Talk:Operation Rainfall

Facebook quote

Other than Siliconera's interpretation, is there any actual evidence that NOA was specifically referring to the Operation? I know that it is quite likely, but is there actual proof? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IGN, or atleast one of their employees, has tweeted that that NOA is expected to give a reaction/response in the coming day or two. But that's just an example that shows NOA is aware, it wasn't about this particular situation with Siliconera. If it is strictly Siliconera's interpretation, I suppose we could re-word it accordingly... Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article should be deleted because it is not remotely notable or appropriate for this website.

And that's that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.226.119 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you define notability? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Or "appropriate", for that matter... Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, neither of the arguments make sense. The movement is clearly notable since it has been covered by sites such as IGN, Eurogamer, and Nintendoworldreport, etc. I also don't see how covering a topic that has been covered by reliable sources is inappropriate in any way.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Except things make the run across numerous significant gaming news sites all the time that might not be considered notable by any other measure. A cool Bayonetta costume at a convention, a guy with a really old Duke Nukem Forever preorder. Are all these things Wikipedia material? - Crabbattler (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone has enough third party reliable sources that can establish notability, then an article can be made about just about anything. The examples you give though, sound like they'd probably be more appropriate as a small, sourced mention in an already established article or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also unlikely that whole articles would be written on a person who simply had a good looking costume. Most likely if it got coverage it would be small part of a larger article and an article on the person would be a issue of undue weight. I don`t think that is the case here.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But this happens all the time between gaming sites with practically any topic imaginable, it doesn't have to be people. Take the Wii Party Station. It has received far more coverage over a far longer period of time than this article, mainly because it's hilarious. It's a wacky thing that doesn't even exist. Yes, you could add it to the Nyko article, but you could add Operation Rainfall to the Nintendo or relevant game articles. I'm curious what the qualifying difference is, if any. Is it because the editors of the given news sites are following Wii Party Station as more of a subjective interest than actual news? Is it because it only relates to one or two existing Wikipedia articles rather than three or four? (that seems arbitrary) Or is it honestly something that should have an article? (I guarantee you it could be as long as this one, if that's somehow the qualifier)

The specific example isn't really my point, although it gives you something concrete that isn't hand-waving. My point is that a lot of topics are propelled to technical notability within the closed sphere of video game websites, but having at least some diversity of media coverage demonstrates truer noteworthiness. - Crabbattler (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to answer without out seeing any of the discussion in relation to the deletion of that specific article, or the article itself, and I've never heard of the thing myself. It could be any number of things; maybe that article was written poorly or written with non-reliable sources? In general though, it usually comes down to the reliability of sources (blogs, fansites, message board posts...they're not wikipedia reliable a vast majority of the time) or that there simply isn't much to be said about something. (If there's 20 sources of something that all say the same information, and that information is one sentence worth of info, it's usually merged into another related article.)

Additionally, if you aren't happy with my answers, you could take it up with WikiProject Video Games. I reference them whenever I have questions about video games related articles... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Nintendo responded directly to the initiative. That makes it more notable than random high quality cosplay. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but conversely, this was over the span of four days, after which Nintendo basically said "no", and that was it. Notability is not temporary. MSJapan (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also Nintendo didn't respond "directly" to Operation Rainfall. They responded to their Facebook fans. Certainly this includes people who have an interest in the release of the games but don't associate themselves with Operation Rainfall. In any case as they only address their audience as "fans" and only posted the response on Facebook, the burden of evidence would be on proving it's a direct response to a specific organization that would never have happened otherwise (companies respond to anxious fans of their Facebook pages all the time). Some news sites have made this leap, although without anything to back it up, so I don't think it's appropriate. Another reason I doubt the relevance of Operation Rainfall, specifically their Amazon Monado push, is the low numbers on other page activity indicators, such as customer discussions. Less that 200 post by a lot of the same people. Reaching the top of Amazon day-by-day game sales may require less orders than you might otherwise think... - Crabbattler (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's great, but your thoughts on the quality of the reporting by those sites is rather irrelevant. Reliable, third party sources are reporting on it, and not just passive mentions, but entire articles dedicated to it. That all trumps your personal opinion. By all means, if you feel strongly, try nominating it for deletion, but I'm pretty sure it'd be kept pretty strongly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's confusing being reliable with being psychic. The first-party source is available. It says nothing about Operation Rainfall. You can say, "according to Kotaku" or "Joystiq surmises", but if it's coming from the secondary's source's interpretation of the primary source that should be noted. There are certainly countless articles that don't make this leap of logic (example. We're not even talking about what our article says, though, we're talking about whether Nintendo said "hey Operation Rainfall, we recognize you as an entity" in the context of notability, and they did not. - Crabbattler (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The fun's over people

Why this page still exists baffles me, especially after the operation having pretty much no effect. I think that ironically, the fact that the three games still aren't getting localized after this operation means that NoA is still not convinced anyone really cares about the games, which is enough proof of its lack of notability. If Operation Rainfall was really the result of millions of fans stirring up a revolution in the gaming world, you'd assume NoA would act upon it and you know, announce a localization. Let's face it people: it's not THAT hard for a game to get localized.

If this operation deserves a page, so does "Operation Moonfall", the supposed plan to bring Majora's Mask to the 3DS. This operation already has more fans on its Facebook page than Operation Rainfall, despite being less than a week old. Speaking of which, the fact that there is not even 8000 fans on the Facebook page is kinda sad, which is supposed to be the hardcore fanbase of the three games COMBINED.

EDIT: And also, to the people who are screaming, "BUT IGN COVERED IT", I propose the following article Death of Takeshi Miyaji. If you want proof of notability, I provide the following:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/118/1185322p1.html

http://www.1up.com/news/grandia-director-takeshi-miyaji-passes-away-45

http://www.capsulecomputers.com.au/2011/08/grandia-creator-takeshi-miyaji-dead-at-age-45/

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/01/game-arts-founder-takeshi-miyaji-passes-away-at-45/

http://kotaku.com/5826451/silpheed-designer-passed-away-too-soon-dead-at-45

http://www.gamezone.de/news_detail.asp?nid=100748

http://multiplayer.it/notizie/91541-scomparso-il-creatore-di-grandia.html (EVEN THIS ITALIAN SITE PICKED IT UP)

This is huge news right? The fact is this: This operation has zero notability. Just because Nintendo "responded" via Facebook does not justify this. I spent an email to Sony some time ago about why my laptop broke down and they also responded, so I think it's time for a page... So in the end, just add a few words about the operation in each of the game's designated pages and get rid of this article.

24.109.230.39 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're that sure, submit it for deletion. It's that simple. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Melodia beat me to the punch. What she said. Rather than ranting on and on here, by all means submit this for deletion, and start up a "Project Moonfall" article. And good luck, you'll need it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)