Talk:Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games/Archive 2

Comments

Discontinuing work here to focus on a established Nintendo franchise, this article need the following to continue the path to reach FA:

• The question of "why the Olympic Games?" needs to be answered and added to the appropriate section.
• Update screenshot

1. Gameplay - Check for errors. Add DS gameplay once reviews are out.
2. Reception - Eventually the DS game will need its own paragraph here. Expand critical content section, impact of the first game to star Mario and Sonic, and maybe sales information when available.
3. Proofread, then GAN

-« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 17:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of reviews has the DS version got? 16:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.233.83 (talk)

None. The DS version doesn't come out until mid-January. TJ Spyke 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Does anybody have any trivia relating to this game? Easter eggs, quirks, etc?

I could state one now to get the ball rolling - how Sonic in all swimming events wears a lifejacket - this is a joke regarding the fact that he sinks like a stone in water!143.92.1.121 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is useless, it offers nothing. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The guy on the commercial said "Merry-o and Sonic" .. that's very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, what? The announcer, at least in the US commercials, pronounces it correct. I don't know about commercials in other countries though. TJ Spyke 02:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm in America and he clearly says Merry-o. That's the southern hillbilly pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You must have misheard, because i've seen the commercial dozens of times and he says Mario correctly. TJ Spyke 00:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just heard it just now and he CLEARLY said Mary-o. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary-o or Merry-o? You said Merry-o first now you're saying Mary-o... In any case, are you referring to this [1], this [2] or [3]? Pronounciation sounds right to me... Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

None of those three is the one I'm seeing on tv. It has the same announcer as #1 but some of the same footage as #2. As for how I'm spelling what I hear, the name Mary and the word Merry are homonyms. If you don't know that, maybe you shouldn't be debating.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already been established that the correct pronounciation has been used, you are just hearing things wrong. TJ Spyke 00:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly is this being discussed still? It's not likely this will be added to the article. Wikipedia isn't a guide to minor trivia things like this. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merry and Mary are NOT pronounced the same. Very similar but there is a difference... If you weren't aware of that, perhaps it's not surprising that you hear something which no one else hears. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever BEEN to Wikipedia? That's EXACTLY what it's for. When something odd happens upon something's release, it tends to go unremembered, except on Wikipedia. For a HUGE crossover event of the biggest names in videogames to have such a glaring error in their ad speaks volumes about modern advertising. It's a part of our shared cultural heritage now and there's nothing you can do about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Rob a lot, but he is more right than you on this. If something would be forgotten without Wikipedia, then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Only NOTABLE stuff is supposed to be on Wikipedia, and something as non-notable as the announcer in a commercial supposedly mispronouncing a name (which did not happen here) isn't notable. Even if an announcer did say the name wrong, we wouldn't note it. TJ Spyke 00:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you having such a hard time understanding that different versions of the commercial are airing in different places? I have confirmation from another person that there's a version where he says Merio. I'd have shut up a long time ago if not for this inexplicable refusal to believe me based purely on what you've seen yourself.

There's only 1 Wii commercial. I just saw a commerical for the DS version, where the guy does say Mario wrong. Still not notable though. Not that it matters, but saying what someone else said is not a reliable source (besised, we had provided actual proof in the form of commericals). TJ Spyke 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if your claims are true (and as it stands they are unsourced and given your inability to differentiate between merry and Mary seem dubious to me), it's still not noteable. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia not a collection of trivia whatever you may like to believe Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Story

Does this game actually have a STORY MODE to it? Trueblue584 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?!

