Talk:Dance Dance Revolution/Archive Encyclopedic merge debate

Merging of subarticles into a single encyclopedic article

Resolved

 – proposal rejected

The individual articles primarily vary from each other in terms of the list of songs and details regarding the release (market, date, name of release). The entire series would be better represented by a single, well-written article on the series rather than by needless duplication and listing or minor, non-encyclopedic differences between the versions. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you crazy? There are so many versions of the game, each game's collection of new songs increasing almost every time, the fact that the game is in arcades, on the PS2, PS1, Game Boy, Dreamcast, XBox, XBox 360, N64, and probably other systems, there is WAY too much variance between the games to warrant one huge article. sherl0k 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps one for the arcade versions and one for the game system versions? The listing of the individual songs is not encyclopedic, and the proliferation of the articles is not useful. A single, or very few, well-structured articles will do much better at presenting the information than the current out-of-control set of articles. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the listing of each song IS encyclopedic, and coming from someone who has playing the game for over 6 years, The proliferation IS useful. You don't see Wikipedia grouping certain animals together just because they're from the same family and have little differences, why would you group a series of videogames together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherl0k (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The listing of each song is a large amount of needless detail. I'm trying to propose changes to make this into a better coverage of the game, not a bigger coverage—the two are not the same. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When a game revolves mainly around the MUSIC in the game, one would assume that listing the songs inside said games is pretty notable, I would say. How is that not encyclopedic? If anything you're worsening the coverage by removing pertinent information from the articles. For further reference, please take a look at Guitar Hero and Guitar Hero II. Removing the songs in the articles will greatly reduce the amount of information about each game. What you assume to be needless many others see as a necessary addition. sherl0k 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dance Dance Revolution games are like music albums. They are released like jukeboxes with different sets of music over a period of time. Listing each game as a seperate entity is much more orginized that listing the differences between each release a single, bloated article. You don't put a bands entire discography in a single article just because all the albums were released by the same people, regardless of whether or not songs were repeated or remixed. You don't have a single article for every single Mario game just because he's the main character of each game. This is the same circumstance. I do propose that the articles in question be better organized, the individual articles need to share a level of uniformity that they currently do not, but that's talk for those pages. This article is meant to reflect information on Dance Dance Revolution the series/pop culter icon/etc. It is a launching point into more detailed articles about a specific mix or version of the game. AeronPrometheus 06:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The games are not like albums. The articles on the games contain zero discussion of characteristics of the songs. They simply list the songs. There is, frankly, no value in that comparison. Mario games are sufficiently different from one another that the articles about the games are not created by first copy-pasting the article about the previous game, so that comparison is valueless. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to go that route, the first three Sonic the Hedgehog games are all very strikingly similar (grab the rings, beat the boss at the end of the stage) yet all three have separate articles. Also the Game Gear version has its own article, which has the same premise.

