Talk:Flow (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Flow (video game) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Flow (video game) is part of the Thatgamecompany series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 13, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
March 19, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted
July 8, 2011 Featured topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indie task force.
 

Multiplayer[edit]

On the ps3 version multiplayer is possible. not sure the amount of players possible but i played 2-player with my buddy just now. david what! (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 My bad it's there... but as someone who has been using wiki for a long time the seperate info boxes tricked me... you should fix that... no other multi-platform game articles are like thatdavid what!

Kinda like Spore?[edit]

The description of this game sounds an awful lot like the game Spore. Is that its intention? StealthHit06 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The online freeware game is nothing like spore. The version that will be released could possibliy resemble Spore, but it wouldn't be as deep, unless they add land to the gameplay and buildings. Lovok 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The only resemblence to Spore is the tidepool phase in Spore when you swim around and eat stuff. In Spore you design a being by modifying their bones and movements, and flOw is affected by what you eat and in which order you eat it. In Spore you are trying to advance to the next level, and in flOw you are just trying to eat everything until you beat that stage, and you go on to eat more. It's a minigame, not a simulation. Play the flash version to see what I am talking about. Cmsjustin 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also of note is that Jenova Chen, the creator of flOw, is now working on Will Wright's Spore team. Cmsjustin 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
lol, let's say a game that's been released already is trying to rip off a game that hasn't even been completed yet and that we've neither played nor seen in any real form and has nothing whatsoever in common with it aside from being a game played by humans on an electronic device. Imbecile.--59.121.204.243 05:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

wtf man he wasn't saying it was a rip off all he was asking was are they similar no reason to go all fanboy on us —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derelix (talkcontribs) 10:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On the forums for fl0w, the creator mentions that he's working on Spore, so the similarities seen between the two probably aren't coincidence. -NotAnAccount, Mon 12 Feb, 5:57 (UTC)
Please don't hold debates of opinion on a Wikipedia Talk Page. RbpolsenTalk to me! 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

Agreed. Both sections are one and the same, and judging by the game screenshot, it's supposed to be an O, not a zero. Lovok 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. This should be a no-brainer. Valdoran 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge. I'll get right on it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

This is in response to the request on the VG assessment page. I have rated this article as Start-class, Low-importance, and have a few suggestions for improving it to B-class or higher.

This article desperately needs a review section, now that the game is out. So...add one! The list of PS3 playable creatures is too long as well (and lists are a bad idea in an article in general), so try to convert it to a prose paragraph. I know there's not much, if you'll pardon the pun, "depth" to the gameplay, but try to describe the differences between the flash and PS3 versions a bit more (unless there aren't any more, I don't have a PS3, just played the flash). Finally, and the review section will help with this, get more references. The 2 you have for release dates are good, but you need more. If you change things and feel like the article deserves a higher rating, just renominate it! --PresN 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Game Completion[edit]

How long does it take to finish the game? Drnoitall.hello 07:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How can this be called a game? It's a gimmick most people pay for, play once, then never go back to again. Looks pretty but where is the "play"?! -- 62.25.106.209 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

its very fun and entertaining its not a matter of finishing the game because you can rush to the end if you want —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derelix (talkcontribs) 10:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Downloadable Add-on[edit]

There has been a new creature added in a downloadable pack for the PS3. The article needs to be updated to include this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.167.217 (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Electroplankton[edit]

Tjis game reminds me a lot of Electroplankton. Like with the little stylized micro-organisms, and the background. Think it's possible that they were inspired by Electroplankton?Emma Hordika (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika

Requested move 1[edit]


Error: powerup not only in PS3 version[edit]

"The PS3 version of Flow has several added features, the most obvious being that there are six creatures to play as, all with different abilities. In addition, the player can also eat power-ups which will cause their creature to move faster, and have a bigger mouth to eat more organisms with."

No, the power-up which gives your organism a larger (and temporarily insatiable) mouth is also in the online version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.7.163 (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FlOw/Flow[edit]

Oh, it was changed back.

