Talk:Crazy Taxi (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Crazy Taxi (series) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 24, 2008.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sega task force.
 


Fair use rationale for Image:Crazytaxi26.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Crazytaxi26.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of test page talk page discussion (for historical reasons)[edit]

Comment[edit]

It's looking good so far. Maybe History might be better as Games (with both CT1s listed under Crazy Taxi), as the Games section is the first thing I look for on a (series) page. And any development notes could be under either A)a main Development section, or less attractive B)individual "development" sections for each game. Also, check out The Crazy Taxi Redemption Game Crazy Taxi High Roller, Crazy Taxi at segaarcade.com. The cabinet pictures alone might be cool. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Hardcore Gaming 101 mentions a movie. So there could be a Games and a Film section. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The movie seems to go nowhere presently... but that got me on the fact that you have Simpsons Road Rage and the US Patent that CT exemplifies, and the whole story there. One hour later... --Masem 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded some images that I pulled out of a PDF manual, Image:Crazy Taxi-A Redemption Game (car).jpg, and Image:Crazy Taxi-A Redemption Game.jpg. The owner's manual itself refers to the game as Crazy Taxi: A Redemption Game [1]. This thing looks weird. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to work on this article as well -- my plan is to get this spit-polished here in test space, and then move it to the series page. For that Redemption game, it looks like a mechanical/pinball style thing, I would make it's own top level (two equal signs) heading instead of a video game section. --Masem 14:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Series merge discussion[edit]

I am proposing a merge of all the Crazy Taxi video games into a single page (Crazy Taxi (series)) for the following reasons (primarily for notability):

  1. The series itself is notable in terms of gameplay
  2. The first game on the DC is notable due to number of sales and helping to push the hardware
  3. Ports and subsequents, on the other hand, are not notable: many don't know some of these existed, there's almost no change in gameplay, and the few additions (new characters and maps) fail the usual notability rules (WP is not a game guide). Soundtrack information is notable, but can be condensed down
    This is particularly true for Fare Wars, even though it adds more than any of the other previous games, I can boil down the new features into a few sentences.
  4. Because this leaves us with only the series and the first game (on the DC even) as being notable, it would then make sense to further reduce this to one page which talks about the series as a whole, making sure to hit on the popularity of the first game and subsequent obscurity of the other games.

Thus, I propose that we only need the CT series pages, and all other games point there. If you haven't following the discussion on the WP:CVG talk pages, I made a lot of test-bed improvements to the page and which is now the current Crazy Taxi (series) page, which, save for the soundtrack information, gets all the needed details (and more in some cases) off the individual game pages.

This is not an all-or-nothing merge. There may be a valid reason to keep one or more of the game pages (though presently I don't see any reason). The design of the new series page is meant to support that. If an individual game page should be kept, then all that is needed on the series page is to add a {{main}} to the game blurb; there is no need to redesign the series page for that as its a encyclopedic overview of the entire franchise, and a more game-oriented view can be provided on the subpage.

Thus, for this merge, I'm asking for an opinion on each merged page, not on the overall merge. This will allow for a game-by-game basis for this decision. Please make sure to add Merge or Keep for each page; I will assume that if you marked Keep for just one game and didn't comment on the others, you support the merge of these games. --Masem 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Taxi[edit]

  • Keep. High sales, high reception, popular DC title, spawned many sequels and ports, as well as merchandising (RC car). Do not assume I vote merge on anything I've not voted on, I just haven't decided yet. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same reasons as A Link to the Past stated above. Xtreme racer 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep ~ Same reason as above. 1yodsyo1 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Taxi 2[edit]

  • Merge ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ Xtreme racer 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ 1yodsyo1 14:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Taxi 3: High Roller[edit]

  • Merge ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ Xtreme racer 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ 1yodsyo1 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Taxi: Catch a Ride[edit]

Merge. GBA version of a console game. Do not assume I vote merge on anything I've not voted on, I just haven't decided yet. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ Xtreme racer 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ 1yodsyo1 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars[edit]

Merge. PSP port. Do not assume I vote merge on anything I've not voted on, I just haven't decided yet. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep ~ Although some may argue that is is just a port I still believe it has enough differences from being sandwiched into the general series article. Plus I get the feeling that this game more people will actually realize this game exists. Xtreme racer 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ 1yodsyo1 14:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talkcontribs)

Discussion[edit]

