Talk:Pac-Man

Cuts and changes

This article's pretty long, and still needs a ton of citations. However, there's also a lot of really in-depth material that could probably be cut, particularly specific information about the ghost characters, and how they appeared in cartoons and such, and perhaps too much about gameplay information.

I wouldn't mind it if someone wanted to split the information into character articles, such as Pac-Man (character) and a separate article for the ghosts, since those seem to get a bit too far out of scope for this article, which is focused on the original arcade game. It's easily individual comparable to most Pokemon articles, since both Pac-Man and the Ghosts have had many, many appearance affecting general pop culture in diffent media and game sequels. --SevereTireDamage 07:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removals - Diff 1: Personalities section. Diff 2: Nomenclature section. --SevereTireDamage 07:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding SevereTireDamage's message. Why would you make Pacman (Character) an article? Although everyone knows that pacman rocks, there is insufficient information to start one. --71.224.19.29 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be enough information in the current version of the article to warrant a 'Pacman (Character)' article. However there is quite a bit of information about the ghosts, especially if any of the personalities section (that User:SevereTireDamage removed) can be worked in. I would agree that a Ghosts (Pacman Characters) article could be created. --Mattarata 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

should PSPacman be mentioned in the clones and bootlegs section?

I disagree this article seems very well written to me. But more info on the ghosts would be nice. - Matthias_09 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

I failed this article due to scant references in the Ghosts, Ports, and Popular Culture sections.Some P. Erson 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction needs resolution

From the article:

Immensely popular from its first release through today, Pac-Man is universally considered as one of the classics of the medium, virtually synonymous with video games, and an icon of 1980s popular culture. Upon its release, the game became a social phenomenon...

From later on in the article:

When first launched in Japan in 1979 by Namco, the game received a lukewarm response, as Space Invaders and other games of similar ilk were far more popular at the time.

So which is it? --Darksasami 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "Immensely popular in the United States....." to clear up the contradiction.--Asher196

Maniac

I remember playing this updated version of Pac Man known as Maniac. It basically gave you new features such as a turbo boost and such. I recall it was made by a company known as Best Before Yesterday. 67.188.172.165 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I had it. It was a combination of Pac-Man and Hangman. You had to "eat" a token in order to guess a letter. You could guess until you got a letter wrong. To clear a stage, you had to guess the entire word before the time ran out. There were dots, but clearing the maze of them wouldn't end the level. Eating dots just advanced you through a list of bonus abilities that you could activate by hitting space bar. It was a fun game, but it doesn't work very well on newer Macs due to the MOD sound format not being properly supported (and never worked at all on Windows). - Wrassedragon 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Website links

What is the purpose of the message near the bottom of the Pacman article that says not to post links to websites that include playable versions of Pacman?

JBFrenchhorn 10:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 11/26/06

It's there to help prevent people from adding links to playable versions of Pac-Man... This article, along with others, are big spam targets--articles to which some users love to add links to sites that have clones of popular games (and often ads as well). Wikipedia policy discourages these types of links. But since some users love to add them, it creates more work for editors who have to come in behind them and weed them out. The message is meant to help curb the addition of the links in the first place. Does that answer your question? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's also because Namco still owns the rights to Pac-Man, so any site that has a playable version of Pac-Man is infringing on copyright, and Wikipedia has a policy against linking to copyright-infringing websites. --Birdhombre 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In general, remakes (homebrew clones) are not welcome in Wikipedia entries and will be edited out. The only "playable version" exception is if Namco Bandai were to put their own official online version up (in cross platform format such as Java or Flash), such as the case where Atari has with some of their games. To date, I haven't seen Namco Bandai do that.--Marty Goldberg 17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

JBFrenchhorn 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

klkl

who has a atari 2600?

That is NOT CD-Man!

What the heck is that white cloud guy? I remember that CD-Man looked exactly like Pac-Man.--195.229.242.88 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't played CDman, but if I had to guess I'd say maybe an unlockable extra character? Googling "cdman" brings up lots of screenshots of both the white cloud thing and a pac-clone as the player character, and I think its more likely that the pac-clone be the main character than some random fluffy thing. --70.66.130.206 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of versions of this game. I think version 1.x features the pac-clone and version 2.0 that white cloud guy. Calvero2 21:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Category split

Although all of the games in the "Arcade titles" section have been released by some company, could someone split the Arcade section into Authorized releases and Unauthorized titles?-- Maier 03 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

History gaffe?

Under history, it says the game was created by Iwatani "over thirty-six thousand months." That's 3,000 years! That's gotta be an error; does anyone have a correct, CITABLE reference for this factoid??? DrGaellon 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Scott Rogers

I found this interview with Scott Rogers (designer of Pac-Man World) that was written a few years ago:

1st Church of Pac-Man interview with Scott Rogers

It talks about certain things in Pac-Man World, as well as other topics such as Pac-Man in general, the character of Pinky, the popularity of the Pooka enemy from Dig Dug, and the decision not to give a voice to Pac-Man in the first Pac-Man World (keep in mind that this was long before Pac-Man World 3, where Pac-Man was voiced by Martin T. Sherman).

Do you think we could work some of this information into the related articles? - NES Boy 06:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think this is reliable. It could just be something that was thrown together. I don't trust it really. Can we get confirm on this? Quatreryukami 01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of unlicensed Pac-Man ports

The SAM Coupe Pac-Man is not a licensed adaptation, and it seems misleading to show a picture of it in the gallery of port screenshots. I don't want to step on toes by simply removing it, but IMO screenshots in this section should only be of legit ports. (Perhaps a separate section for screenshots of clones would work... I'd love to see a screenshot of the old UNIX Pac-Man clone being played on a VT-100 terminal!) Anyone agree? Student Driver 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this article sure gets a lot of vandalism...

Just commenting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because everybody seems to know and be familiar with Pac-Man. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Think it might be time to semi-protect this page again? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That 1979 is All Wrong

Now I have a first editon of Steve Kent's "The Ultimate History of Video Games" with a quote from Toru Iwatani saying himself that the game was officially tested and released in May 1980. Plus all, the copyright dates on all the Japanese flyers and promotions and the game itself are all 1980.

I think that source site has typo. --Imax80 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Steve Kent's book is notorious for its incorrect info and quotes. Likewise, flyers are not representative of anything except publication of the flyer and copyright date. Production release dates are generally listed in the coin-op manual's engineering plans. --Marty Goldberg 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Humor

Someone come up with a way to include this[1] in the article, please ;) 74.101.213.92 06:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bootlegs

It says that a citation is needed about pacman being included in various bootelgs, but there are even some images of pacman in bootlegs. If I could be bothered to log in I would change it, but since I can't... --80.41.40.127 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, are you forgetting that this is a wiki? Just edit the page! Pacguy19 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheism?