FUCK YOU PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!! 24.119.179.192 (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to log in first. Amish Gramish (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as much as I'd call it flOw outside of Wikipedia, I have to agree with the others with the move. If it's more like a combination of two words however, I'd agree otherwise instead. And umm, be civil :). -- クラウド668 14:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Snake[edit]

Shouldn't the entry highlight that this is only a clone of the famous game of "snake"? The adjusting difficulty is a nice addon, but the gameplay is just snake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.73.10 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) thats an opinion. I cannot just go into the Halo page and put in there that its a doom clone. Adjusting difficulty? have you played the game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derelix (talkcontribs) 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically you can highlight that this is a clone of Snake, provided that you find a couple of reliable sources that says so. Even then though, you can't say the game is a clone, but that various websites stated that it's a clone. -- クラウド668 20:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation still needed?[edit]

What is the criteria by which I could remove the [citation needed] tag in the Gameplay section? I just played the game to the end with the Jellyfish, and experienced the bug described. I think it's fairly clear that there is a bug: does that mean I can remove the tag, or is that original research? :-/ -Bence Joful 64.114.135.26 (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really like how a bug/glitch/whatever is specifically mentioned, but it's original research, and either the sentence should be completely removed (as per what Jimbo said), or that tag should stay. -- クラウド668 07:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Windows[edit]

This is a flash game and as such probably should not be in the Windows games category. I'm going to remove it. 2fort5r (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

TeX is named as such because it the way that ordinary people pronounce it. CamelCase is also used on the PlayStation 3 article. Common names are used in cases where everyone uses the common name. How often do you hear people talk about "Canis lupus familiaris" in ordinary conversation? I whole heartedly agree that the article flOw should receive no special treatment in naming, that is, it should be indeed titled flOw. Just because it's small doesn't mean it isn't subject to the laws of social norms. Calling it "Flow (video game)" merely adds to the confusion. Under no circumstances would anyone else mutilate a title in this fasion. Rbpolsen♦ 04:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to use CamelCase for trademarks like PlayStation as it effects how the word is spoken: Play Station. The capitalisation in flOw is not pronounced but is simply born out of the game's logo. Using CamelCase here would not assist the reader, in fact I think it could confuse them - maybe thinking it's "Flooooow" for example. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
To that I would say that first of all, even if your argument was correct in the sense of name-spacing, The article would be titled "Playstation" instead of "PlayStation", in spite of the fact that other mediums have ignored the CamelCase. The other thing is is that in the case of the article being called "flOw", I'm sure that somewhere within the beginning of the article, the pronunciation would be mentioned (eg: "pronounced like the English word: "flow""). If that weren't the case, I'd add it myself. To my mind, the current title is far more confusing than any confusion generated by CamelCase being used. Not only that, it has upset most of the flOw fans (myself included) who use Wikipedia. Rbpolsen♦ 04:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I'm just a super noob. It's wholly possible to make the article titled flOw, and seeing as EBay is titled that way, why not.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll take that as an excuse to move the page. Rbpolsen♦ 23:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
That's good practice. Well done. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This embarrassing title is unprofessional and frankly offensive. It has clearly revealed a hole in our manual of style. BurnDownBabylon 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is covered by the manual of style. MOS:TM states " choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." and "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable" In my opinion having the article title as flOw fails both of these guidelines. - X201 (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, so I moved it back again. Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thatgamecompany being all lower case also contrdicts MOS:TM - X201 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, I've been through all this in the past on both Flow and TGC articles but some people seem adamant that they should stay the way they were. The passage X201 quoted seems pretty clear-cut though. I think that may have been clarified in the guidelines since last year. Hopefully there won't be any further disagreements. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The MOS are mere guidelines, not policy, and should not be interpreted to mean as such. There are more important things to consider, like WP:NOR and WP:IRS. We should refer to how it is referred to in literature, and if it is not official, then "Flow" as is is simply made-up and constitutes original research, without a single reliable source to back it up as an alternate valid spelling. To refer it as "Flow" is made up by Wikipedia and constitutes nothing more than original research. For certain names, the "regular" alternate has appeared in broad usage in reliable sources, so it would be no problem to choose them, but in this case, I have not found a single one that referred to it as "Flow." For this reason, it does not make sense per NOR and IRS to refer to it as such.--A (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
MoS overrides RS on many different issues, undue trademark attention and readability being one of them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps one thing that was ignored regarding MOS was the sentence regarding recognizability. According to the MOS for Article titles, titles should provide recognizability. I only knew about this game about one day ago, and searched for it on Wikipedia, and did not know that it was talking about this game until after I looked at the summary beneath it. If titles are to provide recognizability, then this title clearly fails to do it, since I did not know that it was talking about "FlOw" until much later than looking at the title.--A (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
You searched for "flOw" and that redirects here, so I don't see what's so confusing. Other search engines don't even respect capitals. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Very simple: I searched for the game through Google, and when I saw the Wikipedia result, I thought, "is that the game FlOw or is that another game? It doesn't seem to be it since it is 'Flow' while all other results were 'FlOw' or 'flOw.'" If such initial questions result, that is when it is clearly confusing.--A (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the fact that the first letter should be capitalized, but for the third letter to be lower case severely impedes the recognizability of the title.--A (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flow (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Gonna take a first quick look now-