Furthermore, removing the songlists from the articles is akin to removing a listing of colors to the rainbow. It's what makes the game what it is. sherl0k 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could work on the Sonic games next, but the fact is, there's only three of them. There's much more to gain with my time trying to improve the organization of the information on this collection of articles. You can keep parading straw men in here, but it would be more helpful to discuss improving the Dance Dance articles instead of continuing to make faulty comparisons. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The organization is far from flawed. Each game has its own set of songs, and yes the games DO repeat songs. But that doesn't mean that the information is any less pertinent or encyclopedic. As amusing as it may sound, the actual [Encyclopedia] article explains this within the first line, being as though the inclusion of the songs is not only comprehensive but also extends one's branch of knowledge on the subject. Someone going to play a certain version of the game would want to know if a specific song is on there; A quick look at the song list will tell the user if the song is included or not. Being an avid player of the game, and one who would want to ensure that people who WANT to know more can get as much pertinent information about the game possible, the listing of songs in the game is actually a bigger factor than one would think.sherl0k 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<dedent>there are exactly 950 songs released among all official arcade and console versions
Just exactly how is it encyclopedic to list 950 different songs, many if not most of them dozens of times for different variants of the game? The Guitar Hero games you reference doesn't need the songs listed to be a good article on the game, but the modest number of songs can be listed in the article without overwhelming it. So in that case, the songs could stay or go, but adding them is not detremental to the encyclopedic coverage. I would argue for removing the song lists from the articles, but it's a subjective call. That same statement does not hold true to a series with over 90 variantions on the same theme and different combinations of the song available on each. Having individual articles on each variation of the game is frankly mind numbing, and attempting to list every song for every variation is over the top. That level of detail is simply not suitable for an encyclopedic coverage of the topic. We wouldn't list 950 different levels in a arcade game—it doesn't add to an understanding of the game. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought, then: on arcade styles, mention new songs and removals from previous editions (given that, admittedly, the lists are rather unwieldy on most later mixes). On console editions, list complete songlists. The songs ARE a key part of the game, which is why under no circumstances would I advise removing them from the entries. (To be honest, I like the current setup, but as a last resort I want my input given.) -FJArnett 07:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current setup at all, and an individual article on each game makes perfect sense. There's no reason to change anything. sherl0k 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The merger is in no means necessary. The articles are neither stubs, nor are they cruft. They're seperate titles per WP:GAMES.--WaltCip 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well I expected my suggestion would meet resistence because at least the first people responding would most likely be the people that have spent so much time creating the current collection. It's like in writing a book—it can be hard letting go of chapters written when the editor wants to axe them to improve the work as a whole. When I get some more time I'll do a preliminary analysis of what the differences between the various articles are (other than the song lists). I suspect that will make a much more forceful argument. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the enormous game popularity, enough to create literally dozens of different games, surely warrants different articles for each game. The current DDR article deals with the game phenomenon and history, while each game's article deals with the specifics. Maybe we can organize the whole deal better; there's no need to have a separate article for every and each game, but surely we can merge into "main articles" for each one of the main branches (by arcade mixes, and some extra articles for several remarkable console spin-offs). So instead of having one article for each Extreme Arcade, Extreme Console version, and Extreme 2, you have one for Extreme, listing console ports and differences between them and the main game branch. We don't need one article for each of the three Ultramix releases, with one it's enough. We don't need separate small articles for each of the licensed DDR games: Oha, Tokimeki, Disney, etc., instead we have an article about them. We could reduce the number of articles and repeated stuff by half at least. About the song lists: I doubt that it's encyclopedic, each game article should have a list of the notable "new" songs and not much else. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Putting as example other lists which fall within that category is not an excuse for their existence. I would consider more important to have a list of all Van Gogh paintings instead, but we only have a list of important, relevant paintings. Same should happen with this, just that the list of remarkable DDR songs is more a matter of trivia and it should be merged into the corresponding article, IMHO. To sum it up, I agree to some extent with the OP and some points that there are many articles about DDR games, but I don't think they should all be merged into one huge article. --Pi (π) 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now we're getting somewhere! When I made the proposal to merge everything into a single article, I actually expected that a middle position such as Pi72 suggests might be the resulting decision. I wholly support the idea. I'm sure I would favor greater consolidation into fewer articles wherever such a choice could be made, but would have no problem with a well-considered set of articles that covered the truly different classes of the game. Nor would I have an issue with discussion of some of the songs—it is the unencyclopedic listing of every song for every version that I take issue with. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe now we're onto something. I always think that balanced solutions are often a better option than going to any extreme. I also thought, from the first time I saw this article, that this article, the game articles and everything DDR related was poorly structured. I'm sorry, I'm a bit noobish in Wikipedia so I don't know how would such a restructuration would happen. Should each superfluous article be nominated to be merged into its main "game branch" article separately? Do we have to agree first on a good, sensible and well-thought structure before starting any action? Maybe we should have a talk at the CVG WikiProject first, prepare a draft of the proposed changes, and only then begin the work? Would it be enough with a poll here? I'm not sure what's the best course of action.--Pi (π) 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Really any of those options is workable. Gathering consensus is what this discussion is about. Once there is general consensus to make a change, then the specifics can be hammered out. We're not there yet though as I'm sure other people will weigh in with their opinions on the general consensus issue. Hopefully in a day or two this thread will reach a point of general consensus on how to proceed, but it's best not to assume that two people agreeing is consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that more would be lost than gained if every single article is flattened into a single page. There would simply be too much information to look at, and would result in someone else coming along and requesting that the page be broken into smaller chunks. What would be a good idea is if SOME articles be merged. Here's an example:

Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME

Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME (Japanese PlayStation 2)

Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME (American PlayStation 2)

Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME 2

One would look at those four and say that they should all be one article, because they're all part of the EXTREME "series". However, being someone that knows a lot about Dance Dance Revolution, I can tell you that that is only partially correct. The first two are related, the Japanese PlayStation 2 version of EXTREME is a direct port of the original arcade version. While the two do not share the same song list they are closely enough related that they could be considered two sides of the same coin. The last two are a different story. EXTREME and EXTREME 2 in America are not tie-ins with the original version. They simply share the namesake because, to avoid a prolonged explination, Konami wanted to reuse the name in a market that had not yet seen it. Even EXTREME 2 doesn't relate to the original EXTREME or even the American EXTREME. In fact, aside from the names of all four being similar, there is nothing about the last two games listed that relate them to the first two. The song list is different (To say the least), the user interface is different, even the scoring engine is different. All you have left is the fact that they're all DDR games and they have a common titling scheme. I would suggest that a system be put in place (By those of us familier with the series) to link arcades and their home version ports but have the indiginous versions retain a seperate article. This would definitly reduce the total number of articles and still allow for detailed descriptions of each game (themes, song lists, unlocks, etc...) without overwhelming a single article or making too many. Pi, you mentioned that you don't need a list of every single painting done by Van Gogh. What if I wanted to see or learn about all the painting you personally deem unimportant? Just because you don't have extensive knowledge of a subject doesn't mean anyone else should be denied such knowledge if they seek it. That's what an encyclopedia was meant for, to give as much relevent knowledge to whomever would want it. And personal opinions aside, what you and Doug seem willing to part with is in fact relevent information on the games, and the series as a whole. So, could an agreement be made to merge obvious ports/appends/alternate versions into single articles, remove any stubs until someone can come along and flesh out the information on missing games, and leave this main article, as I pointed out a few posts up, to information regarding the series, pop culture reference, etc. as a whole. AeronPrometheus 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitary section break 1

Although I know a bit about DDR, I'm by no means an expert; I was putting the Extreme games as examples, and the proposals of the specifics for a new reorganization should be done by experts. I agree with almost all the points on AeronPrometheus comments, except that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have encyclopedic articles, not monographs with *every* possible information about a subject. I think we can agree on that. We might disagree where the line is, for example, I think that listing every Van Gogh painting is better suited for a reference work, not for an encyclopedia, and same goes for song lists of every DDR game. I don't deny the knowledge, I just think that Wikipedia is not the place for such kind of data, instead it should reference other reference works, for example, sites with DDR song databases (and I know at least two). That's just my opinion, of course. Some things said in Wikipedia and Meta might seem to say that Wikipedia should contain as much data as possible; but judging by how some things, or better said, many things are left out of a lot of articles, and specially by reading WP:NOT, it's actually not the case. At best, complete song lists for every DDR game are trivia. Talking about DDR stuff, I think this article should be more or less left as it is, but I also think it needs a major clean-up, and notice that this article is both about DDR as game series, and about the first DDR game, and then contains a list of DDR releases when there's another article for DDR games... I think that it's a bit of a mess, and I agree with Dough that a revamp and some restructuration is needed. The specifics are left for when we reach a consensus that such restructuration is needed, and then people can say what should be merged and kept, and how.--Pi (π) 12:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Pi. And if you could, go ahead and drop those links you mentioned at the bottom of the article just to put them out there. I might not have seem exactly what you're talknig about before. Though, the thing about sending people to other websites to look for complete song lists is that seldom does a website get everything right at the same time. Wikipedia can do what those countless fan sites cannot, get the whole thing done up correctly. However if we can find a standing site somewhere else that can provide in full, without making the user go through several links, the information that you two would classify as trivia, then that would work as an alternative. I still think that the pages should be brought up to spec before a judgement call specifically related to the track lists can be made.

