# Talk:Ratchet & Clank (2002 video game)

Actually, I'm only fixing the plot, and I got some screenshots. Abby724 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, Ratchet_and_Clank_Gameplay.PNG‎ isn't showing up in the article when I put it up. Yes, I know how to put up images, but it's just not showing up. Abby724 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a collection of funny quotes from the game is relevant for this article. I suggest they be moved to Wikiquote. —Metamorf 04:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Parts of the "reception" section strike me as incredibly POV. I think a lot of those statements need to be removed unless they can be sourced. Objections?
--
I agree
--NLUT

Okay, replaced the "reception" section with a summary of what the game was praised and criticized for. Hopefully it's not quite as POV. 209.107.122.185 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add screenshots, but the plot seems pretty complete.--Titan 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the plot is complete too. I might score out that thing. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 14:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a big edit to the article to make in conform better to CVG standards. 
Sections that currently need expanding:

Lead Section WP:LS
Gameplay (Not much but I think it can give a better overview of the more important aspects of play)
Development
Crimsonfox 13:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blackwater City.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fighting Qwark in Space.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Before you post WP:GAMEGUIDE, hear me out.
This series' signature is its odd and memorable weapons.  At least in this case, a lsit of weapon names and functions would be appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.17.2 (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 

There's no question about the game and/or series having notable weapons, but it's generally not the specifics of the weapons, just that they're all unique in function that earned the game's reputation.  Listing all the weapons would still be excessive, but if there are reviews that single out specific weapons, that information can be included in the critical reception.  (Also check Ratchet & Clank (series)'s general description of gameplay - there's a brief list of usual weapon types and the RYNO.  --MASEM 16:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone should nominate this as a good article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.12.31 (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 

Someone has added stuff about porkchops in the references section. I'd fix it but im sort of new and not sure how to do ths stuf yet.Spongefrog 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually Ill just do it. Spongefrog 21:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you (Drilnoth) think the plot is short enough? I removed a relatively small amount from it, but I think its slightly shorter than Going Commando's plot section. I meant to add this yesterday, but there was some problem with the Wikimedia servers or sommething. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 08:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Another thing. I found this being used as a cite on a previous version. I think it could be useful for the development section, but since it was removed I thought it might be unreliable. But if you think it only contains redundant information, just ignore the comment and save me the humiliation. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 08:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you think this would be any good for referencing the plot? This message is aimed at Drilnoth, but you can still answer if you're not (obviously). Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 18:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been doing much lately... I've been busy with things off of Wikipedia. For your suggested cites, I'd say that [1] is probably okay but I'm not sure about [[2]. I hope to do some more work here in the near future. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You're back!!!! That's what I thought too, I'll try to do a bit with it. Plot doesn't really need much more referencing, if anything it needs less. Would you say the article is almost C-Class now?  Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've requested assessment at Wikiproject Video games. I'm not looking for a GA or anything yet, just want to see how we've got on so far. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 19:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing really to say other than keep up the good work.  It's definitely almost a B class, just feel a little more reception and expanding the other sections as you noted should bring it on home. Nicely done!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll try to do some of that now. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks for the assessment. I'm going to come out of hiding momentarily and put a bunch of work into it today. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for coming back! I can't find anything for the development, but I seem to remember an unlockable video that you could get in the game if you got so many skill points. I unlocked it, do you think it would be any good? Of course, I really have to get some sleep, so I would do it tomorrow. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I won't reply until tomorrow. I need to sleep. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the video. It wasn't really anything about development, just a summary of the gameplay basically. There was also a sketchbook with a lot of good development info, but I doubt I could use that as a source. Or could I... Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok; you could use an in-game video as a source, but if there isn't anything really relevant there's no point. I hope to work on this some more soon (again); I've been doing practically nothing on Wikipedia recently because of some other things. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. OK, I'll try to use the in-game sketchbook-type thing as a thing for development. In the morning, I have to sleep. There's no rush, if you're busy in real life, don't worry about it. And I won't yell in caps again :).  Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. It seems you've added all the stuff with better referencing (the sort of stuff I've been looking for for two weeks). Probably a B-class now, I'd say, but I don't know anything. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 10:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, can I put a  thing on my userpage if this gets GA? (I'll still give you/Drilnoth most of the credit). Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course you can! You did as much work on this one as I did... I focused on the development and reception, you did most of the gameplay and plot. I think that this collaboration is working out pretty well. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hooray. Are you still wanting to do Ratchet: Deadlocked next? You know, I think that was the first article I ever edited. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
No kidding! That's funny. I'd say that Deadlocked or Tools of Destruction would be good next (former because it is a much worse article than the latter, latter because it gets more views than the former). Alternatively, A Crack In Time could be worked on... that's the most highly viewed right now, but it can't make GA until it's actually released. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
TOD does have a bit of a rambling gameplay section (from what I remember), and some other issues, but Deadlocked has far too much detail. It would be nice to get crack in time up to standard before it actually comes out, but it would be very hard to mantain, with a flood of unreferenced, ungrammatical edits every time new info comes out. It's up to you. I can't decide. (P.S. Now that I think about it, I think that vandalism post above was my first edit). Anyway I have to sleep again, so you've got plenty time to respond. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Your first edit, just for reference. :) Anyway, Deadlocked sounds like a good plan. I told BOZ that I'd do some work on Pool of Radiance first, so it might be a week or so until I really start on Deadlocked, although now that I have more time there shouldn't be as many delays. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I might start a bit of cleaning up on Deadlocked, but probably nothing too major. Maybe do a bit to the gameplay section etc.  Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 08:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could save Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal from the Blargian snagglebeast. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed you had done some of that. I would like to, but I don't know if there's really much I would be good at. I'll have a look, if I don't see anything I wouldn't mess up, I'll help out a bit. I'll at least do some grammar, if I find any. Otherwise, I'll get us a head start on Deadlocked.  Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ratchet & Clank/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! Vicenarian (T · C) 11:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


### Pre-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews
My GA review will be coming very soon. Thanks for your patience! Vicenarian (Said · Done) 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


### GA REVIEW - Pass
This is a well-written, MoS-compliant, easy-to-read article. It contains everything I would expect from an article of its type, in a concise and not overly "crufty" tone. I thought for a little while about whether it could use an additional screen capture or two (something to consider going forward), but decided that wasn't enough for it to fail the GAC. Neutral in tone, well-cited with well-formed references and stable. A job well done!
Vicenarian (Said · Done) 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


### Post-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews
Trying to pull the wool over me eyes are we? Finishing it at the last minute, the day I come back. To think I supported your RfA! I'm ashamed of you. (read: "thanks"). Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 17:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the review! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ratchet & Clank (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a list of weapons, their cost (N/A indicates free, found or came at the start of the game) and the ammo type along with their maximum capacity. I haven't done the descriptions for them yet or the gadgets. - Wiltaprizes (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ratchet & Clank (2002 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905151928/http://old.gameplanet.co.nz/mag.dyn/Features/1550.html to http://old.gameplanet.co.nz/mag.dyn/Features/1550.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/action/ratchetclank/news.html?sid=2894708&mode=recent&page=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090919111536/http://old.gameplanet.co.nz/mag.dyn/Reviews/2449.html to http://old.gameplanet.co.nz/mag.dyn/Reviews/2449.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)