  • "flOw" Perhaps bold that too?
  • Bolded. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "microorganism" or "micro-organism"?
  • Microorganism. Fixed. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "creatures of different sizes; as the player's creature approaches it automatically attempts to devour these creatures.[2] The majority of these creatures" repetition of "creatures"
  • There's basically no good synonyms for creature, but fixed nonetheless. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Planes may also contain aggressive, multi-segmented creatures as well," redundancy
  • Very much so, fixed. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "The snake creature gained the ability to move faster, while the jellyfish" These are referring to the player characters, I assume?
  • Yes, tried to clarify a bit. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "The creature type could now be selected at will" Odd phrase, odd tense
  • I've noticed recently that I really seem to like to use these backwards sentence constructions. Fixed. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "where a person doing an activity fully immerses themselves in a feeling of energized focus" Clunky phrase, and it's not clear what it means?
  • Tried to clean up. I think it makes sense now; it's basically being "in the zone". --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "PSP version of the game took a different view" Comma after "game"
  • That may be the first time a reviewer has told me to add a comma rather then remove them. Fixed. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Refs 11 and 18 need italics
  • Right, fixed. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The rationale on the screenshot could do with tightening up a bit.
  • I can't even blame the uploader in this case. Tried to work it up a bit.
  • Some of the categories seem a little redundant to one another?
  • Mmm, a bit. Pulled some of them. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a really nice looking article. The prose is generally good, the sourcing's great and all the questions are answered. I'll take another look through once you've smoothed over those little issues. Are you going to be aiming at FAC with this one? J Milburn (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I can't believe there's already a review here; I was just coming here to give it one myself. Anyway, I agree with J Milburn that you've done an impressive job. I really appreciate your work improving thatgamecompany-related articles, as I find the group fascinating. I assume that you're shooting for a Good or Featured Topic; if you're ever looking for a copyeditor to help you get one of them featured, drop me a line. With that, though, I'll get out of the way of this review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Replied to JimmyBlackwing on his talk page, but to J Milburn- yes, I was definitely planning on taking this to FAC. Thanks for the review on this, I'll get right on those concerns and reply in-line. Double thanks, actually- your comments last year on the Flower GAN about taking that to FAC are what gave me the confidence to take whatever I want to FAC, which lead directly to my current thatgamecompany project. --PresN 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Done, comments are in-line as stated. --PresN 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do honestly think this is ready for GA status now, but I'll add some more thoughts in view of the FAC push.

  • "in a given plane the player can see a blurred version of the plane below" Not the smoothest phrase
Done.
  • In the playstation version, do you have to run through the game several times before you have unlocked all the creatures? It's not particularly clear
Done.
  • "could now cause a vortex that sucks in small creatures. The player could now" repetition
Done.
  • The moving up and down planes thing is unclear- is this done at will, or is it down to when you eat the certain things? Do they follow you around? Easy to find? See what I'm getting at here?
Done.
  • "which Chen believes his DDA theory gives the player so that they can reach that state while playing" rephrase? It makes sense, it just doesn't read that well
Done.
  • "Flow received 100,000 downloads in its first two weeks," this is the first two weeks on the PlayStation Network, presumably? Presumably PS3 only?
Done.
  • As you did with Flower, I'm wondering if there's any chance of a section on the music? By no means essential, but it's something to think about?
Nope, as much as I love music sections/articles there just weren't any sources; Wintory didn't have long interviews with Gamasutra like Diamante did. I'll look around again though.
  • Is the Game Audio Network League worth a redlink?
I've been meaning to write an article on this...
  • As ever, I'm sure a copyeditor may be able to smooth it out a little.
  • A thought to consider is the use of two non-free images- they're rather similar, and as it's a downloadable game, the concept of "box art" is alien to it. If you're looking for more images, the pictures you have of Chen are rather nice.
Yeah... I'm going to fight for it- PSN logos are the equivalent of digital boxart as they are what you see in the online store. We'll see if I win.

