Jump to content

Talk:TimeSplitters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:TimeSplitters (series))

Warning

[edit]

I would like to question the use of comparisms and bias(possibly) within this article. I would like assistance on the editing.

Jaberwokkee (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

I just edited this for some vandalism, something about a couple of people being faggots? Joyful. Haven't been using wikis for very long so apologies for any faux pas I've commited; I also forgot to log in. Sorry! -jazmcdougall

No, it should not be merged as duckman is also a character in the other Timesplitters installments.--Science Lord 20:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

npov

[edit]

"Set over 100 years of past, present and future, TimeSplitters boasts probably the fastest gameplay yet seen in a console FPS, demanding the players keep their wits about them at all times."

Sounds like a sales pitch to me. I'd rephrase it but I haven't played the game.

This was never a sales line of the game. - Manix

Even so, ...boasts probably the fastest gameply yet seen in a console FPS... is clearly POV - unless there are facts to back that up. If there are they should be put in, and probably taken out (because if it's fact then it either is or isn't; probably means uncertainty). --Emperor Wu 14:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, just so your aware that it's not one of the sales lines of the game. I agree, opinions should be removed, to ensure the article is unbiased. --Manix 08:44, 3 October 2006 (GMT)

Fix this article

[edit]

Forgive me for being so blunt, but fix this freakin' article! Like i said, forgive me, but first off, this article first talks about the TimeSplitters' series, but later talks about the first game. Second, there are numerous grammatical errors throughout. There may not be as many as i think, but i still saw a few. Address these issues. BishopTutu 23:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, TimeSplitters (series) and TimeSplitters should be two different articles. --StormCommander 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've focus this article onto the series as a whole. Someone needs to create a Timesplitters 1 article now. I would, but I have little knowledge of the first game. BishopTutu 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on the TimeSplitters page, but this page still looks like it needs work, mainly in the Story Mode and Arcade Mode sections (the Arcade Mode sections describes only modes that are specific to TS2 and Future Perfect). I'm removing the infobox because it's now on the TimeSplitters page. AlmightyDoctor 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that. Good job, too. Keep on going, if you can. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Help improve our long-awaited Wikiproject!

[edit]

Please join our project to upgrade this article to featured status.

