Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katamari Damacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Katamari Damacy

Self-nomination. It looks better than a lot of the featured articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Object. Three out of six sections are only one section paragraph (sorry for the confusion) -- this is indicative of either poor sectioning, lack of comprehensive coverage, or both. Also, let me suggest that in the future you not try to elevate your nominations by putting down articles which have actually passed FAC votes. - Bantman 04:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I merged settings into gameplay, and description into the lead. How now? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sectioning is still a little funny... the gameplay section seems like it would break naturally into subsections, which should be done. Also, there are some grammar issues, mainly with singular/plural agreement ("the player" is he or she, not they). A few more screenshots would be nice; it is easy to go overboard, but I think that this is such a strange game concept that a couple more well selected ones could be informative. Questions I'd like to see answered: Is the game easy or hard? Is it targeted toward kids or adults? How long is the gameplay? Aside from saying it was well-received by professional reviewers, could we get an idea of what they liked about it? Maybe a couple of illustrative quotes from influential reviewers? Also, a question rather than a suggestion - would it make sense to merge this article and We Love Katamari? The content seems similar enough that it might make sense to do so (I vaguely recall other video game series being covered in one comprehensive article). Also, while I commend the authors for the excellent price and sales data (all articles on commercial products should have this information), it begs the question of whether the product made a profit for Namco (one would certainly assume so seeing as it made a sequel). The numbers also suggest production and sales have stopped; is this true? Looking at the definition of meme, the phrasing of "The 'cult/underground hit' status of Katamari Damacy has made it become a popular internet meme on websites such as YTMND and 4chan" seems incorrect and misleading. Would it be possible to get a short, characteristic sound clip from the soundtrack (not sure of the copyright issues on this)? - Bantman 19:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to address most of your objections, with the following exceptions: I couldn't add any new screenshots (anyone?), I don't agree that We Love Katamari should be merged with this article, and I think that adding a short clip of the soundtrack would be stretching the idea of fair use. In any case, the gameplay video linked at the bottom gives an impression of the soundtrack as well. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Good job... relatively small changes, but they make the article much stronger. If it is the consensus opinion to not merge with We Love Katamari, which is fine by me (I just wanted to make sure it was considered), then the sequels section should probably briefly discuss the actual content of the existing sequel, rather than just mentioning it exists. Does anyone else know about the sound clip copyright issue? I thought I saw it done somewhere else on WP, but I could be wrong. - Bantman 22:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added a bit on We Love Katamari, and I've found Wikipedia:Fair_use#Audio_clips: "Brief song clips may be used for identification of a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by critical or historical commentary and when attributed to the copyright holder.". I don't think that applies here. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That seems definitive enough on the sound clip issue. Just waiting on a couple more (well selected) screenshots then, before changing to a support vote. - Bantman 01:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

On re-reading it, the lead section mentions that a number of Japanese cultural references exist, unexplained. Perhaps we should give examples, and explain them? - Bantman 20:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've said below, I've taken that out because it's hard to explain what is the special Japanese weirdness about it, and the general weirdness is a lot more important. And there are twice as many images on the article now - what do you say? -- grm_wnr Esc 22:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with taking out something that is hard to explain is that it proves the point of anyone claiming lack of comprehensive coverage. Nonetheless, I am withdrawing my object vote because I have reached my limit of tolerance in dealing with some of the less polite participants in this discussion, and do not wish to burden myself further with the task of interacting with them. For the same reason, my further participation in the improvement of the article is curtailed, and therefore I cannot cast a support vote either. - Bantman 23:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I take offense to the idea that I am putting articles down because I think this one is better than a lot of them. If I can't say it is better than a lot of them, then that would spread to objections; it's basically saying that people can't think an FA is bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