I heard from one of my friends at work that Pac Man is atheist, should this be added? --ColaDude 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, unless you can find a credible source (i.e. the designer of Pac-Man) stating such. There was already a lengthy edit war by someone trying to vandalize the page with Atheist material. --Marty Goldberg 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why even bother responding to him? --206.223.180.110 09:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Who? My friend? --ColaDude 15:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What!!! Pac-Man is a ball made out of pixels! I don't think he really has any religous opinons. --Super Badnik

Maybe he's referring to the TV series. Otherwise, I doubt it has anything to do with the game. --Soon to be Mrs. Shirley —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Glamron

the article states that there is a guild wars boss which uses a skill called "pac-man" this is a lie. there is no such boss. please remove this false statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgrrgrwilco (talk • contribs) 18:12, May 14, 2007 (UTC)

removed unsourced statement as requested. Feel free to reinstert with attribution. Thanks. ∴ here…♠ 07:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia doesn't belong and should be removed

Remove the section on who has the perfect play record - this is trivia and doesn't belong. If you disagree, just look at the space invaders talk wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.172.96 (talk • contribs) 23:13, May 23, 2007 (UTC)

(See Talk:Space_Invaders#deleting_space_invaders_high_scores )

There is no clear consensus in that discussion, and thus this article should likely discuss further. I feel strongly that such history, legendary or otherwise, is important to this article. Various sourced high-score tales are fully appropriate for inclusion in a game which is so deeply connected to such a pursuit. Relating feats of rare gameplay to that of athletic bests is fully appropriate, just as record holders in various other activities would be appropriate to mention. ∴ here…♠ 07:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pac-man.png

Image:Pac-man.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 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 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mad pacman cover large.jpg

Image:Mad pacman cover large.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 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 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sequels

"In 2007, Microsoft in conjunction with original creator Toru Iwatani and Namco Bandai, released the first re-envisioning of Pac-Man in 26 years, Pac-Man Championship Edition, released on Xbox Live Arcade on June 6, 2007."

Please change this sentence to "On June 6, 2007, Microsoft worked with (Pac-Man creator) Toru Iwatani and Namco Bandai to release a re-envisioning of the game, 26 years after the original: Pac-Man Championship Edition. It is available on Xbox Live Arcade." Rationale: Changes the "first... in 26 years" part which implied there were no other sequels. (depending on your definition of "re-envisioning" which isn't explicit here) Removes redundancies. Keeps all the same information.

Thanks! --70.143.56.134 01:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposing removing scoring details, including Fruit Table

Opening this discussion up in this article, where it should get a lot of visibility (hopefully): I brought up in Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition that I believe the scoring details (points per ghost, the fruit table, etc) constitute material that is more appropriate for a strategy guide and is essentially meaningless to a non-gamer unfamiliar with Pac-Man. In a previous debate, it was mentioned that this article sets a precedent for other Pac-Man-related articles to contain scoring details - in C.E.'s case, the game is bound by a time limit and the player must score as many points as possible - thus, scoring details were necessary so long as they didn't "go overboard".

Iconic as the fruits and ghost values have become among gamers and the industry, the details about them do not help a non-gamer understand the essence of Pac-Man as a whole. These details are essentially minutae that would be more appropriate in a strategy guide, and thus for one of the gaming-specific Wikis. Citing the CVGProj Guidelines: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture."

I have removed very similar scoring-detail content from other articles (see Galaga '88 for an example) with no objections, and I have previously seen large amounts of such content removed from other articles under those guidelines. So I believe that having it here makes for an inconsistent application of the CVGProj guidelines.

Please discuss. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Since the same discussion has been opened in Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition, please also consider adding your opinion there. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unrelated comment: Jeremy WINS!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.36.80 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Remove: Scoring details are not inherently important to understanding the game and its cultural impact as a whole. Furthermore, they can be classified as unencyclopedic minutae. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Remove: The article guidelines seem pretty clear. And actually, now that I really look, the fruit table does seem kind of out of place just sitting there. No objections from me. -Sarfa 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an arcade game. KieferSkunk is trying to remove the point table here to justify altering the Pac-Man CE table. It's kind of embarrassing that it exists here.
  • Asteroids_(arcade_game) includes point references. Do you want to remove all point references from here?
  • Donkey_Kong_(video_game) includes point references and full level descriptions. Should be removed, right?
  • Ms. Pac-Man includes point references, etc, etc. Should be removed, right?

There's no "strategy" in listing them any more that saying Zork I begins at a white house in a clearing.

Here's the question: The Wiki assessment scale for this game is "B". That means Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Does removing information help researchers? JAF1970 23:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a better thought for you - arcade games are all about scoring points. Taking away point references is like trying to describe American football without allowing someone to say "A touchdown scores 7 points." JAF1970 15:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. Let's open up the discussion to more folks now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove as not encyclopedic. It's just mere trivia. DreamGuy 06:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion after removal in July

• Keep as it provides info about the game, which is the purpose of this article. --Mr. DigDug 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. DigDug (talk • contribs)

• Keep Scoring details are an important part of any game, so I would like to see them here. I has explictily came to this page hoping to get a better explanation about one of the fruit/items (i.e. the key). I was disappointed in not even being able to find a list of items, none the less an explanation of when they are triggered in the game. I had became interested in the key fruit by reading http://donhodges.com/how_high_can_you_get2.htm, which provides info at at a code level for Pac Man's end of game bug. One other possibly important reason, though I'm unsure it applies to Pac Man, would be that game versions (bootlegs, etc) are sometimes differentiated by their scoring systems.

With regards to scoring info being important to people besides game players, this info also seems relevant game collectors, and emulator programmers/enthusiasts.Kolano (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the specific list of fruits and their point values, the levels they appear on, etc., are important to people not actively playing the game. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles strive to be relevant to the average person, and according to the VGProj Article guidelines, that means that scoring details, strategies, in-game trivia, etc. should not be included unless it specifically adds to a general understanding of the game or its notability. So the discussion on the ghosts is relevant, as well as the intermissions, etc., but mentioning that there are bonus fruits in the game should be sufficient to understand how to play the game. Telling people specifically what those fruits are is going overboard, IMO. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone simply create an article called Pac-Man scoring details or some such title. Perhaps the article could include scoring details for all of the Pac-Man games and have all of the Pac-Man articles link to it.Asher196 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Its important information about the subject, this is where wikipedia fails, opinions are like assholes everybody has one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopVandalsNow (talk • contribs) 05:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, agree that this information is important, and useful to researches, and most importantly is not harming anyone. Luminifer (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOHARM is not a very good argument for keeping content that doesn't hold to the basic tenets of Wikipedia policy. That said, I also don't see how a detailed list of all the fruit and their point values is useful to "researches". How does it benefit someone who isn't already intimately familiar with the game? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that the above decision to remove the fruit table set a precedent for many (in fact, most) video game articles in that scoring details, lists of trivial information, etc. should not be included in the articles. If the information is somehow notable beyond a trivial or game-guide perspective, then we can and should include it. See Article Guidelines for more info. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pac-man.png

Image:Pac-man.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 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for BetaCommand asking him to explain why the fair-use rationales that HAVE been provided on that image are apparently insufficient. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Clone

This page can't list every PacMan clone as there are hundreds. Maybe an article about PacMan clones can replace them if sources can be found. In the meantime, the non-notable clones need to be removed from the article. 87.74.76.212 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Broken citation link