Why are people so Anti-character about this page. Yes, there is some tiny little dot of a picture but thats it. Wait i know why it is, its because Mario game articles dont ussually have them. Well this game is made entirley by SEGA. Nintendo just gave permission to add Mario characters in it. So its a SONIC GAME with a few mario characters. Anyway, what is so bad about having a section telling about the characters. Not really an encylopedia if it dosn't give as much info as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.236.153 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's not a "Sonic" game. Half of the characters are from Sega and half from Nintendo. Yes Sega developed it, but under the supervision of Miyamot and Nintendo is publishing it in Japan. It's a shared game. TJ Spyke 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Still dosn't explain why adding a character list is considered Devil Worship with this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.236.153 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about a character list. See the previous discussion: Talk:Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games/Archive 1#Can we see a list of characters?. TJ Spyke 03:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that there should be a character list because there are characters form two diffrent companys. It might also be a good idea to add a list of events.Ghostcar313 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I already put a list of characters in the image with the characters. Also, we couldn't put a list of events because that would be considered game guide material. Magiciandude (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in but it makes sense to have at least a list of characters from the Mario and Sonic universe. It will be misleading if this game fails to fill in the details. Anyway, if you prefer to hold back then what's the point? I'd rather resolve it by agreeing to something. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Great exaggeration ip. The problem is how it was being implemented. The only notable aspect of the characters is that their from Nintendo and Sega, other than that there is no reason for a section to be dedicated to them. « ₣M₣ » 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Gallery mode

I added a gallery mode section in the article, but I'm not sure if it warrants its own section. I feel however, that trivia from the Olympics are found there and that there's music from both series should mentioned in the article. Magiciandude (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Controls

I don't know anything about the game myself, since I have never played it, but I believe that it might need a controls section. Most other video game articles have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisnotpj (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide or a manual, so I don't think such information is allowed. If it is in other articles it probably should be removed. Geoff B (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, only mention the controls if they're innovative, original, or unique. Being that these games are on the DS and Wii, this is likely to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to StrategyWiki. That's where you go in to check on the controls on this game. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Unused Characters

should we list some unused characters like Jet,Donkey Kong,etc?Mysterious Nazo (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that stuff only belongs to the individual character articles as it might be considered trivia or irrevelant information. But then again, I do remember about the "over 20 characters" were planned to be in, so I suppose we can use the characters as examples. Magiciandude (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be a list of characters. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Olympic President disses video games

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=189500

"You won't hear me saying sport is not fun - it is. But it requires austerity and discipline. The answer is achievement. You will never achieve in a video game. It is not really success."

139.142.226.178 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since he's referring to the whole video game industry, not just this game, it doesn't really belong here. Magiciandude (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A quick scan shows me a very well-written and comprehensive article. I'm fairly certain it will pass, but I'll analyze the article deeper and find errors in need of correction. Good job to all editors involved in writing this article! --haha169 (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Things to fix:

• To start off, the lead needs some mention of the game's development, preferably a summary of the development section below.
• The "Gallery mode" paragraph in Gameplay, (3 paragraphs down from top), needs cites.
• "X-Play agreed calling..." There should be a comma between agreed and calling.
• "X-Play agreed calling...", "IGN called...", "GamePro called...". A bit repetitive, eh?
• "Each competition offers a slight degree of difference. In the running events, for example, getting a starting boost in the 100 m dash will either make or break the player's place, while in a relay race, which can last for well over a minute, this may not determine place as effectively." - This needs a cite.
• Image:Mario&Soniccharacterscreen.jpg needs an appropriate fair-use rationale, as well as non-free media reduced. See Image:SSBB Gameplay.jpg for a good example.

Praise:

• This article is very easy to read. Good job on that!
• I especially like the Development section, very thorough, detailed, understandable, and well cited.
• Overall, the Reception section is nicely written as well. Great organization, especially.

Just fix those problems, and I think it will be ready to pass GAN. Great organization, satisfactory prose, and great in following WP:NPOV. --haha169 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Y Nice prose, interesting to read. Understandable

2. Factually accurate?: Y, unless the cites you used were inaccurate. I doubt it though.

3. Broad in coverage?: Y, very nice development section.

4. Neutral point of view?: Y, there really isn't anything to be POV'ed about.

5. Article stability? Y, barely any edits on the main article - I would appreciate it, however, if you replied to this GAN as well, instead of just making the edit and leave.