ALL of the pages need a massive overhaul, that is without question. I didn't really realize how bad it was until I looked through them last night. The page Dancing Stage shouldn't even exist. Not only is it a stub, it has incorrect visual references and it should redirect to this article with a subarticle that mentions why (Without mention here to avoid a prolonged post). I have already and intend to continue improving the articles as they stand, when I find time. I'm also going to sit down and find out which articles should merge and which should retain their sovereignty. I'll make my suggestions to that effect forthwith.AeronPrometheus 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

<dedent>Ok, it seems that we're starting to make a broader agreement, but I'd also like to know the opinion of the people who commented about the merging in the beginning of this discussion, now that the targets and ways of merging have been specified quite differently to what Doug stated initially. Also, a restructuration of a whole set of articles, rather than just one article, might mean that we should talk about this deeply before making any action, and reach to a good amount of agreement (maybe not in the specifics, but surely in the merging-by-parts concept). I really need to put one of those "depression" templates in my user page, because right now I can't really commit to much more than giving my opinion. I have another Wiki project (Gil Elvgren, see my user page, sandbox two) stalled for a week. But I'd like to see DDR covered in a better way. I suggest to open a subpage in this talk dealing solely with the restructuration, which articles it covers, if it should be made, and how it should be made, so people knows were are we going with all this, and there are no hard feelings in any side. I'll try to find the two song databases I was talking about, one is incomplete, but advancing, and the other is highly complete with a lot of Bemani games, not only DDR, but my bookmark is like 2mb... Gimme time! --Pi (π) 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No merging should happen. Madden games have seperate articles, as do yearly baseball game series (MLB, MVP and so on), same goes for other sports games. Plus other annual titles that are sequels: Mario Party and so on. One long article isn't a good idea at all. Another example: movies and their sequels aren't one long article, games deserve seperate articles as well. RobJ1981 11:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about one huge merged article anymore; we're talking about a needed revamp and restructuration, and merging some unneeded articles into better covered articles. About the examples you've put, maybe they need merging, maybe not, and I think each case should be considered separately. Maybe the Madden games shouldn't be merged, but I think that, e.g. Oh No! More Lemmings should be merged with Lemmings because it has barely nothing new compared to the original (nothing notably different, I mean), besides 100 new levels. Having a new article where 95% of the data is repeated is pointless, IMHO. Other Lemmings sequels which are different and contain enough novelties surely grant a different article. I just put it as an example, nothing more. But that's what we're doing right now, considering what and how should be merged (if you've read the whole discussion). What there's now is separate articles for the console versions, and sometimes they're not needed because they're exactly like the arcade versions but with less songs, and other times they're totally different and deserve a different article. I also want to comment something else about song lists: Wikipedia shouldn't offer what other fansites can't offer. Other fansites, or other places, books, whatever, are references used in Wikipedia, and not the reverse. Wikipedia needs to reference something, and if there's nowhere to reference, Wikipedia can't and shouldn't contain unreferenced material. If the only place to find a complete songlist is Wikipedia, then it's absolutely original research, and that goes against one of the oldest and strongest Wikipedia policies. If there are places which contain these songlists, and they're only copied into Wikipedia, I don't see the point either, it's too much fancruft/listcruft. But, at the same time, I think that in the whole mess, songlists are low-priority, and they can be left aside while the merging (or not merging) happens. Let's focus on one step at a time, if that's ok with all of you. Btw I added links to a couple song databases, but I'm not sure of how really complete they are. If anyone wants to check... I also noticed that some songlists have been already deleted, as per AfD process. The MAX2 songlist has been deleted, for example. --Pi (π) 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The two pages you linked to where ones I knew about but haven't looked into. However I don't think either of them will be much help, bemanistyle is about the Bemani series of games as a whole and they care more about the most popular series like Pop'n'music and beatmaniaIIDX. DDRUK has for year had long standing problems with the continuity of its information and are in no hurry to fix it. However, I did remember I have a link to a Japanese page that has a very concise list of the mixes and their songlists. That's the problem though, how many people on the English Wiki can read Kanji? If it's Wikipedia's policy to provide information to those who could otherwise not get to it easily then the songs should be part of each mixes' article. If the information doesn't exist coherantly outside of Wikipedia then it can't be posted because it's viewed as original research. If the information does exist somewhere else then users have to go there themselves away from Wikipedia. In the specific case of the songlists I would be forced to make a website outside of Wikipedia for the explicit purpose of linking to it from a Wiki article. Thus making the No Original Research article pointless cause they will be there in one form or another. Knowledge has to start somewhere...