The link to http://www.classicgaming.com/features/articles/pacmanseries/ , which is cited multiple times in the article, only produces an error message. Kouban 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing I was able to find on that site was this URL: http://classicgaming.gamespy.com/View.php?view=GameMuseum.Detail&id=261 . And it contains some information that's noted as incorrect in this article (such as Pac-Man having been inspired by a pizza). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Mod

Would it be okay to list Garry's Mod as an appearance of Pac-Man in other video games? Pac-Man is used as the game's icon and appears often in the menus and can be seen on the in-game physics gun. I know for sure that the above is true for G-Mod 9, but since G-Mod 10 is a commercial product, I doubt that it uses the image. 76.99.191.155 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What is G-Mod? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Names

As I don't have an account, I can't add this, but figured I'd post it here in case someone else would like to add it to the article if it's warranted. The reason I'd looked up the article was because I'd had trouble remembering the ghosts' names in the American version. I'd since found the info on another site (http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/masterpiece/2002/06/17/pac_man/index2.html).

Their names were Inky, Pinky, Blinky, and Clyde.

If anyone feels like adding that somewhere, it'd be appreciated by those who come hereafter in search of these names!

207.236.24.133 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - I added the names as a parenthetical mention in the gameplay section. I'd been unaware that the original table showing all of the ghost details was removed (though according to CVGProj guidelines, it was appropriate to do so).

BTW, sign up! It's fast and easy, and you can take credit for your contributions! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm kind of confused about what was just settled above. The Pac-man article has a table of the original Puck-man ghost names and personalities alongside the American Pac-man. The American side of the table is incorrect and is not cited. The orange ghost's name is Clyde. If you need a reference, here's one.

(http://www.twingalaxies.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=87587&sid=1e7db8ea92b13648fdd217f7d5143b3b)

I cannot change this info myself. I'm completely new to wiki, as I just created an account, specifically so that I could correct that info. I guess this page can only be edited by administrators...?? --Soon to be Mrs. Shirley —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Ghosts vs monsters

I thought they were only called ghosts in the Atari 2600 version (where they flickered). Aren't they called monsters in the original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly.terry.jones (talk • contribs) 19:31, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are specifically monsters--not ghosts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.195.61 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Girls like to eat...

Didn't Toru Iwatani say that he wanted to create game that appeals to girls, so he made a game about eating, because girls like to eat. Can we put this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.56.236 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... I don't want to sound rude, but that doesn't really pertain to Pac-man. If there's an article for Toru Iwatani, that information would fit in better there. --Soon to be Mrs. Shirley —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Citation

http://nrchapman.com/pacman/9thkey.html (hiding spot on Pac-Man) --Artman40 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pac-Man Plus merge discussion

The following discussion was about whether to merge Pac-Man Plus with Pac-Man. The result of the debate was do not merge, with the understanding that the Plus article should be expanded.

I propose that Pac-Man Plus be merged into the main Pac-Man article on the following grounds:

• Plus contains very few minor gameplay differences from the original Pac-Man, and otherwise is only cosmetically different.
• It was an unauthorized hack of the original Pac-Man ROM code, and was one of the factors that led to the severance of ties between Namco and Bally-Midway. It is not a true sequel, or even a sequel on the order of Ms. Pac-Man.
• All of the relevant information about Plus can be summarized in one or two paragraphs, making it appropriate as a subsection of this article.

Please discuss here. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I really disagree with the proposal.Pac-man and Pac-man plus are different games99.230.152.143 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)(ip user)

Okay, how are they different? Aside from purely cosmetic changes and a couple of very minor gameplay changes, they are completely identical. They do not differ anywhere near as much as, say, Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well said.I guess i could live with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.152.143 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec, don't you have to conduct a poll/survey among wikipedia users to get the merge approved? 99.230.152.143 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the comment above is in the midst of. The articles have not been merged to date. D. Brodale 20:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, generally, people just say Support or Oppose as part of the discussion. Since nobody has done that yet, I'll start it off:

• Support per my own comments above. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Oppose because,I rethought the issue again. Aren't the changes to Ms. Pac-man graphical in terms of sprites? That's graphical. I heard it has different cutscenes. Isn't that also graphical? Apparently Pac-Man Plus has graphical changes too. Actually, there is no reason not to just give Plus it's own mention in this article. I fail to see why not to just do that,but merge them together. 99.230.152.143 00:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :)

In reply: The reason I would separate Ms. Pac-Man and not Pac-Man Plus, is that Ms. Pac-Man has had a much greater level of cultural impact than Plus. The extent of the graphical changes in Ms. make it seem much more like a different game - the mazes are different (and change throughout the game), the fruits behave differently, the game sounds different (but similar), the cutscenes and overall presentation are very different, and the characters themselves are different from the original game. These differences are arguably still mostly cosmetic, but the extent of those changes is greater, and Ms. Pac-Man was widely considered by the general public to be a proper sequel to the original (even if it wasn't intended to be by the manufacturer).

In Plus, the game underwent only minimal changes - the color of the maze changed (but not the shape), the sounds are exactly the same, the cutscenes are the same, the "blue ghost" sprites changed, and some minor differences in gameplay were introduced (eating a fruit makes the ghosts invisible, etc). But in terms of cultural impact, it's just a minor update, not a whole separate game. Nobody in the gaming industry would refer to Plus as a sequel to the original. Whether Ms. deserves that title or not, many in the industry do call it such. That's the main difference. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, amending the above: Plus is (and is widely known as) a hack to the original Pac-Man - it was designed to directly replace the original ROM set to give an "altered Pac-Man experience". It was not authorized by Namco (technically, neither was Ms., but it was adopted by Namco later on), and it was not marketed as a separate game like Ms. was. Its only real notability in the marketplace is as a collector's item for some, and again, that can be expressed in a single sentence. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did mention you can put your sentence in the article, didn't I? 99.230.152.143 00:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(In response to "Wait, can you reply in straw polls?") There's nothing saying I can't reply. I'm just attempting to discuss the issue per WP:CON. (I'm also inviting other people to respond as well, and I'm open to opinions. Don't take my replies as a sign that I'm trying to drown you out - I'm genuinely interested in debating this with you and others.)