Whether or not an article "deserves" it's own article is not the question. The question is "Which format is the best way to present the information?" As it is, there does not seem to be enough to outweigh the "redundancy/new material" ratio. Gameplay carried between different games. Cabbies carried between different games. Cities carried between different games. Plot... Is there a plot? If there is enough unique information to justify forcing readers to wade through loads of redundant info, then by all means keep them separate. For now, I just don't see it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need at least one game article. The latter games may not be extremely different, but the first shouldn't be punished for that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to "punish" the first game. It's just that if you take out the first game from the discussion of the rest of the series, you suddenly get a very lightweight and vague article.
There's a couple other things to consider. First, finding articles that talk about development or reviews of the first game (with consideration for verifiable sources, is very difficult. I happened, with luck, onto an interview with the lead developer for the arcade and first game, but that's all I've found. Development articles, from that point, are rather weak, until you get to the GBA and PSP versions. What would normally be, for a modern game, a good development section is almost negligible, though if you talk about all the games together, there is a coherency to them.
Same problem with reviews. I've got a couple from old staples, but there's not a lot to them, as opposed to modern games. And more importantly, it is necessary to show that CT 1 was very good, such that the other reviews that basically same the consistency of the games through the sequels caused them to be panned. I'm having a hard enough time trying to find any numbers to help support the popularity of the arcade game, so again, a larger section is going to be hard.
Or to put it another way, please look at what I have in the article now. I've got all the necessary pieces of information (if not more) from Crazy Taxi in the series article, minus some extraneous guide-type information. If you just took the present CT article, what would you add to it to improve upon it that would either not be appropriate in the series article or that would extend the series article beyond its current size (which is under the 32k "long" limit when you take the usual discounting into play). Again, I've been looking for good citations to add for any part of the series, I don't know how much more is really necessary to justify the game or the series. --Masem 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Crazy Taxi appeared on EGM's most recent top games list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of merging or not, can you provide a cite for that to use in either article? I don't see it on EGM/1UP's website, so I'm guessing it's in the print version...--Masem 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If all games were merged into one article, would it be a better idea to change the article to the perspective of Crazy Taxi and it's sequels, and simply move it Crazy Taxi? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno. You think it'd be too big? I think that having an article about the first game and an article about the series should be fine. In CT, have a section on sequels, and give a Seealso to the series article's sections on the games in the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be hard-nosed about this, I'm trying to see what makes sense, as I feel that one or two CT articles really should be brought to GA status if not FA.
I'm trying to think how one could split apart two pages to give both weight (a CT series and a CT1 page) without significant duplication of information, and I'm having difficulty. To wit:
  • Gameplay is common to the series, and like done with many game series, this is kept in the series article. There woundn't be much in the CT1 article.
  • Soundtrack would be in both; the one on the CT1 article can easily be a prose statement.
  • Setting is simple, that would be duplication.
  • History/development. For CT1 specifically, there's not a lot (again, I've found one interview while looking a lot). Ok, we can talk about arcade to DC and the NAOMI chip, but there's not a lot of meat there. Additionally, to take some of that out and not duplicate it in the series article would weaken the series article.
  • Reception. Still no luck with finding info on the arcade version, and verifiable sources are there, if not minimal, for the DC version. But, as I note on the series page, it's the reputation of the first game that defines the series, and not to duplicate information that would be on the CT1 page into the series article would be a bad job.
  • Lawsuit/Patent/Movie/Toy. These could go on the CT1 page, since technically in the timeline, they all spawned from the CT game success or are related to it.
So, following these, I'd have on the series page: Gameplay, Game list/history (+redemption game), Generalized Series Reception, and on the CT1 page: brief gameplay, History/Develop of CT1 arcade/console, reception of CT1, and the lawsuit/patent/movie/toy sections, with some duplication of the reception and development of CT1 in the series article (eg as the series article stands now, I wouldn't change what I have beyond pulling the last few sections out into the CT1 page). This gives both articles a good weight to start from, doesn't disparage the CT1 game, and yet does the original job of avoiding wasted articles for the sequels and ports that really don't have the notability for their own pages. (Again, I've looked for notability things, but there's not much out there due to age or lack of attention these games got).
Any comments on this arrangement? I could see this as an acceptable solution. --Masem 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this seems like an arbitrary separation of info. It is a conceivable possibility that these things are based directly off the first (and only the first) game. It is more likely that they are based on the series itself, or on the popularity of the series. The redemption game could also conceivably be considered a part of the series, as it is an arcade game produced by Sega (although it is a little of a stretch). I don't see enough material about CT to make an interesting readable article that doesn't contain the redundant material. Think about what would actually have a shot at FA status. I don't think a CT solo article could really get past Start (B at most).
Not really related to the convo, but the article, I just saw Bubsy, which is an article about a character and an entire game series (although it definitely needs some work). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another question to ask: for those supposing keeping some of the existing articles, please look at the current series page, and let me know, should the specific game article not be merged, what parts of that series article would need to be removed (if any) with the continuing existence of the individual game article? Or, more specifically, I've tried to write the series article as generically but overarcing the series, and even if CT1 and CT:FW were kept as separate articles, I don't see anything that I'd take out from the series article, as such information can be expanded upon in the individual game articles; I've written it such a way that I believe that an individual game article can co-exist with that page as long as it goes into more details, as the series pages gets the series nailed down well. --Masem 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be any feedback for this any more, I am going to work from the following assumptions: - Merging is still in question, however, its not so much a merge as an RFD for the other pages. I believe that I've captured all the notable details from those pages into here. In other words, ultimately, if one of the other games is merged, I'm not going to need to change anything on the series page, nor ultimately if a page is not merged, I don't need to alter this page either. So while I still want input on the other pages, I'm going to just do seealso's while those other pages exist. - Peer review suggests the series page is ready to go for GA, so I'd like to do that soon (even with this merge concept still going on as I don't think it's going to change the content of the article. Any objections to this approach ? --Masem 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