One, it is unneccessary and potentially inflammatory. Two, you represented your statement as fact, not as your opinion. Three, it flies in the face of humility; humility is required to accept others' suggestions and improve the article in the spirit of Wikipedia. Four, articles are judged on their own merit, not on whether they are "better" than others. Five, it invites the counter-argument "such and such article is worse than this other one that failed FAC," which would be an unproductive and hurtful conversation. So, I suggest again, don't do that in the future. - Bantman 19:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Bantman... --Phroziac ^(talk) 04:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Extreme lesbian support! --Phroziac ^(talk) 04:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to identify yourself as a member of WP:FAD when voting for each other's nominations? - Bantman 19:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Only when the article is involved with WP:FAD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has not been involved in any part of the FAD process thus far. This is therefore to be considered Link's individual nomination. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the article has been worked on or not, if FAD participants are going to participate in bloc voting for each other's articles, it should be made known. - Bantman 01:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It has NOTHING to do with the FAD whatsoever. I mean, literally, 0% of this FAC has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the FAD. Why should we have to point our statuses out? I don't see every CVG participant pointing out that they are a part of the CVG WikiProject everytime two or more people vote on the same video game FAC, do you? This kind of attitude towards FAD members is counter-productive; at no time has there ever been cabal in articles (in fact, FAD members have often objected to FAD-sponsored articles). This has nothing to do with FAD, so no mention of FAD should be here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right; this is a larger issue and probably shouldn't be discussed here. I will bring it up on the talk page. - Bantman 01:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was actually pointing out that you are telling Phro he needs to point out that he's in FAD when voting on any FAC. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a FAD member. --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support I have played the game and I currently own it, and I see that this article has many things that can give a non-gamer a chance to understand what the game is about, and no, I am not a FAD member. Zach (Sound Off) 22:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very good article. Meelar (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is a good article, and not far off from being a FA, but it still has some problems. I have never played this game, or heard of it before, and after reading the intro I still had no idea what the game is about. A proper lead should give brief summary of the topic, the current one focuses on trivia and meta commentary on its place in the video game pantheon. Some assertions also need more explanation. The articles states that it is "a radical departure from traditional video game concepts; ... it also does not fall into the familiar mold of a "puzzle game" like Tetris," but never explains how it is not a puzzle game. Also why only one screenshot? There are many other aspects of the game that could be illustrated. - SimonP 04:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My objections have largely been dealt with. As mentioned I know nothing about the topic, so I don't feel I can vouch for its accuracy or completeness, but the article does now certainly meet the FA criteria for formatting and quality. - SimonP 16:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with SimonP. For such a unique game, more of how it actually works should be discussed. Andre (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • • OK, I'll support. Andre (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe, as of now, it adequately describes the game in the lead, after Zscout added some lines on it. I also added two images. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked the lead a bit more, elaborated a bit, and took out the "japanese cultural references" entirely since they're really hard to explain and not all that important. If somebody can make that a bit clearer, feel free to readd it. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Reads like a fine article. As for ""the player" is he or she, not they", Shakepeare, among others, used "they" as a third person singular pronoun of indeterminate gender so I think Wikipedia should be allowed to as well. — Phil Welch 23:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A lot of Shakespeare's English usage and grammar (not to mention spelling) would be considered strange, arcane, or just plain wrong in the context of modern writing. While great, Shakespeare is not the modern archetype of perfect writing in the English language, and should not be invoked as such. - Bantman 23:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

While true, Shakespeare's usage belies the implicit argument that the use of "they" in this fashion is a contemporary permutation of the language. "They" is a perfectly acceptable word for a third person pronoun of indeterminate gender, by both the standards of contemporary usage and the fact that it's been established usage for centuries. While other Shakesperian constructions did not survive into contemporary usage (and thus cannot be seen as correct in that context), those constructions that have survived into modern usage are undoubtedly still legitimate. — Phil Welch 18:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I read the featured article candidates section often, and I had to admit, when I saw this up for nomination I didn't think it was ready. I was major contributer to this article, but when I left it to pursue other things (i.e, the start of the new school year), I didn't think it was ready. I hadn't anticipated the major changes since having last edited the article, but now, having read the article again, I must support. RyanGerbil10 04:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (comment moved here from the main FAC page by  grm_wnr Esc 15:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC))
• Support Nick Catalano (Talk) 06:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object reluctantly. I love this game, but the article needs more work.
  1. The grammar in the introduction is quite awkward:
     1. Break the first sentence up. It's too long.
     2. the Prince (of All Cosmos) -- the parantheses are unnecessary.
     3. the stars, constellations and the Moon. Inconsistent use of the definite article.
  2. Additional copyediting is required throughout:
     1. …follows the Hoshino family: The mother… -- incorrect capitalization.
  3. Some information is incomplete. The game was also released in Canada. It is explicitly stated that it wasn't released in Australia or Europe. What about the rest of the world (i.e. Africa, South America, most of Asia)?
  4. The article would benefit from a pronounciation key. Better yet, add a sound clip of the correct pronounciation.

Pburka 02:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed everything except for the pronunciation key and the rest of the world. North America, Japan and Europe are the main gaming areas. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Some more comments:
  1. Is the game quite reminiscent of the early days of computer gaming, or a radical departure from traditional video game concepts?
  2. Other Constellation levels have a more specific goal. -- Constellation shouldn't be capitalized. Goal should be pluralized.
  3. The player's goal in the level is to get the katamari to exactly 10 meters -- this doesn't sound quite formal enough. Perhaps "The player's goal for the level is to build a katamari of exactly 10 meters"?
  4. In the Eternal levels, there is no goal, and no time. The player is free to roam around the level getting as big as possible, until they decide to quit. -- no time? Eternal shouldn't be capitalized. I also dislike seeing "they" used with for a singular subject (the player) (but others disagree)
  5. Most retailers underestimated the demand for such a quirky game, and only purchased a few copies; it rapidly sold out nationwide, its sales passing the 120,000 units mark in North America. -- it's not clear what nation is referred to in this sentence.
  6. In We Love Katamari, the King can be picked up, if your Katamari is at least 3223m in diameter. -- elsewhere the sequel is called We ♥ Katamari. Does this info belong in this article at all?
  7. Katamari Damacy is an unusual game, and it was originally presumed that it would have limited appeal and this would prevent a release outside of Japan -- run on sentence.
  8. featured sidebar in the May 23rd edition of Time magazine. Time continued to praise the game in its November 22 -- what year? The last year referenced in the paragraph was 2005, but it's not November yet, so this must refer to 2004.
  9. The black bars around some of the screen caps should be cropped out.

Pburka 03:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support this game was considered a suprisely innovator in industry for years. --Mateusc 02:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)