I seriously thought Wikipedia was meant to allow people to find the info that they were looking for in one place, and only linked elsewhere when having that info on the page would violate a certain copyright law. With the issues presented here Wikipedia seems to me as not much more than a glorified search engine assembled by the masses. And that's only if an article is written correctly. As it stands the DDR articles contain random patches of information, a mis-matched series of articles, and fixing them with the missing info would also make them in violation of Wikipedia's terms. So their existance is then what? A brief summery of what DDR is so someone will get the reference if they hear the acronym thrown around at the local mall? I fear that people coming to Wikipedia to learn about DDR would be in for a let down when they get a few sentances abouth the existance of the games and then sent on their way through articles linking to websites that don't do any better a job at providing information about them. If someone's already taking it into their hands to remove things from the articles that are still in discussion isn't that also a violation of Wikipedia's terms. Or can I go vigilante on the articles as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AeronPrometheus (talk • contribs) 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I'd be inclined to agree that they should be all merged into one article, as they are essentially the same game. Nothing wrong with that, as they article can differentiate the versions. Fr0 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To AeohPrometheus: I don't think you're really getting well what Wikipedia is, and what its aims are. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not the ultimate repository of every bit of information (at least not yet). Just a compendium of knowledge which summarizes larger works, but not a compendium of all the larger works. I suggest you to read, if you've not done yet, several articles about these things: Wikipedia's Five Pillars (specially the first one, with the details), Policies and guidelines and What Wikipedia Is Not (specifically "not an indiscriminate collection of information"). An encyclopedia is not a huge collection of monographs to gather everything to cover each subject. Maybe I'm getting a bit technical here, but have you ever read the article Encyclopedia? Or Compendium, since it is in the definition of Wikipedia? Specifically answering your post, external links are included mainly as references, something which every single bit of information in Wikipedia should have: verifiable sources (although paper references are preferred). External links in the "see also" sections are provided for people seeking for completeness and other reference works. About the people who might be already changing things in articles, you first have to think if those edits could be explained by normal maintenance; an editor might find inappropiate certain stuff in an encyclopedic article, and then delete or move it. Certain song lists have already been deleted per the "Articles For Deletion" process; an article is nominated to be deleted, and after some discussion, an administrator deletes it or not depending on the result of the discussion and reasoning in it. Listcruft is quite despised in Wikipedia. Do not take it as personal attack, and don't worry since all changes can be reversed, and information can be extracted from deleted changes to be, for example, posted in another article. --Pi (π) 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just pit in my word here, even though i don't work on DDR articles often. The list of songs is NO LONGER A PROBLEM. General Consensus has deleted all song lists completely. So I fail to understand why everything in this debate has been over the issue of a trivial list...... On the other hand, merging would indeed be a bad idea, as each of the games is indeed a separate of the entire franchise. Some of the articles are stubs true, but it IS IMPOSSIBLE, to merge all 36 articles together. Not only would that go against WP:GAMES, it would create a 3 MB article. God heavens if wikipedia needs that... Each arcade series page has its own unique playing style, along with an in depth section on how the arcade version works. Non of the arcade versions are clones of each other.

Now, the home versions only articles, they can be merged, no argument their. Short stubs, pointless information, nothing unique. However, merging the arcade articles is a bad idea. They simply have too much information to cram into one article. WP:GAMES once again, each series deserves its own article, unless its simply insignificant or something. Declaring a merge of these large, expansive articles is comparable to merging AOE articles together, Warcraft articles together, or Diablo articles together, simply because it is a game that is part of the overall series. Sorry, but i don't see how it would benefit wikipedia to merge the arcade articles, besides having one 3 MB article.