6. Images?: Y, All issues fixed.

Good job. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— haha169 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit and comments

Okay, I've given the article a thorough copyedit, but there are still issues that will require the main contributor to fix. I'll leave a list of comments some time later today. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here it goes:

• "The idea of an Olympic setting for Mario and Sonic has been around for a few years prior to 2007, while casual discussions of a game in general existed for some time beforehand." A couple of things. Can you find a more professional way to word "been around"? Secondly, a bit too vague in the timings: "a few years prior" and "for some time beforehand". Finally, by "while casual discussions of a game in general" do you mean a game involving both Mario and Sonic? Because this doesn't mean anything unless that is stated.
  • Those discussions were private, but I'll see if anything more specific can be found.

• "The two publishers were looking for a setting that would give the game "an exclamation mark"." I feel that this is too specific and needless in the lead, but I didn't want to remove it without your consent.
  • Maybe for the lead its too specific, but I thought it necessary to emphasize "why this setting?"

• "In combination with the atmosphere of competitive sportsmanship the Olympics had to offer and making the transition from hardware development to producing third-party software in 2001, Sega received approval by Nintendo to include Mario in the game." The first clause is way too verbose and long. Whole sentence needs revising. Consider removing reference to Sega's change to a third-party developer.
  • I tied in Sega's 'fall' with initial talks to help reduce vagueness observed in your first comments.
• "Olympic and fantasy events" If you're going to mention to the fantasy events, then they need to be explained to the reader.
  • Reworded.
• "The title has undergone scrutiny for having the mascots starring in a casual game based on the Beijing Olympics as their first official title together[10] instead of a platform game." "undergone scrutiny" is suspect wording here. Anyway, I think this is questionable in the lead since it's a criticism of the concept as opposed to the actual game. Consider replacing with a common criticism.
• "Both versions have sold a total of five million units combined as of March 31, 2008.[13]" Should use the most recent reliable approximations. "Reception" details "10 million units worldwide combined" as of July.
  • Sure, I just wasn't too keen on using figures from Sega as opposed to getting them from those who weren't actually the publishers.

• Maybe best to specify which version is shown in the caption.
• "These environments are stylized to fit the art styles of the Mario and Sonic video games." Breaks the flow since it's a short sentence. Should probably consider elaborating/providing an example or including elsewhere. Consider combining this with the info on fantasy events.
• "There are five categories of trivia" Possibly explain what type of categories. Are they categorisd by gymnastics, track and field, etc?
• "All of these are organized in the tournament and circuit modes." To me, this is a meaningless short sentence that leaves me non-the-wiser.
  • Got rid of short sentence to make you wiser. :D
• "Approximately a year later, Sega obtained the Beijing 2008 Olympic license." Needs further detail and explanation. Firstly, Miyamoto is talking to Naka and then Sega get the licence out of nowhere.
  • Fixed?
• "The creator of Mario, Shigeru Miyamoto, supervised the project[4] and the game or one of its two versions may have been co-developed by TOSE, a developer known to not be credited for the games it produces.[26]" A strangely worded sentence that offers reading difficulties. Is there a reliable source that comments on the credibility of this. As this reads, this questions Miyamoto's involvement, which I didn't think was in doubt.
• "Despite selling more than four million copies," Doesn't clarify whether it's national, continental, or worldwide. Doesn't say whether it's combined sales, or from when the data was received.
  • Done.
• "and was at the top of the charts numerous times afterward." Doesn't say whether it was the same chart or not. If it remained there, then this should be clarified, as this gives the impression that it lost the top spot and the regained it.
  • Clarified.
• Any info on Japanese sales specifically, or the rest of Europe, for that matter. Preferable, but not a necessity, though.
  • Japan = perfect timing.
• "is left as Mario & Sonic's biggest draw to compete against the large number of minigame collections on the platform due to the game's lack of "polish and simplicity"." Generally difficult to read. "biggest draw" should reworded to something more formal.
• "the events within their own classifications felt similar; for example, the reviewer" Need to clarify whose opinion this. Which reviewer?
• I think the "Reception" section is missing info regarding the stylus controls, the game's graphics, and online features.
• Ref 6 isn't working for me.
  • Its dead for good.
• Ref 19 should clarify that it's from NGamer staff.
  • I'm also not a fan [4] :P

