Talk:Wrestling Spirit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media of wrestling, which collaborates on media in professional wrestling and related articles on Wikipedia. Visit the project page for more information.

[edit] No discussion

Several notices in the article says something like "Please discus this issue in the talk page", but the talk page is empty. I'm going to remove all notices, and keep doing so, until the person who adds them post a reason here in the talk page.

The importance tag is warranted as the article doesn't in my opinion address the importance of Wrestling Spirit and why it warrants a Wikipedia entry. - As far as Notability, I don't think it meets WP:SOFTWARE. - There is a lot of stuff which I don't think is relevent that's included in the article. Just one example of many is "Also included are interview segments in which the user faces an opponent in a three-minute war of words, which they must win with the combination of different styles such as toilet humour, mixed metaphors and shoot comments.." Why does this matter? - Advertisement: I think this article is not much more than an advertisement for Wrestling Spirit. - Cliche/jargon: There are cliche/jargon examples throughout the entry i.e. (but not limited to) "WresSpi," "toilet humour, mixed metaphors and shoot comments," etc.JB196 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lesser known games have articles in Wikipedia and those aren't tagged as nonimportant. The game is notable enough to warrant an entry. As for your exmaple of irrelevance, the interview segments are part of the gameplay, so it's relevant. The article is informative enough of the game and its history, so it can't be considered advertisement. Your examples of "cliche/jargon" don't apply, as they are describing the game within the context of wrestling.

The only thing the tags do is to difficult the reading of the article. You keep posting all those tags without any good explanation (just one paragraph for every single one of them?) and I find it insufficient, so I'll remove the tags.

"Lesser known games have articles in Wikipedia and those aren't tagged as nonimportant." - Doesn't mean it warrants an entry.

"The game is notable enough to warrant an entry. As for your exmaple of irrelevance, the interview segments are part of the gameplay, so it's relevant." - thats opinion.

Dude, if this article is explaining the game, then anything related to the gameplay is relevant. That's not opinion, that's common sense.

"As for your exmaple of irrelevance, the interview segments are part of the gameplay, so it's relevant." The pixel size is also a part of the game; doesn't mean it should be mentioned.

Okay, so explain to me why describing the gameplay of a game in an article about said game is irrelevant.

"The article is informative enough of the game and its history, so it can't be considered advertisement." - opinion

Fact. The article isn't a review and it describes the game well enough for the user to have an idea of it.

"Your examples of "cliche/jargon" don't apply, as they are describing the game within the context of wrestling." - reread themJB196 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Already done. The bottom line is, putting myriads of tags in the article based on questionable motives (at best) and doing nothing to fix said issues doesn't help the article, doesn't help the readers and doesn't help Wikipedia. On the contrary, it hurts the readability of the article and thus the users who come to find information about the game. Putting several tags to express questionable opinions just because you can is, at the very least, irresponsible and can be considered vandalism 200.121.200.200 22:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

I am not going to argue with you anymore. You are the one whose edits can be considered vandalism.JB196 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah "I am not going to argue with you anymore" is a pretty strong argument. 200.121.200.200 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"questionable motives" is your opinion. You have the right to that opinion. I have the right to my opinion. My opinion is that the tags should be there.JB196 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion alone doesn´t warrant the inclusion of the tags. If you're unable to provide solid reasons for the tags, then you shouldn't put them. Your motives for putting the tags are questionable because you haven't answered to the objetions made to the inclusion of said tags. You're putting the tags without a solid backup refusing to aknowledge the given reasons not to include the tags. 201.230.63.88 06:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are in denial. I have provided reasoning for each and every tag that is up there. It doesn't matter if you think my "motives...are questionable." I think your motives are questionable as well. You have no right to be removing tags. In my opinion I have provided "solid reasons."JB196 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is insuficient and you haven't answered several of my rebuttals, all you said was "I'm not going to argue with you anymore". You've also applied a section tag ("The following section may stray from the article's topic") to the whole article. 200.121.200.200 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me specifically which arguments I have not addressed. Also, in case you have not realized yet, you have violated WP:3RR today for this article. And for both this article and Extreme Warfare I do not understand how you can argue that the "Relevence" tag does not apply.JB196 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

I realized after the fact that I violated 3RR when removing improperly placed tags. I understand that removing nonsense probably falls outside the letter of the rule, but the basis for 3RR intent encompasses quite a bit and I certainly violated the spirit of 3RR. Per WP:3RR#I.27ve_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F I attempted to self-revert, but 205.188.116.196 beat me to it, and my self-revert will not take. -- Paleorthid 18:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References & notability

Where are the external references for the information contained in this article? A 73% rating in PC Gamer, which rates hundreds of games a year, and links to gaming websites that contain entries on every game in existence, do not count as evidence of notability. The game may or may not be notable and there may or may not be external references for it, but they must be included in the article rather than revert warring over tags. —Centrx→talk • 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Less then 200 games a year are reviewed by PCGamer (a full fledged review like the one it got), so that's pretty much WP:N in a nutshell. I linked to the site which collates reviews, plus 46,600 GHits for "Wrestling Spirit 2" SirFozzie 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to add to my previous comment, but under [[WP:Software\\ (note 2), example of something that satisfies WP:N: PC Tools satisfies this criterion because it was the subject of a full-length magazine review in the October 1991 edition of Compute! So PC Gamer's review of it, pretty much satisfies WP:N SirFozzie 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Was it a full length review? I can't find it it in the November PC Gamer Table of Contents, so I would think it would be under "Review roundup", where they put 4 reviews in 2 pages.
• How many reliable sources are there? The proposal WP:SOFTWARE and every notability guideline state "multiple non-trivial works". Where are the many? —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the issue (and PC Gamer doesn't put current month reviews on their website) but I did find this on Metacritics Though dubbed "The Thinking Person's Fighting Game" by its creators, Wrestling Spirit II may at first inspire you to bang your head against a wall rather than think with it--this wrestling sim's early game can be uninteresting and repetitive. [Nov. 2006, p.120] SirFozzie 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That would indeed be a half-page blurb in the junk section, "Review Roundup" on the Table of Contents. —Centrx→talk • 23:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

These concerns still need to be addressed. The information in this article must be substantiated by reliable published sources independent of the subject of the article. —Centrx→talk • 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Already done, except you do not accept the sources. also, the company behind it (grey dog studios) is running full page ads in PC Gamer for it and their other games SirFozzie 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)