Also, per WP:CON, keep in mind that consensus does not equal majority vote. The idea is not simply to see who agrees or disagrees with a particular viewpoint, but to discuss the issue openly and come to a conclusion that everyone (or the majority) can accept. One way to do that (which I've put out here) is to suggest an edit and ask people to say whether they support the edit, oppose it completely (leaving it unchanged), or have suggestions on how to improve the edit. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I was a bit worried you were blocking me out. 99.230.152.143 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC

Nope, not trying to. I apologize if it seemed like I was. And since then, we've gotten a few more arguments to keep the articles separate, so it looks like consensus is more likely to lean that way. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose as they are two seperate games, despite their heavy similarities. It's like merging the AFL with the NFL, sort of. It would also give clearer differences between the two games if someone is trying to research, as I was a while ago. --Mr. DigDug 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. DigDug (talk • contribs)

Not sure I understand your reasoning. The AFL and NFL have quite a few differences between them (most notably different histories), just as the NL and AL (baseball) have, so it wouldn't make sense to merge them. But as I pointed out above, Plus is just a hack/adaptation of Pac-Man. The Plus article is currently very short, focuses mainly on how it's different from the original Pac-Man (much of that content can be condensed), and mentions that the game was unauthorized by Namco. If you stripped out the parts that are redundant to the main Pac-Man article, you'd have roughly a paragraph of text, maybe two. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Not sure I understand your reasoning. The AFL and NFL have quite a few differences between them." - that is his reasoning. What seems to be missing is explanation of what he perceives the differences between Pac-Man and Pac-Man Plus to be. D. Brodale 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Any other comments on this one? So far we have one stated Support and two open Opposes, but no continuing discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had to pick a camp, it would probably be Oppose (the merge). Granted, the cosmetic and gameplay modifications may seem minimal compared to Ms. Pac-Man, but unless I'm mistaken, it was offered as an upgrade package by Bally-Midway, new ROM and cabinet adornments included. That act places it apart from contemporary "hacks" like Hangly Man, and its contribution to tense relations between Bally-Midway and Namco (something unmentioned in the Pac-Man Plus article at present) sways me a bit more in the direction of opposing this merger suggestion. Clearly, there is need to spruce up the Pac-Man Plus article, as it goes a bit overboard in terms its relation to Pac-Man and vacillates on what is or is not significant alteration, but it was backed by a recognized game distributor at the time, however illicit that may have been. (This opinion may in part be influenced by more time spent on Pac-Man Plus than Super Pac-Man as a youth, however.) D. Brodale 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I took this from http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?game_id=8958

Game Introduction The programming is is a lot like Pac-Man except that the maze is outlined in green instead of blue. The prizes that appear in the middle of the maze are cans of Coke, cocktails, green beans, cakes, gift-wrapped boxes, etc. Whenever Pac-Man eats an energizer, the ghosts not only turn blue but they also get apple stems on their heads. On later levels, sometimes only three of the ghosts turn blue. Game Play The game plays exactly like the original except that there are various events (apparently selected at random) that may or may not occur after Pac-Man eats one of the four power pellets. These events include but are not limited to: the maze's structure becoming temporarily invisible, the ghosts turning invisible while they are blue, or only three of the four ghosts turning blue. The prizes in the middle of the maze can also act as a power pellet. Another difference is that later in the game the maze's structure becomes permanently invisible. The scoring system is exactly the same as in the original Pac-Man game.

Being that this was a Bally/Midway upgrade to Pac Man, and given the game description above, I think this game is unique enough to have its own article. I oppose merging the articles. Asher196 21:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I dissagree with the merge idea. I have found out something amazing, Pac-Man Plus was an official sequal and not one that Midway did without permission. Half of the sites on the internet say it was a Midway hack and the other half say Midway created Pac-Man Plus with Namco's permission. I have seen pictures of the Pac-Man Plus arcade machine and it clearly states the words "licenced from Namco". Also, Namco has re-realesed the game on 2 seperate ocaisans, The Super Pac-Man TV Game and most recently the mobile phone. This is clear evidence that Pac-Man Plus is an official game and worthey of it's own article. Ashum Besher 19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, I think that actually makes Plus LESS notable than it would be were it an unofficial hack, as it has less impact on the relationship between Namco and Midway. We have plenty of game articles where sequels and remakes of the game don't have their own separate articles (see Geometry Wars for an example). And as noted above, there's very little difference between the two games - maybe a paragraph or two. But if the reason for notability (that it is an unofficial hack and harmed relations between the two companies) is removed, then there's even less to describe the game than otherwise. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, thanks for the reply. Ashum Besher 08:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure I follow the logic that an unofficial hack would possess more notability (er, notoriety?) in this case, were Pac-Man Plus such a beast. What does seem evident is that there is lack of clarity in how others position the title, should we take the above characterizations of "what's out there on teh intarwebs" at face value. As a matter of curiosity, I wonder what to make of Rally-X and New Rally-X — yet another Midway/Namco pairing — two games sharing a relationship similar in some regards to that of Pac-Man and Pac-Man Plus. I still feel that the currect Pac-Man Plus article is at best a half-hearted attempt to describe its subject, taking as many pains to undercut its stated description as it does to describe the game in the first place. 09:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.brodale (talk • contribs)

Yes, I completly agree. Pac-Man Plus actually had a lot more differences to the original Pac-Man that New Rally-X did to the original Rally-X, so if New Rally-X is different enough to have it's own article, SURELY Pac-Man Plus should. I'm going to stick to my original desision - I oppose the merge. Ashum Besher 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

*sets up camp in the Support section of this debate* M1N 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:SIZE - I think the Pac-Man article is too long already. Heck, the section on ports alone is longer than the entire Pac-Man Plus article, and then there's the gallery, the ghost names, etc. I think adding the Pac-Man Plus info will make it even more unwieldy. --Birdhombre 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the section on ports should me reduced to mention only of the most notable ones (the 2600 version is the only one which really comes to mind at the moment). Kouban —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - to avoid leaving this a dangling conversation, it appears that Asher196 removed the merge tag from Pac-Man on 26 October 2007 (see edit log for his rationale), which forms some sort of closure. I've removed the matching tag from Pac-Man Plus today, for no other reason than conformity to this prior edit. Should the foregoing discussion be deemed as unresolved, someone will have to reinstate the merge tags on both articles. D. Brodale 21:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pac-Man was conceived in 1980

There have been quite a few alterations to this article concerning the release date. Based on the "verifiability" policy of Wikipedia, I ask that anyone wishing to use a date other than May 22, 1980 in Japan and May 27, 1981 in the U.S. verify the sources as Microsoft press and Namco Bandai Games Inc. press sections as sources before attempting to alter the article further. I have noticed that certain edits have been done merely for self-promotion, which I disagree with especially since the prior references were broken.

Also, please feel free to go to the offical websites of Namco Bandai Games America (console video games), Namco Networks (mobile and cellular phone games), and Namco America Inc. (coin-operated amusement game machines) to check that Pac-Man had his 25th anniversary in 2005, thus making his year of creation 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.26.125 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time new people at an old company got something wrong in their press release and website. Just look at some of the new Atari's mistakes on dates. Regardless, I don't know what edits you're calling for self-promotion, there's only been several people reverting your edits. And finally, it was Puck-Man (the Japanese version of the game) that was released in 1979, before the Midway licensed (and name changed) 1980 Pac-Man (That is what the press-release you keep trying to add is addressing). Other verifiable resources on that are here, here, and here to name a few. --Marty Goldberg 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

One other note: The Microsoft press release does not state a specific release date for the original Pac-Man. It mentions the year 1981, but that's it. The copyright date on the Midway release of the American version of Pac-Man also reads 1981, if memory serves, so that's verifiable at the year level only. BUT: So far, I have not found a reliable source anywhere that gives the specific date for the release. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And just to straighten one thing out - I did *NOT* add the reference to my own article here as I'm being accused of. A simple check of the history log verifies that. --Marty Goldberg 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually STILL don't see anything verifiable at more than a year level in the sources you mentioned three replies up. I would not count the NY Times photo and caption as a reliable source, and those three sources appear to disagree with each other about the actual release date (one claims it released in 1979, another says it was created in 1979 and released a year later, etc.).