Requested move 04 November 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Tavix (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Series has more than 3 video game articles now per WP:NCVG, set this page to be the primary article. – Neverrainy (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 21:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Neverrainy to inform them this has been moved to full discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
86.174.56.154 (talk · contribs) is Neverrainy (talk · contribs). You shouldn't be voting support on your own proposal. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it rude not to? It doesn't say anywhere in the guidelines not to. 86.174.56.154 (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editing while logged out to mislead is against Wikipedia policy (See WP:SOCK). Logging out of Neverrainy to support your own proposal under an IP address is misleading. It's the equivalent of using multiple accounts to vote rig. WP:SOCK warns against. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't necessarily see the case for this. NCVG is not automatic. The question is whether the game or the series is the "primary topic". Without evidence that the series is more notable than the original game, I would think "TimeSplitters" is more likely to invoke the first title in the series than the series itself, since the latter entries of the series are not well known. czar 21:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This actually has a related article to the series and it's a cancelled main entry TimeSplitters 4 as well as 3 video game articles. So, this should be the primary name as it follows the Wikipedia criteria of WP:NCVGDAB. 31.50.129.84 (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
31.50.129.84 (talk · contribs) is Neverrainy (talk · contribs). --The1337gamer (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments below, I'll elaborate. WP:NCVG says "If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item." This series has 3 games: TimeSplitters, TimeSplitters 2, and TimeSplitters: Future Perfect, and an article on a "unrelated video game or related media item". TimeSplitters 4 isn't an article on a game in the series, it's on a cancelled project later revived by fans.
Beyond those specifics, this is a good case for a WP:DABCONCEPT article describing all the games. The series as a whole is more noteworthy than the first game specifically, considering that the second game was considerably higher profile.--Cúchullain t/c 15:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose giving the base title to the video game series. As far as I can see, a professional wrestling tag team challenges the video games... but not much. Both the series and the video game have huge page hits, but the numbers for the series are not accurate. It might include those wanting to search for either the wrestling team or the video game. (see below) Also, a primary topic lacks rules because defining the primary topic for the base name is up to us consensus. To me, "TimeSplitters" and "Time Splitters" fail the WP:SMALLDETAILS policy. Either "TimeSplitters" or "Time Splitters" should become a disambiguation page with the other as redirect to that proposed dabpage. I will, however, support adding "(video game)". The "series" fails to meet WP:DABCONCEPT due to the ambiguity of the base word and the professional wrestling team, which disbanded last year. George Ho (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the video game series has not enter another video game generation after PS2/XBOX/GC days. We can revisit this when another sequel hits the stores. George Ho (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I realize that the video game page has more hits than the series. Nonetheless, the numbers for the first game of the series may also include those looking for other sequels at the series page or for the wrestling tag team. Still, readers would recognize the video game as much as the series. The numbers would decline but not very much when the VG is disambiguated. George Ho (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 75,000 signatures on the petition to permit the development and release of the 4th installment... this is clearly encyclopedic stuff, and the video games NC applies. (On the other hand, the professional wrestling team is unlikely to ever have an article and can be disregarded.) Andrewa (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per a comment left on my talk page I am reverting my close and relisting this instead. Bradv 21:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The move is proposed by the nominator with WP:NCVG as the rationale. WP:NCVGDAB's guideline says more than 3 video games and at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. There doesn't appear to be any other media items related to this series. No spinoffs, no books, no comics, no shows, etc, etc. As such the supports above citing WP:NCVG are incorrect. If someone can find evidence of other media items and expand the article, I'd change to support though. Per WP:NCVGDAB, the first game should not be moved to (video game) either, that is: Disambiguation pages are not required if the only disambiguation exists between similarly named articles related to the same video game series -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer: I'd argue that the existence of the article titled TimeSplitters 4 is an "unrelated video game or related media item" article - it isn't on an installment of the main series, it's on a cancelled project that has since been resurrected as a fan project. Either way this particular recommendation of NCVG is extremely elaborate, much more than would be expected of a WP:CONCEPTDAB article generally.--Cúchullain t/c 15:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A cancelled video game is not an unrelated video game or non-video game media item. It is literally a video game. The point of that guideline is to determine whether the franchise has expanded into other mediums beyond the scope of just games. An cancelled video doesn't make TimeSplitters 4 a multimedia franchise. Also TimeSplitters 4 hasn't been resurrected as a fan project. So far the TimeSplitters Rewind project has just been remaking assets of the existing games. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an overly restrictive take on what the guideline says. The spirit of the guideline is that the series should be more than just a couple of games to qualify as the primary topic (though even that is overly restrictive compared to general consensus about WP:CONCEPTDABs). Here, there are 3 games, 1 of which is more noteworthy than the original, plus an article on a topic tied to the franchise that isn't another game in the franchise, and likely never will be. I'll put it this way: despite being at the base name, the first TimeSplitters game gets only a minority of the total hits. There's no reason to treat the first game as the primary topic. But virtually everyone is looking for information on one of these games, so a CONCEPTDAB at the base name makes sense.[4]--Cúchullain t/c 21:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ferret, there is Time Splitters (professional wrestling), and I created TimeSplitters (disambiguation). --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not a related media item. According to WP:NCVG, it needs to have a related media item. I thought you were replying to other argument. Fuortu (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the "Not 'what first comes to (your) mind'" rule? If that's not enough, per WP:PAG, Fuortu, we can use common sense and make exceptions to that rule. By the way, would this conflict with policies, like WP:AT? If so, per WP:POLCON, we can use that policy as temporary injunction. George Ho (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, this move discussion is concerning the video game versus the series. By WP:NCVGDAB, no move should be done. Separately, concerning the wrestling team, I still believe the video game to be the primary topic. The hat notes suffice as they are. I think we need to not cloudy this particular move request with the wrestling team, since it's not even tagged as being under consideration, has a separate spelling (however minor), and appropriate disambiguation already. A minor suggestion though: maybe Time Splitters (With a space) should be a disamb page instead of a redirect. -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already created Time Splitters (disambiguation) as a redirect. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ferret. Nothing should be moved. I would've probably supported the DAB page at "TimeSplitters" or "Time Splitters" if page views of wrestling team were similar to those of video game and series, but that's not the case. Even then, both have different spelling, so disambiguation is probably not necessary. Fuortu (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that the information of TimeSplitters 4 be merged into TimeSplitters (series), under a revised renaming of the section about the game to "Cancelled Fourth Game" or something to that effect. It is unlikely that the source article will be expanded upon or improved upon at all, as this article covers a game that was proposed for development and then got cancelled (or indefinite hold as it states within). I do not believe the amount of information in this article should be a problem for its destination page at all, so long as there are wikipedians willing to amend and trim out information that is not essential. GUtt01 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The series article should be merged into the Legacy section of the original game's article. Yet to see the sourcing to support how the "series" is independently notable from the main game I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 21:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The current info present in the article is mostly announcement information. A section in the parent article would definitely works better than having a standalone article. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on TimeSplitters (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:TimeSplitters which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cyberden" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cyberden and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3 § Cyberden until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TimeSplitters&oldid=1221383749"