Talk:Stop 'N' Swop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, merge possible.

Contents

[edit] This article is almost incomprehensible

I follow the whole Stop 'N' Swop thing, but this article is so completely all-over-the-place that I can't even tell what's talking about. ShadowMan1od 04:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire article also seems to be based almost entirely on speculation. It shouldn't be too hard to find published sources documenting this phenomenon. Just64helpin 17:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've now cleaned up the article and provided information for those unfamiliar with the article's subject. Just64helpin 20:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't need this much information. It feels like a guide. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? Just64helpin 17:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
For one, it tells you the purpose of the items. This is certainly not necessary. And much of the content of the article is trivia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
We should avoid trivia sections. Also, the lead should stand on its own (see WP:LEAD). Just64helpin 19:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting to Banjo-Kazooie...

If you'd like this to redirect to Banjo-Kazooie, please state why. I think Stop 'N' Swop is a great mystery that deserves its own page, for the text on the Banjo-Kazooie and Tooie pages too too much of the articles room, hell one of the pages, half of it was about Stop 'N' Swop, so thats why I put all that info on this page. DietLimeCola 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all we need are a couple of sources, since this guy is bringing some of that "non nobality" crap. I'll try to get some references in the article. Like I said, the info for Stop 'n' Swop was taking more than half of the page of Banjo-Kazooie and Tooie, so thats why I moved it all here, since if it had THAT much information it would obviously need it's own article. DietLimeCola 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a ton of content to be said about many things. The question is what needs to be said. The article gives TMI. What is the point of the Banjo-Threeie section? "Microsoft announced it, but so far, Stop 'N' Swap doesn't seem to have anything to do with it". Know what else doesn't have it? Final Fantasy VII! If it has nothing to do with Banjo-Threeie, it need not be mentioned. And then, of course, codes - this is an encyclopedia, not a strategy guide. And then, there's the whole essay about the possibly missing content. That content is not relevant to Stop 'N' Swap, but to rather Banjo-Tooie. And then, there's the website - WAY TMI. Worth an external link, not an ad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I re-added the cheat codes (they are incredibly relevant) and temporarily added back the website info. RWP is up for AfD right now... if it stays, we can replace the section with {{main|Rare Witch Project}}. There does need to be information about the website, since they are the ones who discovered almost everything that is detailed in this article. --- RockMFR 01:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
So should we also write about the people who programmed Stop 'N' Swop? This is an article about Stop 'N' Swop and its purpose in various games. NOT a fan site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is solely about a hidden feature in a game, the discovery of that feature, and how to access that feature. The cheat codes should stay (also see Konami code). --- RockMFR 01:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The Konami code is arguably the most well-known cheat code in gaming history. It has its own article solely because everyone knows the Konami Code. That is no precedent to keep any cheat on there. And no, it is not about how to access the feature. Wikipedia is not a guide.
And please explain why the information I removed needs to be in this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
My previous comments explain why I reverted your last edit. --- RockMFR 01:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they don't. Because the most well-known code in the history of video games has an article, we should mention it? The Konami Code has an article because it's notable, not because Wikipedia is a guide. Wikipedia is not a guide. There is no disputing that. Give me a reason why the codes need to be in there. And why we need to describe the site in an article not about the site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you haven't actually played this game before... the codes are the only way to access this feature. They are extremely relavent, so I am reverting your blanking again. --- RockMFR 02:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that they need to be there to guide people to this Stop 'N' Swop. And, thusly, it cannot be denied that it is guide content. The controls of games are relevant to the games, but notice how no single featured video game article describes the controls. It's guide content. This article exists to tell about the area, NOT how to get to the area.
And I own Banjo-Tooie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for game guides, TV guides, FAQs, etc. A lot of this article could be trimmed up, too, with that in mind. Personally, I'd lean towards including it in another article instead of having it on its own. Once the cruft is cut it won't be so big. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs ot be killed, it can be rewritten in a couple of sentences in either the Banjo-Kazooie or Banjo-Tooie articles. And the cheat codes to access the information certainly do not need to be in any article- WP:NOT. --PresN 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons this has its own article is because this "feature" takes place not in one game, but THREE games (BK, BT, DK64). If we moved the information back to the articles, alot of things about Stop 'N' Swop would have to be mentioned THREE times. Instead of explaining the same basics of Stop 'N' Swop two or three times, I just moved it all to this article, The information regarding Stop 'N' Swop on the BK and BT pages were talking up half the page anyway. DietLimeCola 15:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
So instead of shortening it, you gave it an article? It's a relatively minor secret in two games with an inkling of it in a third. Most of this stuff can be learned at the page, and is not necessary. We don't need to know what an Ice Key does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried shortening it at first, but the missing information would just make the part confusing. I moved both to here. I also removed the same exact information that was stated on both pages. Besides, like I said before, this is one of the biggest video game mysteries of all time, so it was going to get it's own page eventually. Besides, after all the changes made in the past few days, this article is really looking good. DietLimeCola 18:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
A couple sentences isn't enough, but a couple paragraphs should be fine. We do not need to know the Ice Key's purpose, or the exact details of what was done to find it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now the articles looking way too short. People will start to question on why this is important now, just because it's so short. We need to re-add some of the IMPORTANT information, which defines why this features is important and one of the greatest video game mysteries of all time. All the information telling people why this is such a mystery is now gone. DietLimeCola 18:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If anyone wants to merge Rare Witch Project into this article...