Okay, I hope this helps. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 13:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Circuit mode does not have to be predetermined. Also, do you think it is necessary to state in the lead Mario and Sonic's past rivalry or should the wikilinks suffice? « ₣M₣ » 18:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention—if there's any mistakes I've made or info I've cut that you deem relevant, then just revert. I personally wouldn't mention the rivalry in the lead as I feel that it may be deviating slightly into something that's adequately covered in the rest of the article. Regarding NGamer, I point specifically is that it is a separate publication (I Think) from CVG, yet the ref only lists CVG; so it's not like putting IGN staff for an IGN review. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, tell me when you feel you've addressed all my comments and I'll take another look. Cheers. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think "all" comments have been addressed, however I'm not sure what to do with "undergone scrutiny". « ₣M₣ » 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm prettu busy right now, but should be able to give it a runover some time this weekend. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it seems mostly fine from what I can see. What are you planning on doing next with the article? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

←) (e. conflict) It may just be me but "Playable Miis also feature in the Wii..." does not seem quite right. Also, I plan on making it a FAC asap - yes timing intentional. :P « ₣M₣ » 12:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

...It seems copyediting has become a thankless job. Anywho, just change it yourself—I just wanted to clarify that they were playable. Good luck at FAC. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, this line struck me as odd: "in design with graphics nearly being on the same level as the Wii version". Surely they're not on par? Any chance of a reword? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I also noticed "in design" may have lost its original meaning which is, as IGN puts it:

"apart from a few control tweaks and changes, as well as an extra mode or two in the handheld rendition, the two versions are almost identical in design." Graphically the DS game is generally called almost as good. You think "in design" will suffice or something like content, etc would be better? « ₣M₣ » 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Events

The Events section ends with: "The sports available in both versions unless otherwise noted are listed below." However, they are not listed. I personally think they should be, but I understand this view is disputed. Jw6aa (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of the worst outcomes I've seen on Wikipedia, made more through a seemingly irrational fear of lists rather than consideration of the article or subject at hand. The main argument was between two camps, one that believed that listing the sports featured in a sports compilation game was necessary for the comprehensiveness of the article, and one that believed that listing the sports was outside the scope of Wikipedia and failed WP:NOT. I'm just grouping all the relevant archived discussions here for future reference -

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games - FAC, original discussion and implementation of events.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 53#List of Olympic events - First discussion at Wikiproject Video Games

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive30#Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games - Discussion at WT:FAC

Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 15#Would appreciate some input - Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games - Asking at the Village Pump

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 55#Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games list problems again - Second discussion at Wikiproject Video Games

Note how the featured article candidacy was closed with the list intact, with the closing administrator - User:SandyGeorgia, a non-involved third party stating that no consensus had been formed over the deletion of the list. If you take a look at the discussions, you'll find that a large set of users stating that they had no strong feeling either way over the inclusion of the list of events. Those are the kind of responses which would lead people to come to a conclusion of no-consensus, the argument for delete was not strong enough to change those editor's views.

Upon pointing this out during the second discussion at Wikiproject Video Games, I was told by the users who had pushed strongest to delete the list that User:SandyGeorgia was wrong, and that those who expressed a non-committal response to the inclusion/deletion of the list should essentially be ignored. This is wrong, but I alone am not going to carry on reverting, I have better things to do with my time than to patrol an article for a game I've never played.

