Talk:Fallout 76

Page protection expiry

I know that much of Fallout 76 for whatever reason has drawn the ire of players, but surely protecting the page to expire in three years is a bit excessive? I feel that one, perhaps even up to two, years of protection would have been ample enough. There's not been a particulary high-level of vandalism on the page since the last protection expiry date (which was in place for a year), with the exception of the past month or so which has been particulary egregious, although I would warrant a lot of this was in relation to the "Wastelanders" update. Regardless, the game's a year-and-a-half old, and as a result most of the controversies or maligned decisions have been talked about and moved on from. While there's a chance this may still be Bethesda's only big title by the time protection expires and they won't have another game to take the limelight, most people will have just considered Fallout 76 a bad memory. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Page protection durations are increased with each reapplication. When the last year-long protection expired, vandalism immediately resumes. Typically the next protection is 3 years at the admins discretion, if not an indefinite protection. There is no evidence that vandalism and disruption over this topic is anywhere near done, especially if you read their Instagram which is still subject to constant back and forth negative commentary. Honestly, I probably would have just indef'd. This is coupled to the fact that an editor with a dynamic IP is on a crusade to remove mention of positive reception of Wastelander. -- ferret (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalistic labeling

There are a number of citations for sources from forbes.com here, and someone has gone through and labeled just about all of them as "self-published." Forbes is very obviously *not* self-published, so this labeling is vandalism. Request that edits be made to remove the inappropriate labels.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.12.2 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The citations tagged like this are from Forbes Contributors, who do not have editorial oversight from Forbes editors. They have long been declared to be treated as self-published opinion pieces and a recent discussion at WP:RSN confirmed this view. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"Mixed" reviews?

FYI, I went ahead and changed the lead to say that reviews were "generally unfavorable" and not "mixed". I'm aware that WP:VG recommends we go with the description provided by Metacritic (which states the reviews are "mixed or average", except for the Xbox version, which does say "generally unfavorable"), but to call the reviews for Fallout 76 "mixed" is just not an accurate description of reality, in my opinion. "Mixed" implies a scattering of different opinions, but of the 46 reviews on Metacritic, only four are positive. That's not what I'd call "mixed". Especially given that this game is listed on the article for List of video games notable for negative reception, it seems silly to deem it "mixed" just because of the verbiage Metacritic uses for its arbitrary cutoff points. The majority of reliable sources accurately describe the game's overall reception as unfavorable, and I'm inclined to go with them instead.

But I'm not a gamer and am admittedly not as familiar with the Fallout 76 controversy or with Wikipedia's style guides as many of you guys are, so I welcome other opinions. —Will^(B) 20:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Lol okay it’s been reverted now. I tried. —Will^(B) 01:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)