Maybe we should just agree that this information is not verifiable? We obviously have to have something to show the release date of such an important game, but we may have to make do with the release year only, and most of the sources I've read so far agree that the game was released in 1980 in Japan, and 1981 in North America. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Midway US date, the original arcade flyer for pac-man states 1980 as does the original manual for the arcade game. So that also conflicts with the Microsoft press release. And the proposed Namco Bandai press release is in Japanese, so its not even a consideration for inclusion on the english wikipedia, besides all the verifiability problems that have been mentioned above. --Marty Goldberg 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles on WP that use citations in Japanese or other languages. For many, it's trivial to put them through a translation website such as Google Translate or Babelfish, and at least get the jist of what's being said there. I don't think we should automatically exclude the Namco Bandai release just because it's in Japanese... but as I pointed out, it only says "1980".

As for the Midway release: I was referring to the copyright year displayed at the title screen in the game itself. That date would accurately reflect the year the game was actually released - flyers were frequently printed far before the game was actually released, and thus the release date could change after they were printed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Found this one on Wired today. Notice the note at the botttom of the article: [2] Axion22 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting about that wired article. --65.87.26.125 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting also that that article cites Wikipedia as its source. :) Don't think we can use that one if WP itself doesn't cite reliable sources. However, their note about Namco disputing the date reported in that article does lend credence to the Japanese citation. (Continued at bottom) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiefer - Except that the copyright on the title screen also states 1980, and not 1981. So you have the manual shipped with the game, the flyer advertising the game, and the game rom inside the game all stating 1980. --Marty Goldberg 23:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the US Copyright Office (Originally created) Copyright PA0000083768 Work Creation Date 5-22-1980 [3] USPTO trademark (originally used domestically) First Use Dated 5-27-1981 [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.26.125 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Which clearly sates "Copyright Claimant: Midway Manufacturing Company", i.e. its simply when Midway was filing for copyright protection here in the US. States nothing about the Japanese release date or creation date of the game, and in fact further suggests that Puck-Man (which is listed as a previous work by Namco on the page) existed before Midway's creation date (1980-05-22), since Midway would of course be basing theirs off of the original. The only thing that would solve this would be to find Namco's filing papers in Japan and/or the engineering signoff of the game PCB. --Marty Goldberg 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Midway was the licensee, yes... and the creation date of the work, not the registration date. The owner was chaned in the supplement in 1982 when Namco assumed ownership in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.26.125 (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it refers to the creation date of Midway's and gives the filing date in the first line. Once again, nowhere does it state the Japanese creation date. And ownership being transfered is just that - ownership of a US copyright being transfered. Has nothing to do with the question the rest of us are trying to answer. --Marty Goldberg 23:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wgungfu: You're right about the title screen. I corrected that citation in the article based on that info. So, lemme ask: Does anyone know if the commonly stated "American release was approximately a year after the Japanese release" is actually true? I'm starting to think that the game was released in the States a lot sooner after Japan than most people realize. (Of course, this is all OR until we can find reliable sources for it all.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Until we can nail down actual Japanese production info as previously mentioned, we're at the mercy of modern press releases they may or may not be accurate. --Marty Goldberg 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as for the Japanese release date, I think a press-release from the company that owns the rights to the game AND originally created and produced the game is about as verifiable as it gets (thanks to the IP user for pointing it out). Regardless of the fact that the current citation is in Japanese, it qualifies as a reliable source by all of WP's standards, and so far I've been unable to find an official, verifiable English equivalent.

IP user also pointed out a "first commercial use" date for Midway's release ([5]), but the phrase "video game cartridges" in that page makes me think that has to do with a home console release, not the arcade release. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The current citation (now a WashingtonPost article) disagrees with Namco's own statement about the Japanese release date (off by one month), but I can accept it if we leave the release date at just the year. The only major conclusion we can get from this entire discussion is that there are a lot of so-called reliable sources that disagree with one another, and thus the fact itself becomes much harder to verify. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the Wired article that Axion pointed out above serves as a secondary or tertiary source backing up the original Japanese citation, and disputing the WAPost article. See above. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, I've reinstated the Japanese BandaiNamco press release and added the Wired Article as a backup source, since there are now two trustworthy sites with verifiable information. Short of getting a direct response from Namco Bandai itself, I don't think we're going to find a more conclusive set of references about the Japanese Pac-Man release date. As such, please do not revert or change this set of citations per WP:RSUE unless you can cite an ENGLISH Namco-Bandai press release that gives the same information, or otherwise can be fully verified.

An English source would be preferable, but WP:RSUE allows for foreign-language sources if no English equivalent is available, and so long as both the original text and the translation are both given in the citation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiefer - "Well, as for the Japanese release date, I think a press-release from the company that owns the rights to the game AND originally created and produced the game is about as verifiable as it gets". Actually, not really. As I stated, when a company has been around for a while (especially in the video game business) you have a high turnover rate and very few people left from that time period. The newer generation people who write up that stuff don't always check facts. Such as this press release Atari did saying Pong was 30 years old at the time or this history brief for the FB1 where they stated the Atari ST was launched in 1987. In both cases, because we (Legacy Engineering) have a working relationship with them we were able to talk to the people that needed talking to and have the info corrected: [6], [7]. That's common throughout the industry. Point being the current owner of the IP is not always the best source. --Marty Goldberg 02:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that if you can find a better source (and that if the source is actually verifiable), then by all means, let's use that source. But so far, I have not been able to find one that has more definitive information than what Namco has said. Yes, companies don't always get it right, but Namco has been around for quite a while, they have records of all their releases on file, and I doubt they'd make as big a deal as they did about Pac-Man's 25th anniversary if they didn't have their facts straight. Unless given evidence to the contrary, I'm of the opinion that the company is trustworthy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What the English expletive?

I see an ongoing edit war spread out over a long period of time over whether or not we should include a reference to the word "fuck" in this article, in regards to how vandals could easily change the title "Puck-Man" to... well, you know. Some people seem to be in favor of explicitly mentioning "fuck", while others say we should just have "an English expletive" there. I've seen edit summaries mention that we shouldn't include "fuck" in the article because of younger readers.

So, let's come to a consensus on this, shall we? Do we include "fuck" with a link? Or do we just indirectly reference it with "English expletive"?