But if you feel that the reader's understanding of a sports video game would be better served if they were informed of the sports included in it, then speak up and reinclude the list. I will back you up with the strongest possible terms. - hahnchen 23:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with the list anyway? It seems like you think Wikipedia is the only place people go for video game information, and that's not even close to being true. This isn't a fear of lists at all, the list doesn't belong: and it's been explained why many times. You choose not to listen, which leads to redundant conversations with you about the matter. Just drop it already. Also, people were non-committal: but this isn't an AFD vote, where no consensus leads to an automatic keep. Many more people commited to saying the list wasn't suitable for Wikipedia. Only you are strongly for the list. That's a very clear consensus to not have the list. You wont drop this matter, until you get your way... which I find a bit bad faith and just disruptive at this point. If more time had passed, perhaps it would be correct to discuss the matter again: but you've been re-adding the list at nearly every chance you can, as well as trying to convince people for quite a while that it's suitable. Let it be, it's not a crime if you don't get your way. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You've pointed out probably the most contentious point of difference we have here. You believe that a no consensus from the amount of non-committals, does not matter in this situation because we're deleting content and not an article. I disagree. - hahnchen 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahnchen- With all due respect, I feel this issue is being taken much farther than it needs to be. I also feel that you may have misrepresented some of what has been said on all sides of the argument. If you feel this strongly, edit warring (participating or encouraging) is not the way to go. Try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I wrote the post above to collate all the discussions together for future reference. My summary obviously pushes my point of view, but you're free to write a counter-point. - hahnchen 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite the latest removal of the list, the phrase: "The sports available in both versions unless otherwise noted are listed below." continues to appear in the (featured) article. I'm afraid I don't understand how the list's inclusion is inappropriate - I would consider it essential information that a page from an online encyclopedia article about the subject should contain. Utterly bemused. Jw6aa (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I too think it is essential information that should be included in an encyclopedia, it is no different to the lists of leagues and competitions in articles like Football Manager 2008. MTC (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you both could please indulge my question. Can you define "essential information" in your own words? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Hehe, I sense a trap, but I'll play along :-) All the necessary facts. Defining necessary, in terms of an encyclopedia article (given its purpose to spread knowledge) I think that would mean an appropriate level of detail to give the reader an understanding of the article subject without neglecting major facts or details. I'm not suggesting endless information, but I think a good rule of thumb is to include in article X what a reader of an encyclopedia article about X would expect to see written in an encyclopedia article about X. Jw6aa (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I do plan on arguing certain points. But to do so without understanding your point of view would be unproductive. If it's alright, I'll wait for MTC to respond before I do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm just going to state that I think that listing the sports featured in a sports video game helps the reader to understand the subject of the article. Just as in other articles such as Hyper Sports and Beijing 2008 (video game). - hahnchen 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahnchen- With all due respect, I'd rather not spend the time writing counter points to misconstrued information I've already said in past discussions. But I will address a few points. The examples mentioned above that have similar lists are either Stub or Start-class: Football Manager 2008, Hyper Sports, Beijing 2008 (video game). I don't think comparing such articles to one that has been through a peer review and GAN without a list of events is a proper comparison and not a suitable argument for inclusion. I would gather that no one has tried to push the articles up the quality scale.

Now for the lengthy part (collapsed to hopefully reduce length). I would also like to point out some comments made by others on the multiple discussions in regard to this topic. I don't believe these are taken out of context, but I've included which discussion they come from for clarification. I tried to include comments from everybody that looked to have weighed in on the matter (minus myself, Hahnchen, and Rob as we seem to be the most active in the discussion), and used the last comment they left. If I missed some, feel free to mention them. Because the discussion hopped around, I ordered them chronologically for the sake of simplicity.

Comments from discussions

Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:56, 28 August 2008 From WT:VG 1
"I'm pretty iffy on this. At one point, I agree with Rob. Why should we list all of the minigames in a game? At another point, I disagree, as that's bassically all the game is. And if we remove information about the minigames from the game's article, there probably wouldn't be much information. On another point, like what Nif said, these are actually, real events/minigames. It's hard to say, really."

