| Revision as of 08:58, 24 August 2006 editBobet (talk | contribs)14,205 edits →Defense← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:55, 24 August 2006 edit undoBobet (talk | contribs)14,205 edits →Defense: wording on my commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| ::Metacritic lists 6 reviews of it, which all seem like non-trivial mentions. The {{tl|relevance}} tag seems silly since you can just remove everything you don't feel is relevant. If someone puts them back they obviously feel those are relevant and the problem is solved (and if they don't, same outcome). The {{tl|linkless}} template isn't very useful since this is nowhere close to being an orphan anymore, there's no point in making links to it just for the sake of having them. ] 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | ::Metacritic lists 6 reviews of it, which all seem like non-trivial mentions. The {{tl|relevance}} tag seems silly since you can just remove everything you don't feel is relevant. If someone puts them back they obviously feel those are relevant and the problem is solved (and if they don't, same outcome). The {{tl|linkless}} template isn't very useful since this is nowhere close to being an orphan anymore, there's no point in making links to it just for the sake of having them. ] 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::Frictionless Insight, Game Chronicles, and Operation Sports all don't have Misplaced Pages articles. What makes them "non-trivial sources"? With the other sites falling under the exclusion rule (cnet, etc), that leaves netjak, Gamespot, and Computer Games Magazine, and I don't know if you can consider the first two that notable. | :::Frictionless Insight, Game Chronicles, and Operation Sports all don't have Misplaced Pages articles. What makes them "non-trivial sources"? With the other sites falling under the exclusion rule (cnet, etc), that leaves netjak, Gamespot, and Computer Games Magazine, and I don't know if you can consider the first two that notable. | ||
| ::::You seem to misunderstand the whole guideline. Now you're arguing about the notability of the sources instead of the mentions. You could iterate that forever, requesting more sources for each new source, |
::::You seem to misunderstand the whole guideline. Now you're arguing about the notability of the sources instead of the mentions. You could iterate that forever, requesting more sources for each new source, which isn't very fruitful in the long run. So you tell me, how are they not "non-trivial sources", when the _reviews themselves_ are quoted on a third-party source (metacritic)? The real trivial sources are things like blog or message board postings. The trivial mentions are prices in a catalog or passing mentions, these obviously aren't either. - ] 08:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| "The {{tl|relevance}} tag seems silly since you can just remove everything you don't feel is relevant" - OK, it seems silly to you...I think there's an excess of relative info in the entry.] 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | "The {{tl|relevance}} tag seems silly since you can just remove everything you don't feel is relevant" - OK, it seems silly to you...I think there's an excess of relative info in the entry.] 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:55, 24 August 2006
 | This article was nominated for deletion on July 4th, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep nomination withdrawn. |
This reads like an advert to me. (unsigned)
Agreed. That said, the information is sound and well-researched, though I might be inclined to bring up questions of notability. I'll take a look at revising it somewhat in the next few days, but other people's thoughts would be interesting. --Lawlore 00:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I know, that comment was refering to this version before I expanded and cleaned up the article. Either way, any way of improving the article sounds good to me. --Oakster 10:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Tags at beginning of article
The tags at the beginning of the article state that the information is disputed, and uses excessive cliches and jargon. Their is no discussion on this matter on the talkpage, and I disagree with theses statements, and will remove them in roughly a week, if no reason is given for this here. Discuss. - JohnstonDJ 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh and I agree with not many articles linking here, so Ill do my best to add in articles like business emulation, etx, if it is relevant. but until then i think that tag should stay. - JohnstonDJ 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
My concerns about this article
- The importance tag is warranted as the article doesn't in my opinion address the importance of Extreme Warfare and why it warrants a Misplaced Pages entry. - As far as Notability, I don't think it meets WP:WEB. - There is a lot of stuff which I don't think is relevent that's included in the article. Just one example is "After release of EW 9000, Extreme Warfare met its main rival. A game called Promotion Wars was released by fellow British programmer Adam Jennings, taking some inspiration from both Extreme Warfare 9000 and Championship Manager. After the game's release, some of Extreme Warfare's fan base shifted their interest over to this game when released in October 2000." Why does this matter? - Advertisement: I think this article is not much more than an advertisement for Extreme Warfare. - Cliche/jargon: Just look at the first paragraph. "card based role-playing game based on wrestling." That means...what exactly? "extremely low-tech 2-player promoter game" huh? And the same reaction is sparked on my part by the many other similar cliches/jargon that run throughout the article.JB196 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that WP:WEB applies to this, it's not exactly a website. 70.69.176.34 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant WP:SOFRWARE.JB196 20:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Defense
- Notability: TEW 2005 (and 2004 before it) were commercially available PC games. There are wiki articles about other such sports management games. An example of another one that started off freeware and became a commercial product is EHM, a hockey simulator that Sega now publishes. Theres even a wiki article about one is still freeware, Bygfoot, a football managment game.
