This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Lot of mentions about developing in this article - look through the linked game articles and it seems the developer was someone else. Smells like too much development credit is going to Accolade in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the list of employees present when Infogrames obsorbed Accolade seem a little over the top? Does each person really need a wikilink? Is each person really important enough to justify an entire article? I think I'm probably the only person who watches this article, so I doubt I'll get any response, but I think we should either shorten it or totally delete it. Thoughts? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and delete the whole list with the exception of the executives. I don't have any great love for any of them, but they are the ones who are most likely to have articles written for them. Alan Miller, for example, was an influential member of the young video game industry.
The entire list was full of broken links—none of the people had an article on them and it is unlikely that more than 10% would ever have an article written on them. Some appeared to have articles, but they, in fact led to different people. Only 1.5 links led to correct entries, but they really don't need to be linked to from here. No other articles do this. If you disagree please discuss here first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
re: deleting the incomplete staff list and replacing it with executive staff seems fine: while the staff list was great for nostalgia, it was perhaps excessive (and at what point would it ever be considered comprehensive enough without being unwieldy?)
This article has gone through several name changes, but the last one, to "Accolade (developer)", seems inappropriate. While Accolade was a video game developer, they were primarily a publisher. Near the end of their existence, very few of their games were developed internally. Also, being labeled a developer implies that they developed games for other publishers, which they never did. Therefore, I propose that we rename this article to "Accolade (publisher)". Any objections? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha-ha, you truly are the only one with this page in watchlist. To be honest, this is exactly the kind of thing a development task force would be responsible for. Currently there are randomly assigned "(company)" "(game company)" "(game developer)" "(developer)" tags. I would argue developers-only are (game developer); publishers-only are "(game publisher)"; mix of both are "(game company)"; mix with other disciplines/industries are (company). This preserves both precision, unambiguous naming and hierarchy.— H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, my comment was almost two years old. I wouldn't mind "Accolade (game company)", but the current title is just wrong. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I support the move. Unless you propose a move or otherwise put the discussion outside this talk page, I do not think there will much more response.— H3llkn0wz ▎talk 19:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I finally got around to moving it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)