Jappalang (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2008 From WT:VG 1
"Personally, I think that as the current subsection describes general categories and differences between the two versions (with specific examples), it is needless to provide a full listing of the games. The list was inserted on a suggestion that it would make the gameplay section comprehensive. However if the two games had a core of 50 events with 30 exclusive games between them, would that reason stand up to scrutiny for inclusion of the list?"

MASEM 22:05, 29 August 2008 From WT:VG 1
"I'm looking at the events list and I'm thinking that I would err on the side of including the full list being inappropriate, but this is not to say that a well written proseline could summarize most of the events in a few sentences."

Bernstein2291 23:51, 30 August 2008 From the FAC
"Well, I believe that it could be useful for people who would like more information on the game if they want to buy it. When I'm deciding to buy a compilation game, I always try to find out what different "mini-games" there are."

Steve Dufour (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2008 From the Village pump
"I don't think the list does any harm. Why not keep it? It is not like it takes up very much room and the people who will be reading the article are probably interested in the information."

« ₣M₣ » 00:00, 5 September 2008 From WT:VG 1
"I really have nothing to say one way or the other about this because of the unique circumstances this type of video game would bring up. I did however comment-out the event list based on the FAC and what I thought the majority of editors would say here (which turned out to be so). But by all means bring it up to WT:FAC."

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:43, 5 September 2008 From the FAC
"the olympic events doesn't sway me one way or another; I think the prose has been improved enough to meet criteria."

Giants2008 (17-14) 20:56, 5 September 2008 From WT:FAC
"I don't think the list is necessary. The prose does enough by itself to explain the various events. This is before considering that the list may well be a violation of WP:NOT."

BUC (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 From WT:FAC
"Don't it's necessary if all it is, is a list with no further info."

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:27, 5 September 2008 From WT:FAC
"I don't think the list is necessary, as the article already says the games that can be played are based on real Olympic games. I'm unfamiliar with VG articles, but do the articles for Need for Speed list each car and modification? Does the article for Sonic the Hedgehog list each level? Do the soccer games list each playable player? Does Rock Band list each song? If so, then the list might need to stay to keep consistency within the project. However, if they don't, this one shouldn't either. And even if they do, times change and WP must change with them. Maybe it is time to stop being a players' guide. I dunno.."

Giggy 02:40, 6 September 2008 From WT:FAC
"I don't really mind and my support stands either way."

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 From the FAC
"no clear consensus has emerged to convince me I should hold off promotion over that issue. I do hope the involved Projects will work to develop a guideline for future articles."

LedRush (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) From WT:VG 2
"I would say the list should be omitted. Slippery slope, notability, and non-paragraph info all pushes me to say it should be deleted."

A Link to the Past (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2008 From WT:VG 2
"I don't see anything especially notable about the games as a whole, no more than I did when the Lists of mini-games in the Mario Party series were on the AfD."

Jw6aa (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2008 From WT:VG 2
"I think the list should be included on the grounds that it makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. IMO the article is better for the reader with it than without. But what do I know :-)"

Personally, I read over these and get the impression that most people (7) didn't think the list was necessary and didn't not add much information; many also cited WP:NOT. Most of the non-committals (5) were not on a fence and couldn't decide, they almost all said it was a non-issue for the FAC. Only one was on the fence. The rest chose to not let the event list be a factor in their voting decision. The ones that felt it should be included (3) each cited different reasons: it makes it better for buying the game, it does no harm, and it makes the article better. This isn't meant to be a vote count, but I think the common threads in the comments point to a consensus in favor of removal. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

As it was asked for above, my own definition of when a list of events in a game is essential information is simply: Where a game does not include every event it could possibly include given the scope of the game, a list like this should be included on Wikipedia. This means that if this game had included every Olympic sport, there would be no point in the list, so it wouldn't be included; but since this game only includes a select few Olympic sports, the list is useful information and should be included. Of course, my own definition above would also mean lists of race circuits in racing games would be included too, even though they have been deleted before. I think it would be useful to include them too. MTC (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)