Talk:Banjo-Kazooie (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Review scores[edit]

(diff)

Do not include GameRankings unless it adds value atop or in the absence of Metacritic (e.g., games that predate Metacritic).
— WP:VGAGG

This was the core consensus from the discussion. The GR reviews are identical to the Metacritic reviews in your reverted version of the table and there is no cause for keeping them. czar 17:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You made the change yourself, that wasn't exactly the wording everyone voted for. The consensus prior to that is completely different and i'm inclined to even say "Misleading". Lucia Black (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Re: "misleading", that was the exact sentiment if not wording, actually. I don't see why the discussion is now in double jeopardy because it didn't fit your specific rationale. But more importantly, what is your rationale for keeping GR in this article? czar 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not about whether it fit my specific rationale. I'm just sticking with what i know had a consensus versus what wording you chose based on the consensus. The consensus that i know was done was based that GR wasn't relevant in newer titles, not that its irrelevant because its too similar to metacritic. Lucia Black (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the reading of consensus is best done in another forum, but... czar 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What is your rationale for keeping GR in this article? What value does it add? czar 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm remembering the passive aggressive such as ignoring key questions or point altogether . So I'll stay firm on this just to be clear. The consensus and your word choice when you changed the aggregator usage document are not the same. But with that said, they are not all virtually the same score. Some are marginally different by a few percentage. Which is significant for an aggregator review score. Not all of them are by the decimal. That and these scores existed before mc. Lucia Black (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are contesting WP:VGAGG as a statement of consensus, this is obviously not the right forum. I suppose it's time for a third party. czar 00:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you are listening. The changes you made don't reflect consensus. Lucia Black (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Prose that was converted to table[edit]

While I'm here... I disagree with converting the series article from a prose format to a table format, per Manual of Style - MOS:TABLE#Prose. -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not what i'm intending to do at all. Yes it covers the game section into a table. I was inspired by the featured article, Mana (series)But it will be expanded. My main goal is to add a "Development", expand the "reception" and "legacy" section. And even planning on re-organizing into a "Common elements" section. But just to re-iterate, i do not intend to turn the article into a "table format". Just for now, its mainly dominated by the table format. I will add more prose. Lucia Black (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :I'm not a fan either, especially when there is essentially so much prose being crammed into the table format. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I would give Mana's featured article promotion a read, as the table was mentioned several times in a neutral or negative way... back in 2008. It's an older FA, and things are a fair bit stricter these days. Instead, I think Final Fantasy and The Legend of Zelda are better FAs to use as a model (As mentioned in Mana's FA promotion as well). Neither uses a table. Edit: Struck Zelda, it was delisted. Final Fantasy is still a great FA series article though. -- ferret (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate either. Tables are for quantitative info, not qualitative. Putting development history in there especially doesn't work. Ozdarka (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 Final Fantasy is good but also is extremely massive and has external lists to do the listing for it. Same for Legend of Zelda, that's probably the main reason why they were able to avoid it. Articles like Mana (series) and Saga (series) don't have the benefit. But with that said, i do intend to work on the table. For one, i'm going to remove the plot and move it to a plot section. The overall plot of the Banjo Kazooie series is easy to summarize. Lucia Black (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
additionally the goal is not to out all dev history into the table. More info will be added separate from the table including dev history. Lucia Black (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with reverting the table. Prose in paragraphs is more accessible. czar 02:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't have an issue with prose. I only have issue with how its organized now. One section per game is unnecessary and makes table of contents overbearing to look at. Especially when it tries to divide information by each game rather than the series as a whole. Lucia Black (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it looks much better now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm still wanting the compromise of no individual section for games. Not even Fabula Nova Crystallis does this. I would really appreciate a little leeway here. Especially since there are very few articles I can work on and we're only talking about this by chance. Lucia Black (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What leeway do you want? If you want to remove the subsection headers, I think that would be ok, seeing as there's only a paragraph per game as is. As for Fabula Nova Crystallis, that list format is bad too. Manual of Style should win out here. Another option would be to use Template:TOC limit to keep the game sub-sections out of the TOC, if your main worry is an unwieldy TOC. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't oppose the FNC layout, though I don't think its an improvement either... Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Or another thought: Remove the "Main Games" header level, so everything moves up one header level. But if you want to see a really long TOC, just look at Call of Duty. :) -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm basically trying to create a GA article. I'm not sure what FNC is doing wrong. But clearly call of duty is doing something wrong. Its not even GA. I'm trying to get this at GA. Maybe even Featured. But the leeway is essentially trusting me a little more. Some of the things I feel should are second nature are being questioned. Unless you all are intending to take it upon yourselves to turn this into GA, I don't think the current format works at all. Lucia Black (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

GA requires MOS compliance, so MOS:TABLE#Prose is going to apply in my view, regardless of any "leeway" being given. A long TOC is not really a ding at GA, though. All your other plans for the article are great in my view. It might be best to finish your plans for a development, gameplay and plot sections first, which may eliminate the need for the current sections entirely. But without those sections currently being finished in the article the current sections for games need to stay as prose. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to get into that. But no one even wanted to give me a chance on working on this it's beyong frustrating that all this time I could've made those sections instead of discussing whether the table hold value. I'm serious, is anyone here actually invested in the article to turn it GA? Lucia Black (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what reply you want. No one has ever suggested this is the only format the article should have, or that you shouldn't make those other sections. Only that the current sections should not be converted into a table, per MOS. If later work makes those sections unnecessary, so be it. As for turning the article to GA, the article is a long way from B currently, and the "Main series" sections is the least of the issues. -- ferret (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I know that it's not even close to By. But forget it. Honestly. I just want to improve Wikipedia. Lucia Black (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the text ("prose"), I vote in favor of using a (sortable) table to present series-relevant information instead of a simple reductionist timelines (e.g., Banjo-Kazooie_(series)#Games). It is tedious to search through the text and individual articles and misses the possibility of direct comparison. Of course, only important criteria of the titles should be included in the columns. Hippo99 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to join: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Video_game_series:_Template:Video_game_timeline_vs_Template:Wikitable_sortable_vs_Template:Video_game_titles Best regards, Hippo99 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)