- Advetisement: It talks a lot about the history of the series. Only one of the games is even available anymore, so the majority can't be considered "advertising".
- Cliche: "card based role-playing game based on wrestling." That means...what exactly? " It means a tabletop game about wrestling, that uses cards. Apparently that was the first version of this game before it was turned into a computer game. Promoter game is referring to the concept where you play as a wrestling promoter, instead of a wrestler. This game is basically the biggest "promoter game" around.--4.156.6.89 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Extreme Warfare is still available via download and other means.
What exactly do you mean by "commercially available"?JB196 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
For sale, not free. And the Extreme Warfare games (all freeware) are not available to download form any official website, but yeah there are probably still some places to download them on the internet. --4.156.6.211 11:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Where are they commercially availab.JB196 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can you link me directly to the pages on which they're available?(thanks in advance)JB196 12:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Where are they commercially availab.JB196 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
They used eLiscense, so you could buy the full version by entering your purchase info into the demo version which was/is downloadable from their publishers websites (.400 Studios for 2004, Grey Dog Software for 2005). You can also buy a CD version of 2005 from Grey Dog's website. --4.156.6.251 10:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.greydogsoftware.com/tew/ for TEW2005, 2004 is no longer available since .400 Studios went out of business, but here's a link to the .400 profile page from Gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/company/index.php?company=72337 Both companies specialized in sports management games for pc.--4.156.6.73 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well the GreyDog Software group is just an independent company with no real credibility in my opinion; Gamespot appears to have more credibility as it looks like they sell PS2, X-Box, etc. games.JB196 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Gamespot is a gaming news site, one of the top ones around. I just provided that link to show that .400 did indeed publish TEW 2004. Though, the fact that TEW2004, 2005, and even Extreme Warfare Revenge have gotten coverage on Gamespot, is a good indicator that the series is notable enough to exist on Wiki. Just cause the games publishers aren't big names, or just that EWR was freeware, doesn't mean they are nothing. Plenty of indie and freeware gaming stuff is covered on Misplaced Pages.--4.156.6.184 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just because a notable web site gives a game coverage doesn't mean that that "is a good indicator that the series is notable enough to exist on Wiki." That is one of many identifying aspects of a topic's notability.JB196 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- If a site like GameSpot gives coverage to this game, that's enough to warrant its notability. 200.121.200.200 20:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, actually its not.JB196 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, actually it is. From WP:SOFTWARE: "The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". Wrestling Spirit meets that criteria so its notability is warranted.
- 1 source is not "multiple."JB196 02:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Gamespy, Gamestats, Inside Pulsa and several others contain non trivial works about this game. 200.121.200.200 02:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Inside Pulse is not at the caliber of Gamespy or Gamestats, and it says "several," and Gamespy and Gamestats only make up 2.JB196 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if according to you Inside Pulse is not at the caliber of Gamespy. There are multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company that makes this game, so this game satisfies that criteria and thus it is relevant 200.121.200.200 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC).
- You've only provided 2, not "multiple." And Inside Pulse is not really "independent of the company that makes this game."JB196 02:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Inside Pulse has no relation to the company nor to the person who made this series, so it's an independent source. Other sources includes Yahoo!, NeoSeeker, Metacritic and IGN, to name just a few.
- Link me to the Yahoo! and IGN sources.JB196 03:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Inside Pulse has no relation to the company nor to the person who made this series, so it's an independent source. Other sources includes Yahoo!, NeoSeeker, Metacritic and IGN, to name just a few.