!!![edit]

SO I was looking for a picture of the RC car online (actually I found out about the car through an image search), and I found a guy who was selling it on eBay. I sent him an email, asking him to upload his picture to the commons, and he uploaded TWO! That guy is soo frikkin cool. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Katetchepare Check em out. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Two pieces of info I really need to find[edit]

Any help with these would be great: - Any reliable source that mentions exactly HOW popular that the CT arcade game was that prompted Sega to make the Dreamcast version. Everyone says it was popular, but not to what degree. - The soundtrack list for "Catch a Ride". Having no luck at all finding it. Once its decided if things are merged or not, I want to get this article to GA, and those are like the only two pieces stopping me from it. --Masem 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much all Sega-made Naomi games got a DC port, IIRC, so I dunno if it matters too much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:09:49, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Even something to that effect (that Sega planned to double-duty the NAOMI in arcade and dreamcast) would help. --Masem 16:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ct3 high roller.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Ct3 high roller.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Merge result and GAC[edit]

Based on what I've read above, I've decided that merging doesn't seem to be the best option, so I've made see also links for each game. However, I do recommend that strong considerations for keeping the other pages be made. As I've written the series article, it doesn't change this.

Thus, I've removed the merge, and gone and placed this in as a Good Article candidate. --Masem 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sega-patent-6200138-image.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Sega-patent-6200138-image.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review on hold[edit]

Hello. I've noticed a bit of a backlog on the VG GA nominations page, some I'm trying to help out by getting some of the more dated reviews out of the way. Reading this article, it's clear that it's pretty close to GA, but I'd like to see some of the following addressed:

  • Add some references to the opening paragraphs, such as "It was the fourth best-selling game on that system, selling over a million copies" (ref) and "which has led to at least one lawsuit over similar gameplay in The Simpsons: Road Rage game which has since been settled out of court." (ref). I know you addressed these later on, but it's a good idea to have a strongly referenced lead, otherwise people may start slapping [citation needed] around without scrolling down the page first. I'm not asking for new references, you can re-use any of the later references that back up these statements, just present them earlier.Yes check.svg Done
  • Reference 50 is broken.Yes check.svg Done
  • In soundtrack section, change "GBA" and "PSP" to GameBoy Advance and PlayStation Portable. It's a good idea to not use acronyms unless the full title has been spelled out beforehand; non game-savvy readers may not know what they mean. Yes check.svg Done in this section, is it needed later by the time you get down to reception?
  • Fix spelling of Offspring's "Come Out Swinging" in soundtrack section. Yes check.svg Done
  • I would remove the collapsible infoboxes in the game section for now. They were probably a product of the initial merges into this page, but they seem to just be copy-pasted from each individual game's article, and the boxart are missing fair use rationale/sources. All of the necessary information is in the prose anyway, which is perfectly fine. You may want to move the images of the arcade cabinet and CT3 over to the right afterwords to avoid messing up the headers, but that's up to you. Yes check.svg Done into invisicomments (Should the merge ever be confirmed, easy to fix FURs; images shifted over)
  • There are a number of instances where stand-alone years are linking to the wrong place. For example, link 2003 as 2003 when a month and day are *not* used before it. This is a WikiProject Videogames policy.Yes check.svg Done fixed

