content of the SSA or other steam documents.

Keith: replied to kostas

2025-01-18T00:28:34Z

replied to kostas

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:28, 18 January 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:

	: As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stance of a company in regards to Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)		: As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stance of a company in regards to Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			:: The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Kostas: i cant spell or write

2025-01-18T00:01:55Z

i cant spell or write

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 18 January 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:


	: As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the ~~stanve~~ of company ~~policy regarding~~ Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)		: As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stance of a company in regards to Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Kostas at 23:47, 17 January 2025

2025-01-17T23:47:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, 17 January 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:

	While I really like what's being done here with regards to the commentary, my concern is that it currently results in a lot of qualitative/judgemental statements being made in the Wiki's voice, on a page which is not supposed to be too editorial. In this case, I think it's been done quite well and the statements are largely reasonable, but it does still violate NPOV. I think exactly how this should be handled, and whether editorial content is appropriate on company articles, is something that might need to be discussed at a site/admin level. If editorial content is to exist on company articles, I think it almost certainly should be in its own section/box, as it is here [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 20:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)		While I really like what's being done here with regards to the commentary, my concern is that it currently results in a lot of qualitative/judgemental statements being made in the Wiki's voice, on a page which is not supposed to be too editorial. In this case, I think it's been done quite well and the statements are largely reasonable, but it does still violate NPOV. I think exactly how this should be handled, and whether editorial content is appropriate on company articles, is something that might need to be discussed at a site/admin level. If editorial content is to exist on company articles, I think it almost certainly should be in its own section/box, as it is here [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 20:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


			: As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stanve of company policy regarding Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Keith: /* Tone concerns with regard to the Consumer Protection Profile */ new section

2025-01-17T20:31:10Z

Tone concerns with regard to the Consumer Protection Profile: new section

New page

== Tone concerns with regard to the Consumer Protection Profile ==

While I really like what's being done here with regards to the commentary, my concern is that it currently results in a lot of qualitative/judgemental statements being made in the Wiki's voice, on a page which is not supposed to be too editorial. In this case, I think it's been done quite well and the statements are largely reasonable, but it does still violate NPOV. I think exactly how this should be handled, and whether editorial content is appropriate on company articles, is something that might need to be discussed at a site/admin level. If editorial content is to exist on company articles, I think it almost certainly should be in its own section/box, as it is here [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 18 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Tone concerns with regard to the Consumer Protection Profile ==		==Tone concerns with regard to the Consumer Protection Profile==

	While I really like what's being done here with regards to the commentary, my concern is that it currently results in a lot of qualitative/judgemental statements being made in the Wiki's voice, on a page which is not supposed to be too editorial. In this case, I think it's been done quite well and the statements are largely reasonable, but it does still violate NPOV. I think exactly how this should be handled, and whether editorial content is appropriate on company articles, is something that might need to be discussed at a site/admin level. If editorial content is to exist on company articles, I think it almost certainly should be in its own section/box, as it is here [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 20:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)		While I really like what's being done here with regards to the commentary, my concern is that it currently results in a lot of qualitative/judgemental statements being made in the Wiki's voice, on a page which is not supposed to be too editorial. In this case, I think it's been done quite well and the statements are largely reasonable, but it does still violate NPOV. I think exactly how this should be handled, and whether editorial content is appropriate on company articles, is something that might need to be discussed at a site/admin level. If editorial content is to exist on company articles, I think it almost certainly should be in its own section/box, as it is here [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 20:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


	: As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stance of a company in regards to Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)		:As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stance of a company in regards to Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

	:: The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)		::The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

	::actually I'm not sure that what I said above makes complete sense in this context... might be too late at night for me to be going around having opinions on things! If I were to reconsider some of it, I'd agree with you that the main issue is the scoring aspect of it. everything else is very clearly factual and based on the content of the SSA or other steam documents. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)		::actually I'm not sure that what I said above makes complete sense in this context... might be too late at night for me to be going around having opinions on things! If I were to reconsider some of it, I'd agree with you that the main issue is the scoring aspect of it. everything else is very clearly factual and based on the content of the SSA or other steam documents. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

	:: If I may, under Privacy, I recommend: "Collects much personal data...", "Records and stores all user communications across platform features", "Keeps certain user data indefinitely, even after account deletion" Under Freedom, I recommend: "Access to paid content can be ended at Valve's discretion" [[User:SouthPaw\|SouthPaw]] ([[User talk:SouthPaw\|talk]]) 00:45, 19 Jan 2025 (UTC-6)		::If I may, under Privacy, I recommend: "Collects much personal data...", "Records and stores all user communications across platform features", "Keeps certain user data indefinitely, even after account deletion" Under Freedom, I recommend: "Access to paid content can be ended at Valve's discretion" [[User:SouthPaw\|SouthPaw]] ([[User talk:SouthPaw\|talk]]) 00:45, 19 Jan 2025 (UTC-6)

	== Repeating Sections ==		==Repeating Sections==

	I'm getting some weird errors on mobile (including using the desktop site version) while editing, such as repeated references that don't match the problems visible on the page, outside of editing. So I will refrain from editing, in case it's an error on my end. But on both mobile and an actual desktop, I've noticed that the body of the article and its references are repeated. It looks like a copy & pasting error. Since my ability to edit this article is compromised, can someone else fix this issue? Additionally, does the source need to be cleaned-up? [[User:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes]] ([[User talk:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|talk]]) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)		I'm getting some weird errors on mobile (including using the desktop site version) while editing, such as repeated references that don't match the problems visible on the page, outside of editing. So I will refrain from editing, in case it's an error on my end. But on both mobile and an actual desktop, I've noticed that the body of the article and its references are repeated. It looks like a copy & pasting error. Since my ability to edit this article is compromised, can someone else fix this issue? Additionally, does the source need to be cleaned-up? [[User:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes]] ([[User talk:JustHereToTidyUpEditingMistakes\|talk]]) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Sorry I don't know if this is a good place to ask this but.... ==		==Sorry I don't know if this is a good place to ask this but....==

	Does it make sense to make a seperate page for each game that cannot be preserved, and is being sold as a product, whereas it is actually a rental.		Does it make sense to make a seperate page for each game that cannot be preserved, and is being sold as a product, whereas it is actually a rental.
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Or does it make sense to create a sort-of sub-wiki as a list of games that are sold as products with hidden expiration dates? [[User:LeaMonera\|LeaMonera]] ([[User talk:LeaMonera\|talk]]) 21:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)		Or does it make sense to create a sort-of sub-wiki as a list of games that are sold as products with hidden expiration dates? [[User:LeaMonera\|LeaMonera]] ([[User talk:LeaMonera\|talk]]) 21:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

			:Not a mod, but I don’t think there should be one for each page as it’d be irrelevant, unless there are other incidents. I think a list would do. An okay(ish) system would be to make some wikitable under [[Stop Killing Games]] or [[Games as a service]] of this somewhere as the former is aimed at stopping this issue and the latter is the theme article for this issue. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 16:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)