As I say, it's mostly very well written anyway, and I don't think much more work would be needed before it went to FAC, as long as you're sure you've exhausted the available sources. In the mean time, I'm happy to promote this to GA status. J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I'll go through these, get a copyedit, and take it to FAC then. Marking them off as I go for my own benefit. --PresN 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)



Flow (video game)FlOw – I am not a fan of this game, but I believe that the "Flow" is problematic regarding recognizability. If the title creates uncertainty at the first glance as to the subject of the article, then it is not performing its function. The reason this uncertainty is created is due to the current title not following common usage in English.--New questions? 09:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. MOS:TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". --PresN 15:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not merely that the "trademark owner encourages special treatment," but also that it is important for actually identifying whether or not it is the game or not. When people first see this page, looking for information about the game, people are going to be confused as to whether or not it is actually the page they are looking for if the "o" is lowercase. It is not just a matter of "special treatment," but a more important matter of identifiability. The capital "O" is not simply an embellishment; it is actually integral for people to understand that it is actually the game that they are looking for.--108.49.122.237 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a very strong consensus against such stylizations, even if I may disagree with it in a few specific cases. See the noncontroversial move of "Volkswagen up!" for a relevant result, including many examples in the nomination. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not a mere stylization. It is actually integral towards its identifiability. Having the page like this causes confusion as to whether or not it is the game people are looking for when, for example, they try to google search for the game. If people are going to think "is this really the game I am thinking of?" when they first see this page, then this should be a common sense case of where identifiability should be taken into account more. The example you give is not relevant since it is not integral towards identifability. In this case, it is.--108.49.122.237 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • For that case, it is a mere stylization, and many sources use the standard capitalization. In this case, it is not a mere stylization; it is an integral part for identifying it. Not capitalizating the O makes it difficult to identify.--108.49.122.237 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support All the sources use the proposed title. A significant amount of them are not connected to the trademark owner in any way. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose MOS:TM trumps common English and sources usage, thus we remove stylization. The exact quote is already given above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • MOS:TM only addresses stylizations. In this case, it is not merely that the capitalization is "official," but is integral in terms of actually identifying it. For people who Google search for this game, and they come across a result that says a Wikipedia page named "Flow (video game)," many people are going to think "is that really the game I am thinking of?" The reason is because having the "o" in lower case does cause serious doubt as to the identity of the game. If it causes that much trouble, then this means that the capitalization is more than mere stylization; it is also integral for identifiability.--108.49.122.237 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is true for other article titles as well. That still does not override MOS:TM. Unless MOS starts allowing exceptions based on "recognizability", I don't see why we should in this case. In addition, most search engines ([1] [2] [3]) shows a preview of the search results, which in this case is "Flow (stylized as flOw) is an indie video game created by Jenova Chen and Nicholas Clark. Originally released as a free Flash game in 2006 to accompany ...", so I don't see where recognizability is as big of an issue as you make it out to be. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You know most guidelines and policies and the yada yada have exceptions, right? And besides, Wikipedia is not the place to invent names, words, neologisms, etc. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Guidelines and policies are there to improve Wikipedia. If they do not improve Wikipedia, then you ought to question whether to follow or not. It is simply a matter of common sense.--108.20.144.127 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Although MOS:TM does address a problem of standard English capitalization versus "official stylization," it does not address the more important problem of recognizability. This is a (probably rare) case where the "O" is not a mere stylization, but actually important for recognizability, since without it, people are going to be confused about whether or not it is what they are actually looking for. For this reason, "FlOw" with capital "O" should, for all intents and purposes, be considered the standard English capitalization, not a mere stylization.--108.49.122.237 (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't stylize titles, and the proposed name already redirects to this, so if someone types it in with the capital O, they will find the correct article anyway. —Torchiest talkedits 13:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not merely about what people type it in, but also what people find when, for example, they Google search it. When they see the title, "Flow (video game)," people are going to be confused for a moment as for whether it is actually the page they are looking for.--108.20.144.127 (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment MOS:TM states: "choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." The fact, is, "Flow" as is, is not one that is in usage. Only Wikipedia uses it. I think most people are ignoring this main point.--108.20.144.127 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please do not unilaterally change the article to your viewpoint while a discussion is still going on, as you did in your last edit. --PresN 21:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment On the same grounds of support with the IP, I would suggest that you try to understand the message of WP:IAR. WP:IAR is for the purpose of when a guideline or policy is unhelpful to Wikipedia, the users or contradict other policies, it is ignored for that specific case of problem. This is relevant to this case here as if we applied the irrelevent-to-this-case words of MOS/TM on this article, it would also contradict WP:NOT, as the current title (the seemingly "MOS/TM compliant" one) is simply a promotion of an alternate name for a game which is almost never used (check the reliable sources!).
I also support the IP's reasoning. There is no need to promote a lesser-used name because of just one Wikipedia guideline (in this case, a relatively tiny part of the whole MoS). If you opposers read both mine and the IP's arguments, they would make sense. (Geez, I think the opposers above basically ignored or dismissed them.)
P.S. Too many other aspects weigh down against the use of MoS/TM in this case. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
An alternate name would be if we called it "Flower 0", or "Cloud 2". "Flow" is just a different capitalization of the same word. You claim that MOS/TM is "irrelevant" in this case, but only because you disagree with it. Despite what you may think, I have read both yours and the ip's arguments; they just haven't changed my mind. As hard as it is for you to apparently understand, it is possible for someone to pay attention to what you are saying and still disagree with you. --PresN 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I retract that rude statement. Crossed it out. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nominator has asserted (ad nauseum) that the capitalized 'O' is integral to recognizability, but has offered no support for this assertion. I'm not even looking for evidence at this point; a simple argument in favor would be a good start, but I have seen none. Powers T 00:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Powers, I guess that the other supporters provided the arguments. Also, it seems like MoS/TM has been misquoted. The guideline explicitly said that we should use the name that is used by the majority of the reliable sources of the article. In this case, most of the sources used the proposed title. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I only see one other support comment, and its reasoning is flawed, as it ignores MOS:TM and claims that if everyone else formats the title in a particular way, we have to too. Contrary to your assertion, MOS:TM does indeed ask us to "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner," not go with a "majority" opinion. Powers T 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Staberinde (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)(non-admin closure)



