Talk:Enhanced Games

Noting

This article was inspired by a thread at the Help desk, Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_8#"Natural"_Records?. Also, this org has a plan for Wikipedia: Update Wikipedia. Who knows, maybe we'll see them around. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to put this under EL, but you know: Weekend Update: Kevin Nealon on the All-Drug Olympics - SNL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see a journalist make the same connection:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Peter Thiel

@Endwise First, how dare you edit my article??? That was a joke, it is quite pleasing to see someone else take an interest. In case you didn't notice, Thiel and D'Souza are old acquaintances: Bollea_v._Gawker#Aftermath. Maybe this should be made clear in the article text at some point, but there's no rush. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that part in the news story too (didn't get around to adding anything about it). Another thing I read is D'Souza's focus on weird life extension stuff: apparently D'Souza hoped the games would provide a public platform for life-extending science to thrive. "This is the route towards eternal life," D’Souza said.[2] Apparently Thiel has invested in other startups which also aim to extend the human lifespan, strangely enough. Endwise (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps longevity stuff will become some sort of EG selling point. Atm, it might be worth mentioning in an article about D'Souza, which is probably possible now, he's not a WP:ONEEVENT guy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Still no date or venue, afaict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Image

This article could use a photo of Aron D'Souza. Or maybe one of the EG "team". In case someone reading this talkpage happens to be the copyright holder of one and wants to "donate" it, you can do so here: Upload Wizard. And take the time to read the info provided. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Article is spiking a bit

I'm guessing because of the Australian swimmer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential meat puppetry alert

On their website, they have a page dedicated to wikipedia pages supposedly containing "discriminatory language", being
 "anti-science", or "oppressing athletes". Particular offense is taken at the word "doping". They direct readers to edit these articles. This article itself does not seem to be targeted but I feel like I have to bring this up as it hasn't been brought up yet. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Fwiw, it's been mentioned at the Sports Wikiproject and here:[3] There's been a few edits like [4][5], so please watchlist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Electricmaster, other interested, on your article wide edit here:[6]. Some of it is harmless, but I have comments on these:

• adding "is predicted to be" is not improvement IMO, and it's more "guessed", but "according to" is enough. "Predicted" is a strange choice of words IMO, it was his guess before he had any finance etc.
• adding "the aftermath of" adds nothing, it's just more words, there is no difference here between "the aftermath of recent events/recent events". Also nothing on "aftermath" in ref given.
• on WP, there's nothing wrong with writing "health care", and it's what the ref did.
• you have, in quotations, inserted some punctuation you like in square brackets. I've never seen anyone do that on WP, and IMO it looks very weird. Square brackets can have a use in quotations, but "[;]"? Per the spirit of MOS:PMC, don't bother "fixing" punctuation in quotes, it's not "good reason to change the wording". Ping @Firefangledfeathers if you feel like having an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• adding "is predicted to be" is not improvement IMO, and it's more "guessed", but "according to" is enough. "Predicted" is a strange choice of words IMO, it was his guess before he had any finance etc. I changed this because the original grammar didn't make sense. Note that "may be" and "maybe" have different meanings, and thus the preceding words need to be modified for the grammar to make contextual sense.
• In February 2024, D'Souza said that the aftermath of recent events "accelerates all of our timelines." Similarly, the original quote doesn't make syntactical sense. It would need to say "accelerate"; hence, I restructured the sentence to fix grammar and preserve quote integrity.
  • on WP, there's nothing wrong with writing "health care", and it's what the ref did. OK, this one is more just a personal preference. You are correct that you can leave it as is. Ordinarily, I also would just let it go, but I have a bit of a gripe when it comes before another noun (such as in this case). Honestly, even "real estate agents" kind of annoys me, as it implies there are fake estate agents (lol). Of course this is common enough where it doesn't matter, but I hope you get my point.
• you have, in quotations, inserted some punctuation you like in square brackets. I've never seen anyone do that on WP, and IMO it looks very weird. I will admit this is my least defensible change, but it does really irk me when incorrect punctuation is put in a quote, especially for a spoken conversation. In some cases, the original punctuation either subtly—or sometimes even dramatically—changes the original intent of the speaker, which you can imagine is extremely critical for maintaining the integrity of an encyclopaedia. Australian news editors have become notorious in recent decades for playing really fast and loose with punctuation, especially their super-lax use of commas and semicolons, and it drives me nuts. Does it look a little weird, yeah, but it's the best compromise I can think of that shows it's not a perfect quote replication but preserves the intended meaning of the quote, and I certainly didn't invent the idea of editorializing in punctuation for the purpose of readability so long as the additions are clearly marked. I also know that opinions are on this are mixed, and it's not a hill I will die on, but this is my own opinion, and I will respectfully not challenge a reversion on this particular point if you deem it prudent to revert this particular edit. The reason my response is so long and fleshed out is that I want to extend you the same courtesy you showed me by going through points. All four points you raised are certainly things to be smoothed out in some shape or another (or at least discussed), so well done on that. I also apologise if I came across as hostile for your mass reversion. I'm just really tired of editors making wholesale reversions of good-faith edits that erase considerable time investments. I hope in the future you continue to be more diligent when it comes to filtering out dubious elements of an edit and retaining the useful/accurate/helpful additions or modifications in a single edit, otherwise you encourage people to make a dozen minor edits at risk of losing their entire edit, which is something you can see I have done sometimes for good reason (avoiding a mass reversion such as this). Sorry for the long wall of text.

Electricmaster (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

My 2¢: I don't think that cultural trivia really belonged in the see also section of this article, and I think the fact that people have called it the "Steroid games" could be mentioned, but probably not in the lead sentence. Also I haven't read all of your post (sorry) and care a bit less about grammar in general, but your grammatical edits seemed generally okay, except IMO I agree [,] and [;] aren't really Wikipedia's style (usually leaving quotes as they are and usually not noting minor typographical changes to quotes). Endwise (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, one of the cultural trivias is in the artcle already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)