Personally, I don't have a problem with either wording - the expletive is obvious enough that it doesn't REALLY need to be stated, but I don't see any harm in including it either. What are your thoughts? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment out of curiosity: this seems like an issue that must have been handled repeatedly, elsewhere. There's no general guidance or consensus on when it may be appropriate to be explicit with language? D. Brodale 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROFANITY has some guidelines. Since we're not using a direct quote from anyone, it's trivial to reword the article in a way :that doesn't include the word itself - mentioning that the "p" could be made into an "f" would be helpful, though, for hypothetical non-English-fluent readers reading from a printout or screen-reader. --McGeddon 19:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that there haven't been too many other places where this has been relevant - "Puck-Man" is really the only thing I can think of where someone could so easily turn it into an expletive. As such, it may be more notable than in other cases, but also I would think there'd be less of a precedent for this issue than one might think. (The only other situation where I've seen something frequently vandalized has been "Black Angus", where you remove or knock out the G. Even that, that hasn't led to a change in name or any international issues, like it has with this game.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to use a swear word 99.230.152.143 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"English expletive" strikes me as a somewhat twee euphemism - akin to "the Scottish play". (Also, any reader who needs to have the "puck/fuck" issue explained to them is probably not going to know the meaning of the word "expletive".)

If there is a general objection to the inclusion of the word "fuck" in the article, perhaps it would be better to include a link:

For the North American market, the name was changed from Puck Man to Pac-Man, as it was thought that vandals might change the P to an F. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. I see that we're still in conflict on this article, though - I've seen about a dozen variations of this, and I just changed it back to "English expletive" again. Think I'll use the example given here, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of the insistance of an IP user to add the "f" word to Pac-Man#Localization, I have added a source provided by User:Wgungfu. The source is Kent, Steve. Ultimate History of Video Games p.142 in which he writes "Before Namco showed Pac-Man to Midway, one change was made to the game. Pac-Man was originally named Puck-Man, a reference to the puck-like shape of the main character. Nakamura worried about American vandals changing the "P" to an "F." To prevent any such occurrence, he changed the name of the game." So now we have a source for this section which specifically does NOT use the "f" word. Asher196 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For full disclosure, User:Wgungfu is not taking sides in this argument. He simply provided me with the source.Asher196 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern 3D Pac Man

Shouldn't there be some sort of description or mention of the current 3D version of Pac Man? -TheDenzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.49.6 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Near the bottom of the article you will find a comprehensive list of all the Pac Man games. Asher196 04:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but shouldn't there be an image or description of the modern Pac-Man? -TheDenzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.49.6 (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're referring to a 3D rendering of the character. That would be appropriate for an article on the Pac-Man character/mascot himself (do we have such an article?), but this article is devoted to the original arcade game and the cultural phenomenon started by it. Different scope. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PacManCrt260007052004.jpg

Image:PacManCrt260007052004.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 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use rationale has been added to the image. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1979/1980 dispute

More than two months on from the above discussion, the article still mentions two contradicting dates for the Japanese release: 1980 in the infobox, and 1979 in the article text. If the correct date cannot be reliably determined, then these should either be removed or replaced with something along the lines of "circa 1980". 217.155.20.163 (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply removed the year from the History section since it wasn't needed anyway.Asher196 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably an oversight on my part - sorry. :) The one in the infobox (with citation) is the currently accepted date, so the one in the History section probably just wasn't updated to match. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pac-Man World 4: Spooky Returns

This is on the page entitled List of Pac-Man sequels. I do not recall hearing of a "Pac-Man World 4: Spooky Returns" video game coming out in 2008. You would think is would be mentioned on IGN.com or in Game Informer Magazine. What source dose this come from? --67.170.207.109 (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

I have no source, but this remark is at least funny: ;-)

“Computer games don’t affect kids - I mean, if Pacman affected us as kids, we’d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetetive electronic music.” Kristian Wilson (Nintendo Executive 1989)

Has anyone a good source on this? --Nemissimo (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pac-Man World Championship

I think the "Pac-Man World Championship" is missing in this article. I consider this fact as one of the most representative and important moments in the Pac-Man history, not only because eight countries around the world participated, because it's the first ever Pac-Man world championship to date 26 year after the release of the original Pac-Man game and could be the first and last world championship ever, also it was announced the retirement of Iwatani San and his last creation "The brand new version of Pac-Man the C.E. Edition".

I was considering the next text to be added in the article, maybe you could help me to add some more information about it adding some facts about the announcement of Iwatani San retirement and some other things like countries that participated, it’s up to you:

"The very first Pac-Man World Champion was crowned at the Supper Club on June 5th 2007, and it was a truly international affair – ten competitors from eight countries. The two top scorers, Austria’s Robert Glashuettner and Mexico’s Carlos Daniel Borrego, went head to head in one final five-minute round. Carlos Daniel Borrego emerged victorious with the title of Pac-Man World Champion and is now the proud owner of a one-of-a-kind XBox 360 console decorated with Pac-Man artwork and signed by Iwatani-san."

Also I have this external links about the Pac-Man world championship:

• Pac-Man World Championship Article on Xbox.com
• Pac-Man World Championship Article on Foxnews
• Pac-Man World Championship Article on New York Times

Thanks Wayne 201.151.229.232 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

All you had to do was include those references when you first placed your paragraph in the article and it most likely would have been left in place. If you don't know how to cite sources, see this page:Wikipedia:Citing sources ----Asher196 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Design staff

I can't find any references to the programmer to correct this and the Japanese version of the page doesn't even mention him, but as a Japanese speaker I can guarantee that "Hideyuki Mokajima San" is not a proper name. AFAIK, "Mokajima" is not a name in use in Japan and is probably "Okajima" or something similar. "San" equals "Mr" and is simply incorrect. Can anyone find a source to provide this person's correct name? Christophernicus (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The "It started from Pong" book claims that the game was programmed by Shigeo Funaki. The sound is attributed to Toshio Kai, which was already correct. I was bold and fixed the credits. 85.77.195.154 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Code

Perhaps this article should say what the code for unlocking Pac-Man in the Ms. Pac-Man - Galaga arcada game is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.12.31 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans?

From the article:

Pac-Man is believed to be a spirital representation, of the pain and suffering experienced by the Native Americans. This is shown throug the multi-colored ghosts, haunting the clearly American Style "Pac-Continent". The Ghosts, had wiped out all other Pac-People, leaving the final Pac Man. In this struggle for land, and pride, Pacman must achieve his goal: Save his homelands, from the multi-colored invaders.

Doubleyou Tee Eff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhennPhawcks (talk • contribs) 12:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nonsense and has been removed----Asher196 (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can kinda see where that comes from. It's like in literature class, where you read a novel and then dissect it. You go through all these metaphors and allegory type deals. But do you really think the author had all these literary devices in the front of his mind when he or she was writing?? Do you really think they were thinking something like, as they were writing, "I'll insert this specific term here because it supports the allegory constructed in the exposition that I made on accident..." No. So, in this case, Pac-man is the novel, and that article was written by someone from a literature class. Pac-man's father did not create that game for Native Americans. (Heck, it was born in Japan!! Shouldn't it then be Native Japan-ians??)