Here's the solution i propose. Merge all homeedition articles into one page, and redirect the merged pages to it. Then, create a page for ARCADE versions only, with a brief summary on each, leading to the main arcade article. A sort of advanced organization page, if you must. Floria L 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's more or less what we've been talking about now; it's just that a new proposal draft hasn't been posted somewhere to read and work around it (maybe this needs a task force too). I wouldn't merge all the home editions into one page, for example, but the exact merging is something to discuss in a near future. About the songlists, it's not that they're an issue now or not, it's just that I'd like to explain to people why certain stuff doesn't have much place in Wikipedia, rather than have them blindy follow a decision from a discussion that they might haven't had part into. Btw, when this discussion started, songlists weren't deleted yet, IIRC. It has been a dragged subject from the beginning, that's all.--Pi (π) 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If we were to merge all of the home editions, we'd have to explain why each console does not seem to follow the same title progresssion, yet alone if they do, then why are they not the same as their arcade counterparts. Not to mention the fact that we have many systems to cover. (PC, Plug-and-play, Gameboy color are ones that are not the obvious). What's the difference between DDR SuperNOVA, Hottest Party and Universe. They all were released around the same time, but all are different in one way or another. It may become sloppy at best. If we were to merge home versions, we should have separate articles by console or company. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If all the DDR articles are to merge, then merge all the star wars movies into one or anything else that has had different versions of it's original released.

That's a straw man argument on too many levels to even bother listing them. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The only way that I would support the merging of articles is if it is the SAME game (pretty much...like the Supernova release in Japan and North America). The games are entirely different, with different songs, different play. It wouldn't be fair to merge say DDRMAX2 and DDR Supernova because the songs, the set up, the characters, and even the options are just completely different. If this were fair, then ALL video game series should be merged into one article. I don't find it appropriate. I would support more so the arcade AND home edition being in one article, then I would them to all be merged into two broad categories. WiiAlbanyGirl 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree Strongly Would create a HUGE main article, and they are just like sequels, such as Katamari Damacy and We Love Katamari. WestJet 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no need for a merge when there are so many separate articles, each of which contains valid content. These games are certainly notable and don't merit collapsing into a single "here's the series in general" article. -- Slordak 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe the original article is quite long enough... adding each individual spinoff in a section of its own will make the article unnecessarily longer... And we'll just end up having this discussion again, only discussing whether to fork the articles or not. Kareeser|^Talk! 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Do not dare to merge it. It would be a big mess. Oscar22 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support merging into a small set of articles focusing on the different major themes (such as home version, arcade version, maybe a few others). —Doug Bell ^talk 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Each article has a sufficient amount of information to stand on its own, even as stubs (and stubs are legal in Wikipedia, BTW). If it's not broken, don't fix/break it.--WaltCip 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, none of the arcade game articles violate Wikipedia policy. With a quick browse-through, in fact, they have the potential to be expanded each through pictures; near-textbook examples of Wikipedia fledgling articles. See WP:N.--WaltCip 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - This merger makes no sense. The games are all easily notable on their own and can be expanded enough (mode differences, varying time windows, online play, etc.) that each should have its own article. Oren0 20:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This game is unique from other DDRs and deserves its own page.Quatreryukami 13:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - There are so many differences concerning each game that even merging similar games would needlessly bloat each article. For example, even if there was an article concerning only the arcade releases, it would have to describe Long versions, SSR Mode, Oni mode, Nonstop mode, The groove radar, the foot rating system, Freeze arrows, the different Extra Stages for each mix (as well as One More Extra Stages), Genre selection (and how it differs between 4th Mix and SuperNOVA), different dancing characters and how you select them, the different difficulty names between each mix, the different modifiers for each mix (including the different ways to access them), the different ways of selecting Single, Double, and Versus, differing hardware and framerates, different styles for each song selection screen (i.e. songwheel vs. 4th Mix's banner list), and numerous other things. I would go as far as to say that different mixes of DDR are as different as (or even more different than) Doom and Doom II. At least differing versions of say, DDR 3rd Mix (DDR 3rd Mix, DDR 3rd Mix Asian, DDR 3rd Mix Korean v1, DDR 3rd Mix Korean v2, and DDR 3rd Mix Plus) are merged. Any further merging is needless and will only result in either incredibly bloated and messy articles, or a loss of non-trivial information concerning each mix. Maxx573 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)