This is a good article that is very well referenced, these are just some of the more glaring issues. Once you've made some changes or need to ask any questions, post here or on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good luck! Nall 23:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Only thing still really open is if I need to go into the later part of the article to spell out GBA and PSP more. I think I've gotten the rest. --Masem 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks fine now, I was really only concerned about the first two, since the full words hadn't been written yet. Two more little things I found:
  • In Legalities section, fix wikilink to Fox Entertainment Group.Yes check.svg Done
  • Fill in the blank fields in the Fair Use template for the toy car image at the end of the article.Yes check.svg Done

Nall 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Got those too; any problem with some of the red links in the last section (which do not exist on WP otherwise)? --Masem 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really, this is just the only link I saw that I knew had a correct page. If you can find any other link fixes, feel free to aid them. Nall 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA pass[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Alright, after looking over the article, I think it now qualifies for GA! Nice going, guys. If you plan on taking it further, it would be nice to have a copy edit or peer review, but it has definetly come a long way. Nall 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crazy Taxi logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Crazy Taxi logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crazy Taxi-A Redemption Game.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Crazy Taxi-A Redemption Game.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crazy taxi pickup.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Crazy taxi pickup.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crazy taxi ride.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Crazy taxi ride.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crazy-taxi-cabinet.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Crazy-taxi-cabinet.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Character and Games template[edit]

There should be a template that shows the the list of games across and characters down where there's a Check or an X to determine who is or isn't in the game. --PJ Pete —Preceding comment was added at 21:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The characters are rather unimportant to the gameplay (they have little backstore, and don't change the way the game behaves). This is more appropriate for a game guide but not WP. --MASEM 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

GTA3 Sub-missions[edit]

The game sounds a lot like the GTA Taxi and Pimping missions. Does anyone know if they collaborated with or tried to sue Rockstar? 71.63.86.153 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Anon

It's were damn it!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

IT'S WERE NOT WAS!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baconconner (talkcontribs) 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, calm down. Secondly, though I'm not grammar whiz, the verb "was" refers to the singular tensed subject "series" and should stay as "was" instead of "were" to maintain verb tense agreement. Feel free to chime in if you have a better grasp of English grammar. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC))


Correct Guyinblack. If we were to split the sentence into two the second sentence would start with the singular noun "The Crazy Taxi series". (Elephant53 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Merge[edit]

The first game seems to have enough potential to stay on its own, but the other four seem too minor to need articles. If the sections are increased to two paragraphs, that should be sufficient. TTN (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have been covered quite well in gaming media: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Yes they have gameplay that is similar to each other, but so have most of game series: Final Fantasy, Halo, etc. --Mika1h (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure those could be used to compile small reception sections, but I doubt they'd be able to say much more than this article could possibly cover. The small gameplay differences can fit in each section, and any available reception seems to already be covered. TTN (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no lack of notability in any of the game articles - a merge here would take away a large amount of useful information. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Games released for the main consoles (not obscure discount ones) usually are notable. Especially such recent ones. They are in need of expansion, not merging. Bill (talk|contribs) 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Each individual article is ripe for expansion, per Mika1h. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Sorry TTN. As long as each game has received individual attention from the media i.e. as in reviews, then they should warrant their own article, discounting special circumstances. You also need to be careful about merging things in to GAs and especially FAs, as it will probably detract from the quality of the article, whether the info added is of a high quality or not. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • As I was the one that took most of the effort to get the series article to place, it was written in light of any possible future mergers of the individual games; only small changes would be needed, if the view was that the individual games weren't notable and the other games were deleted (eg release dates). Thus, if the merge occurs, there's no significant information that is already present that can be added from the game articles to drastically change the series one. (This is not a !vote for or against merging, just a comment). --MASEM 13:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not my main reason for opposition, but I just feel that, if the articles are merged, then the sections there may expand as a result. I know that it's been written with this in mind, but I would still say that some of the paragraphs would give insufficient coverage if the articles were merged. Without alternatives, users are going to look to these sections to give comprehensive coverage of the game, including development, sales, graphics etc, and that's going to be difficult to decline with these sections as the primary/only resource of that information. That may change the shape of the article if users want to take that position, because having the odd—or no—reviewer quote wouldn't quite do it. Anyway, it's just a thought. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I did look for other information on these articles when making the series, but outside of the first game, it's a very empty landscape; the PSP version has maybe a couple more, but not a lot. While this a case where each game is certainly notable on its own, the coverage of each game, on its own, is likely never to be better than a peer review B-class quality (excluding the first game), and it may be that the better approach is to describe each game in the context of the series as a whole. It's not like the main article isn't pointing to reviews for the other games that those researching the topic can find more. But again, I'm fine either way this is taken. --MASEM 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed the merge proposal tags from the relevant articles, due to a pretty clear consensus here. If anyone feels this is out of line because I opposed a merge, feel free to revert me and continue discussion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support with caveats - I'm a Eventualist for notable subjects kinda guy, but I think maybe merging them and then allowing the offshoots to spring up once expanded may be the best way to go in this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Are not articles judged by what they could potentially be, instead of what they currently are? If you feel that these articles could one day be separate then your opinion is that they should always be separate due to the ability to flesh each of them out, right? There is no deadline, Potential, not just current state, etc... Just a thought. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Recurring characters[edit]