--Soon to be Mrs. Shirley —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Pac-Man in popular culture

This section is getting out of hand.Asher196 (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We tried for a while to police the "Popular Culture" sections of multiple articles, but it appears that we're still stuck with a slippery-slope situation. I think we're going to need to cut it completely. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be on a per article basis, via consensus of the regular contributors. I agree in cases such as this article its way to large. I do not agree with that for it in regards to every article as a whole though, and still think the current guidelines are good ones. They just need to be tweaked for cases such as this one, possibly expanding the current consensus directive (which is applied towards middle of the road examples) to all additions. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I whittled it down to just 5. I'm going to suggest an addendum to the current pop-culture guidelines at the project: 1) That appearances have to be directly related to the brand and/or character. I.E. someone naming themselves Pac-Man as a nickname because people feel he shares similar qualities is not directly related. An officially sponsored Pac-Man area in a theme park section is. 2) If there are multiple appearances (greater than 3?) in a specific medium, they should be combined and summarized. The way all the cartoon appearances are currently summarized in to a single paragraph is a good example. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I like what you have done. Much better.Asher196 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

More on other ports

You ought to have a little bit of info on the other ports besides the Atari 2600 one. 69.23.216.255 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?Asher196 (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Merchandise

I have added the pic of merchandise hereGears Of War 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kill Screen question

Does Pac Man Collecton For GBA have the Kill screen? Just Curious Because I dont really want my game to break and I do want to get to the kill screen! PacManFreakPacManFreak (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. While it's possible that the GBA version could have bugs that kill the game, the only way you could get the arcade version's kill screen is to have an exact emulation of the game - something that's extremely unlikely given the GBA has very low resolution and is most likely not powerful enough to run an arcade emulator. The GBA version is almost assuredly a port, so someone would have to deliberately program the port to act just like the arcade game in order to reproduce the bug. Namco's much more likely to have "fixed" the bug in the port by writing the game totally differently than it was written for the arcade.

Hope that makes sense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It does! Thank you! ^-^ PacManFreak (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's that F-word again

Just opening up a new discussion on the use or implication of the F-word in the article, since there's been a recent edit war on this topic. An IP user has advocated that we link to the fuck article in the section where we describe why "Puck Man" was changed to "Pac-Man" before coming to North America. I previously supported using "changed to [[fuck|an English expletive]]", but the current consensus is that we simply state "English expletive" without linking to the word in question. I personally don't have a problem with either version, but seeing as how this is a sensitive issue, we should make sure to discuss it per WP:BRD before continuing to fight over it in the article. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From the previous discussion - Because of the insistance of an IP user to add the "f" word to Pac-Man#Localization, I have added a source provided by User:Wgungfu. The source is Kent, Steve. Ultimate History of Video Games p.142 in which he writes "Before Namco showed Pac-Man to Midway, one change was made to the game. Pac-Man was originally named Puck-Man, a reference to the puck-like shape of the main character. Nakamura worried about American vandals changing the "P" to an "F." To prevent any such occurrence, he changed the name of the game." So now we have a source for this section which specifically does NOT use the "f" word. Asher196 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So, my question is: Does it actually matter whether the source uses the word or not? Anyone familiar with the English language will know exactly what happens if you change the P in "Puck" to an F - do we need to pussyfoot around about it? We don't censor things on Wikipedia, and someone interested in the topic of localization and vandalism (as well as on the English language, especially if it's not their primary language) may find the "fuck" topic interesting in this context. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about censorship, it's about appropriateness. "Fuck" is crude. My nine year old son was reading about Pac-Man, and I don't think he needs to click on the Fuck link. Wgungfu provided me with a source that was able to relate the history of the name without using the word, and we should be able to do the same. Asher196 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, leaving out specific words or links because of an arbitrary determination of propriety is censorship. Practically by definition! Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Second, if your 9-year-old son is browsing the internet without supervision or some sort of CyberNanny program, he is likely to come across much worse things than an encyclopedic dissertation on one of the oldest words in the English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.180.206 (talk • contribs)

I'll quote from WP:CENSORED, which you cited - " Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." Now, is FUCK appropriate in an article that is obstensively a childrens game? Asher196 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What that passage means by "appropriate" is whether the "potentially objectional content" is appropriate to the topic - NOT the audience. It is absolutely appropriate for a section that discusses the similarities between the words "Puck" and "Fuck" and the possibility of one being changed to the other to include a reference and/or link to the word "fuck". In fact, a link to puck may be in order, too, depending on whether your source is right and he was named for is shape, or the article is right and he was named after an onomatopoeia. Though it could be both since the Japanese love puns.
Actually, the passage you quoted supports my point more than yours: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness" - you are primarily focused on how you find it offensive to have profanity in or linked from an article about a classic video game - you are completely ignoring the issue of how it benefits the informational quality of the article.
And who ever declared it "obstensively[ sic] a childrens[ sic] game"? Pac-Man is for all ages, and I am sure there were a lot more teens than children in those arcades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.180.206 (talk • contribs)

It depends on what you mean by "matter", KS - in terms of the source, if we are quoting, it matters that we not misquote. If we are paraphrasing, then it doesn't matter, so long as we don't change the meaning of the source.
But either way, linking the article on fuck does not change the quote or intention of the sourced material. My contention is that by linking fuck, we lose absolutely nothing, and we gain by providing a connection to something which, as you say, may be of interest to people, especially nonnative English-speakers who are interested in cross-cultural differences, vandalism, and/or English profanity. By not linking it, on the otherhand, we stand a risk, though remote, of leaving non-native speakers mildly confused, and we gain absolutely nothing. In that sense, it does "matter".
Basically, there are clear benefits to linking to or even explicitly saying "fuck" in the article, and NO benefits that I can see to leaving it out. Except maybe keeping the word away from an article children like Asher's may be interested in - which is sound parenting, but not sound encyclopedia-writing, and therefore irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.180.206 (talk • contribs)

As Marty mentioned below (and I find myself agreeing with), the focus of the passage is not on the word "fuck" itself - that could have just as easily been something totally unrelated - but the fact that it would be more likely to be vandalized in that form than with the new name it took on afterward. So a dissertation on vandalism in general is more likely to cover the topic of interest, and the current revision already contains a link to the vandalism article. Also, I posit this: Native English speakers are 99.9% likely to either already know or easily figure out what the expletive is. People not as familiar with English will still be able to know that "puck" could be easily vandalized into an expletive (which frankly should be enough to describe the situation, regardless of what the expletive is), since the passage is worded as such. It does end up being a matter of context at that point, so I think leaving the link out is the better solution at this point.