- You've only provided 2, not "multiple." And Inside Pulse is not really "independent of the company that makes this game."JB196 02:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if according to you Inside Pulse is not at the caliber of Gamespy. There are multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company that makes this game, so this game satisfies that criteria and thus it is relevant 200.121.200.200 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC).
- Inside Pulse is not at the caliber of Gamespy or Gamestats, and it says "several," and Gamespy and Gamestats only make up 2.JB196 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Gamespy, Gamestats, Inside Pulsa and several others contain non trivial works about this game. 200.121.200.200 02:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- 1 source is not "multiple."JB196 02:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, actually it is. From WP:SOFTWARE: "The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". Wrestling Spirit meets that criteria so its notability is warranted.
- No, actually its not.JB196 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- If a site like GameSpot gives coverage to this game, that's enough to warrant its notability. 200.121.200.200 20:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not the only reason, but it is a reason. It was already decided that it should exist, anyway. And the most if not all the tags do not apply, for reasons I already stated.--4.156.6.76 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) I think its been pretty much shown to be notable enough to be here on Misplaced Pages. I have removed the Importance and Notability templates. I don't feel that this reads like an advert or contains too much jargon. It is about as clear as most other wrestling articles are, to the fans. As for advert, it really isn't. The statements made are good enough in terms of npov. Maybe a bit of cleanup is need on the TEW section, but the EW, EWD, and EWR's all fine. Brad Blaze 17:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
just because you havent heard of something doesnt mean it doesnt have a huge following, also ANY freeware game is in itself something that someone may seek reference for
- The IGN and cnet reviews are nothing more than "media reprints" which are specifically "Excluded" as invalid; Please see WP:SOFTWARE.JB196 18:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Metacritic lists 6 reviews of it, which all seem like non-trivial mentions. The {{relevance}} tag seems silly since you can just remove everything you don't feel is relevant. If someone puts them back they obviously feel those are relevant and the problem is solved (and if they don't, same outcome). The {{linkless}} template isn't very useful since this is nowhere close to being an orphan anymore, there's no point in making links to it just for the sake of having them. Bobet 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Frictionless Insight, Game Chronicles, and Operation Sports all don't have Misplaced Pages articles. What makes them "non-trivial sources"? With the other sites falling under the exclusion rule (cnet, etc), that leaves netjak, Gamespot, and Computer Games Magazine, and I don't know if you can consider the first two that notable.
- You seem to misunderstand the whole guideline. Now you're arguing about the notability of the sources instead of the mentions. You could iterate that forever, requesting more sources for each new source, which isn't very fruitful in the long run. So you tell me, how are they not "non-trivial sources", when the _reviews themselves_ are quoted on a third-party source (metacritic)? The real trivial sources are things like blog or message board postings. The trivial mentions are prices in a catalog or passing mentions, these obviously aren't either. - Bobet 08:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Frictionless Insight, Game Chronicles, and Operation Sports all don't have Misplaced Pages articles. What makes them "non-trivial sources"? With the other sites falling under the exclusion rule (cnet, etc), that leaves netjak, Gamespot, and Computer Games Magazine, and I don't know if you can consider the first two that notable.
- Metacritic lists 6 reviews of it, which all seem like non-trivial mentions. The {{relevance}} tag seems silly since you can just remove everything you don't feel is relevant. If someone puts them back they obviously feel those are relevant and the problem is solved (and if they don't, same outcome). The {{linkless}} template isn't very useful since this is nowhere close to being an orphan anymore, there's no point in making links to it just for the sake of having them. Bobet 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"The {{relevance}} tag seems silly since you can just remove everything you don't feel is relevant" - OK, it seems silly to you...I think there's an excess of relative info in the entry.JB196 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- (Actually, I meant the {{Content}} tag, which says the thing about relevance, sorry). The point is, you're misusing the tag. You're supposed to remove things you don't feel are relevant (since they would not belong on an article), the tag is only supposed to go in when someone has removed a part of the article that you feel IS relevant. As it is now, there's no the tag is supposedly there so that someone else can remove information that YOU feel is irrelevant, which is stupid, since they would just be guessing what that would be. - Bobet 08:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)