I copied the deleted article to here. I don't think I'm proactive enough to do it, so if anyone else feels like doing it, please, go ahead. --GUTTERTAHAH 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The contents of the deleted article do not belong in this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It was listed as a possible option to do in the deletion debate, so I'm giving people the ability to do so if they wish. If it's a matter of citing sources, verifiability, etc etc, then they're out of luck, as I don't care about it that much. --GUTTERTAHAH 11:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does it do?

What does this "Stop 'N' Swop" thing actually do? Or what was it supposed to do? --Candy-Panda 03:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop 'N' Swop theories

Not sure why the link got deleted but this site has a focus on Stop 'N' Swop and should be allowed on the external links section

It continues to get removed on this and other pages because the site is non-notable and unreliable. Please discontinue inserting the link into this and any other Banjo-Kazooie page in the future. Remember, just because a webpage talks about something in an article, it doesn't mean the article should link to it unless it follows the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia's external links policy. Thank you. --pIrish 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a well-known saga in gaming history, and is constantly referenced in gaming media and amongst gamers. Here is a recent video discussing it. http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?type=mov&id=17131 Considering the reaction of Ryan Stevenson, you can sense it has quite a history. --User:Moggo\Moggo

[edit] The Seventh Egg

[1] [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdjunctFaculty (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Please do not add speculation that it's an April Fools joke. I read through the entire post, and nobody has any PROOF that its a fake (just wild guesses). Believing its an April fools joke is based on perosnal opinion AKA original research. If anyone has any actual SOURCES (not message board posts with people thinking it might be a joke) with definitive facts to back up that this a joke, feel free to post them. DietLimeCola 23:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

Seriously, stop it. You wanted a consensus, and you got it. But strangely enough, most people wanting a merge doesn't count as a consensus to you guys. Three people voted keep, seven voted merge, redirect, or delete. To say it was no consensus on the AfD template is definitely incorrect - the result suggested merging, as did the majority of the people involved in that AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the afd decision, go to DRV. --- RockMFR 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review? It should be the keepers asking for a DRV. The AfD decision basically said "merge dis". So it'd be more going to an RfC to get the "article fans" to stop reverting it. DRV isn't for people trying to get an AfD decision acted upon The decision was no consensus to delete, it never said "no consensus to merge". - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A consensus is determined through weighing the points raised, not by counting votes. Just64helpin 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Link, is that really necessary to do a poor job at redirecting, without even telling anyone or discussing about it after the no consensus discussion, and just because YOU feel like it? Stop having a fit just because things aren't going your way, because this isn't the way Wikipedia works. DietLimeCola 05:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
But it did go my way. The result was "no consensus, merge possible", which is more or less similar to how "no consensus, keep" is - it is indeed a no consensus result, but the additional note is a part of the result. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One reason Missingno doesn't have it's own article is that it's grouped with other Pokemon glitches. The suggested merge in this case appears to be the Banjo-Kazooie main page and not a sub-page containing a list of Banjo-Kazooie glitches. If there were other Banjo-Kazooie glitches of note, then they could be combined with the Stop 'N' Swoop one. There's also the aspect of the fact that Stop 'N' Swoop was intended to take advantage of an N64 feature that was removed. If there were other features from other cartridges, that might be grouped together in some fashion. Hackwrench 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Although Stop 'N' Swop isn't really a glitch, and of course, there are no notable Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie glitches. It was a dropped feature that got many peoples attentions, and aparently they're still discovering new parts of this as of today (Stop N Swop was first introduced in 1998, and they're still figuring out stuff now, when it's March 2007, almost nine years later). Another reason why I feel this needs it's own article is because it's technically linked to two different games. If merged, we'd have the same information on two pages. Plus separate information on each page regarding each game Stop N Swop information, which could lead the reason towards confusion (Since the article tends to go back and forth). That's just why I feel this article needs to stay the way it is. DietLimeCola 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Not wanting duplicate content isn't a good reason. But that aside, why not merge to Banjo-Kazooie (series)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, merging Stop 'N' Swop seems like a particularly good idea, since the series article is notoriously small. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DietLimeCola on this one. --pIrish 22:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But why do you disagree with merging to the series article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually merging to the SERIES article (Which I didn't even know existed) might not be that bad of an idea. We'll just need to change the links that link to this article to that article[3] . Also, it would be wise to not remove any of the information provided on this page while moving. I'm all for it. DietLimeCola 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I never said I disagreed with merging. I only said that I agree with what DietLimeCola said. Please don't make assumptions. I think that, if a merge were to take place, it is imperative that it go to the series page and remain in its entirety. --pIrish 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I agree with the merge to the series article. --- RockMFR 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)