In a nutshell: The point of the passage is to point out that it could be easily vandalized, not to explain what the resulting word would be. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, all I'm really doing is applying my formula for Pop Culture entries to this situation. Does it have to do directly with the subject matter, or does it have to do with something arbitrary that's just related to something about the subject matter? In this case, the word "fuck" is the latter. I find the formula works well in many matters like this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a little confused, KS. If the previous discussion ended with the inclusion of the link but not the text, when and how was the "current consensus" reached, if it differs from what was decided in discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.180.206 (talk • contribs)

The original discussion "ended" with my suggestion, but continued in the edit history at the time. I added the suggested phrasing (similar to yours), but it was quickly reverted and the reason given in the edit summary, and I didn't feel strongly enough about it to continue the debate. So I apologize for the confusion - it was "consensus" because it wasn't being contested at the time, but now that it is, the result of this discussion should serve as the running consensus on the issue at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think its a non-issue now since a direct passage from a book is being quoted in relation to the subject matter. The direct quote should not be changed to suit the anonymous IP's whims. Even if the direct passage were not there, there's no need to spell out the entire word as Asher mentioned, regardless of whether people aren't dumb as to what it refers to. It really has no place here - the central focus is on that they changed the name from Puck to Pack, which is what relates more directly to the article. If the word "Fuck" had a more direct context to the article, i.e. it had more to do with the design of the game and its characters, I could see including the word. But its just a brief passing footnote about a name change, which is a subject that can be talked about with or without mention of the word. And Keifer, if someone is interested in localism and vandalism, it'd be more appropriate to link to the article on vandalism. The context of the entire passage is not about the word "fuck" and what that word means - the definition and description of the word fuck plays no part in the article. The entire issue is about potential vandalism, that because of the letters in the name happen to be easy to change to a set of words to vandalize - Fuck, Suck, Dick, Lick, etc. - the key being vandalism and not a specific word itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good point, Marty, and well taken. I appreciate your candid response on this. That said, I find myself more in favor of leaving it the way it was before this leg of the discussion took place (without the link, on the grounds that it's not necessary, not that it is a matter of censorship). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No a problem, glad I could help out a little. My vote (so its on record), is to keep the direct reference quote and include no links as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What about other countries?

The references to popularity etc seem to deal overwhelmingly with the U.S. I don't have a problem with the U.S. having most space, but not to even mention the game's popularity in places such as the UK seems a bit off. Just about every British home computer had multiple clones available, and the name "Pac-Man" was extremely well known. From memory (I was only five in 1980!) the machines went by that name too, not "Puck-Man", so if my memory hasn't failed me (always possible!) the phrase "Puck Man machines can be found throughout Europe" needs to be changed, since the UK is part of Europe! 86.136.250.66 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because being from another country I can attest to the fact that Pac Man was HUGE in Latin America (especially with the introduction of the Atari 2600). Which brings me to another point, no one I know of criticized the flickering ghosts...that must have been in the US only. AND the image to highlight that, TOTAL EXAGGERATION. They did not flicker like that, it was much more subdued. This especially comes across as a POV from someone who just disliked the Atari platform. 70.171.231.243 (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting here. If there's a problem with lack of attention to international popularity, we should definitely address it. But I'm pretty sure nobody here is trying to push any POV about the Atari platform - the fact is, the 2600 version of Pac-Man was widely regarded as a very poorly written game.

If you're using Mozilla Firefox, there is a known issue with some animated GIFs that will cause them to animate at a much faster framerate than they were intended to animate. The image file itself is as close to real-time on the flickering as possible - each frame has a 20ms delay (I downloaded the image and verified this). Ideally, the delay would be 16ms, but the GIF89a format only allows delays in increments of 1/100th of a second, instead of 1/1000th. By contrast, I noticed in IE7 that the image seems to be animated much more slowly than it should be. Unfortunately, it looks like we may just have to make do with this being an imperfect representation, due to browser limitations.

I'd like to remind everyone here that it's important to assume good faith in others' contributions. In this case, I believe the people working on this article made a good-faith effort to get the image right, to properly represent the game's reception, and to find sources that back that up. 70.171.231.243: If you can point us to a good source that tells us more about the game's popularity in Latin America, we'd love to see it and incorporate it into the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Intermissions

Does anyone know what the third intermission is. The intermissions are not detailed in the article, and I think they should be, but I only know the first two intermissions. Bytebear (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The intermissions used to be detailed here, but were removed per consensus as being too detailed and trivial, and not really helping the average reader understand the article in general. In answer to your question, though: The third intermission showed the red ghost with the corner of its "suit" sewn back on, chasing Pac-Man across the screen, then showing a pink squid-like thing running back across the screen dragging the suit behind it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ah, that's right. Although I believe the pink squid thing was the ghost without the cloak on him, but I guess it's open to interpretation. Now if it were in the article, it wouldn't be asked. Was the intermissions the first "cut scenes" ever used in arcade/video games? It seemed unique to the game at the time. I think maybe it's time for concensus to reverse, too. A brief explanation of each cut scene seems appropriate. Anyway, thanks for the info. Bytebear (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dedicated Handhelds

Unless I've missed it in this rather large article, there seems to currently be no explicit mention of the various officially licensed Pac-Man dedicated handhelds, for example the well-known Coleco mini-arcade cabinet model[8], and the Tomy "disk" model[9]. Shouldn't they be added? Clayhalliwell (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Pac-Man Dossier

An IP user has been adding a link to the "Pac-Man Dossier", a long and highly technical document that describes, in detail, a lot of the technical aspects of the Pac-Man game program and how to exploit its bugs. There's currently a bit of an edit war as to whether this document should be linked from the WP article, so I figured I'd start a discussion on it.

I read the Dossier and was impressed with it - it makes a lot of the ins and outs of the game make more sense than they did before, and it's written in a way that is easy for most people to understand. But I wonder if it's too technical, and more importantly, if it fits within the external links guidelines. Parts of the document describe programming details, like how the individual ghosts make their turn decisions, etc., and other parts describe gameplay strategies, how to maximize score or exploit bugs, etc. The overall scope of the document is well beyond the scope of the WP article.

Further, while I can vouch for at least most of the document making sense and being verifiably correct, it isn't likely to be considered a reliable source. It may also qualify as original research. I want to get other people's opinions on this, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why an external link could not be technical. Is that not the very reason it is an external link and not something included directly in the article? FWIW, the Pac-Man Dossier is also used as a reference for explaining the ghost behavior, so you'd be doing a disservice to the article's informativeness if you removed it.

Also, OR only forbids you from putting self-researched and unverifiable information directly into a Wikipedia article. We can probably debate endlessly whether an individual person's web page is a reliable source, as you mention, but as long as it's not obviously false or debunked elsewhere on the web, it can be treated as a source. I think you're being needlessly harsh on this.

I need not mention that it is a mighty fine piece of text that finally explains some of the quirks of Pac-Man. For the record, I am not the author nor do I have anything to do with him. 85.77.227.153 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the only question is whether it's verifiable and considered a reliable source, as per the Wikipedia policies. I mean, I can look at the disassembly and determine that the ghost behavior is indeed as explained in that document, so I'm not disputing that the document is accurate. I think the fact that's it's being hosted on Yahoo! detracts a bit from its credibility, but I'm not the one to make that decision, really.

Slot Machine

WMS gaming made a Pac-Man slot machine but as far as I know it was never released to Las Vegas area. I saw the machine on the website, read the bonus games, but it was never released in Nevada! Does anyone know if it EVER was released (maybe in Atlantic City or Connecticut?) and should it be included somewhere in the maine article? 70.180.231.90 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please understand, I'm not trying to slight the document or its author. I'm just trying to make people aware that it's a good document at perhaps not the best of locations, especially since I saw a revert or two having to do with it earlier on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)