Flow (video game)FlOw – The page at MOS:TM states to follow standard English formatting "as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one." However, note that there is no usage of "Flow" in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia to refer to this game. There is only "flOw," "FlOw," and "FLOW." Since "FlOw" is closer to standard English formatting, this is the one that it should be titled by.192.5.110.4 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. MOS:TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". --PresN 05:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS, per requested move 2 , and nominator is wrong, many places call the game "Flow"/"flow", which is the same title on Wikipedia. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; nothing has changed since the last move request, and no new argument has been offered. Powers T 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I had forgotten about the previous RM, but my argument there still stands; this is well in line with other RM outcomes and stable titles, and thus this would be a bad move per WP:CRITERIA. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per previous RMs: MOS:TM. This does not merit an exception, at least no arguments have been given that don't alpply to every other case. And "FlOw" is definitely wrong and in no way standard English formatting. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

See also "Fat Worm Blows a Sparky"[edit]

I've added a description of the relevance for this link, as a game with a similar "worm-like creature navigating landscape in 360º angles, eating smaller creatures and fleeing from enemies" gameplay. See also sections don't need a direct relation, they're intended to provide readers with further reading of a tangentially related topic that may be of interest, in this case because of the games similarity. Diego (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

End of gameplay CN tag[edit]

I downloaded the "official version" yesterday and played through twice, and it did restart with the jellyfish character but did not start over again with the worm character. Perhaps the difference is in the online version on the website vs the downloaded version? As far as I could tell they were (otherwise) identical. Anyway, three things about the tag.

  • Given that our experiences differ, i.e. there isn't consensus on what the "source" (the game itself) says, does that itself create the need for a CN tag?
  • Is it appropriate to cite the game itself as a source? I have a hard time seeing that flying with a more complex computer game. Earlier in this talk page someone's gameplay observations are described as "original research" and I think that's accurate whether the game is large like WoW or small like Flow.
  • "Implicit" sourcing isn't ideal. If we are going to source the claim to the game itself, can we explicitly cite the game as the source? Otherwise the information appears to readers as though it's unsourced.

What do you think? Tripleahg (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it's been a long time since I've played this. The "implicit cite to the game" is usually used for plot, not gameplay, which is what I was thinking of (this is about as much "plot" as the game has). That said- so you beat it as the jellyfish, and it didn't start over as the worm? When you got to the bottom, the creature wasn't the worm you had in the first run? I'm fine with cutting out the last bit (starting with "and defeating it"), but the fact that there's a new game+ of sorts seems like information that should stay- I guess we need to start looking for sources for it. An explicit source to the game is one option, though not the preferred one. --PresN 23:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I beat it as the worm, which restarted the game with the jellyfish. I beat it as the jellyfish (defeating the creatures at each level including the big worm at the bottom level) and nothing happened, it didn't restart again with the worm character. Tripleahg (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)