When I read an article about something, I want to know if there are any characters that are playable, seen, or heard. If an article fails to mention characters, especially when those characters appear more than once in a series, then the article is not doing its job of enlightening the reader of what they encounter. The Crazy Taxi (series) article is an example of failing to do its job, and there happens to be a certain Nazi who fails to realize that articles are supposed to be informing people of something, not avoid it completely or act like it was never there. Crazy Taxi does not have generic drivers. These are actual people with voice actors and unique designs to them. Hell, what's the point of Steve Lycett from Sumo Digital asking SEGA AM3 for designs of B.D. Joe if these characters shouldn't be mentioned at all in a Wikipedia article? I'm pretty sure people not knowledgeable to Crazy Taxi would want to know that you play as characters and not a generic driver. Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? This isn't a Game Guide here; it's a quick run-down of four playable characters with a small pic to show the reader who they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.131.118 (talkcontribs)

(Be aware that we do not accept personal attacks. You may find yourself blocked if you do it again.)
If there was a story behind the game that you played towards, then yes, there may be some argument to keep the characters, but there is nothing like that - they are simply flavoring with slightly different abilities (speed, turning, etc.). For a gamer it may be helpful, but for the general reader that needs to learn what Crazy Taxi is, the types of readers we edit towards, they are extraneous and thus the type of detail we do not include. If there was information on how they designed the characters or the like, then maybe there's something, but there is not a lot of development information about this series, so we're left with little to work from.
That said, the other question becomes, do these characters have any recognization outside of the game? The fact that Sega Racing is going to use BD Joe implies that there's something to be said about that, but we need a reliable source to understand if there's more impact. Personally, I can see BD Joe as the more memorial character of the entire series, and a Sega racing game without acknowledging CT would be silly, but at the same time, we can't just add information that has no relevance to those that may never play the game. We do need to acknowledge the appearance of BD Joe (and thus explain enough who he is) in Sega Racing, but there's nothing more from a reliable source that I can find to support it further beyond that he's present in the game. There's no foundation here to suggest the inclusion of the other characters. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You want a reliable source that indicates more impact? Here it is, straight from Sumo Digital's Steve "S0L" Lycett:
"I guess now they're out there - I can confirm that it was indeed BD Joe that we asked AM3 for!"
^That is in response to fans asking about the latest blog entry in which Steve went to Tokyo to ask AM3 for their permission to use a character in Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing. The entry can be seen here: http://blogs.sega.com/usa/2010/01/07/sonic-sega-all-stars-racing-dev-diary-2/
If such lengths needed to be done to get a character approved to be used in another game, then they aren't as uselesss as you make them out to be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.131.118 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
"Sonic Stadium" is not a reliable source, but other sources have confirmed BD Joe in Sega Racing. That's fine to mention that (which is now done in the Reception section). But this still talks nothing to the development or reception of these characters to warrant a character section. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
==