# Talk:Tomba!

Do you think the Evil Pigs section is really needed? I think it would be much more practical to just have a link to a walkthrough somewhere.Bullwinkleman

I made a major cleanup. Shud I put some more [[ ]] wikilinks?  You can! :P  --JasonXV 04:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

HOW TO SAVE GAME????

To save your game you must read a sign at the beginning of a location and press X.

Image:Tomba.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 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else notice that Yan's hair in the game is actually blonde but in the pictures his hair is brown? Is it just that his hair is blonde in the european 1 or what?

I like how the Gameplay section stops making sense halfway through.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.143.141 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 

@78.250.34.113: As already explained before, we don't add emulated services, such as PSN games and the Virtual Console, to the infobox, per the infobox documentation. The page is now protected for a week, hopefully in an effort to familiarize yourself with the standards Wikipedia has for video game articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've independently determined that Tomba!, Tomba! 2: The Evil Swine Return and Whoopee Camp do not have extensive enough development information or third-party coverage available for individual articles to be viable, and I propose that the three pages be merged into a single article devoted to the duology. Having constructed a potential combined form of the three articles for the past few days, I can safely say that the resulting page would be of sufficient size and quality for B-Class, at the very least. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What would the page name be? And I don't think it's worth bothering with Whoopee Camp at all (besides a redirect), as it has nothing that the two game articles don't mention again. Other than that, I don't oppose the proposal. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I've thought about "Tomba! (series)", but I don't think two games counts that much as a series, so for the time being until something better comes along, I'm sticking to just "Tomba!". Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Would it be favored more towards the original game, or about 50% in favor of each? The first option seen more often on Wikipedia, while the second is rare, I can only name Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga as an example of that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it's going to be the latter. Going by how the tentative page turned out, it doesn't seem like one is favored over the other. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine with me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose here. Both Tomba 1 and 2 had plenty of separate, dedicated coverage. Merging is a lazy, sloppy choice. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Were the original sources all up to par though? Looking at the original Tomba game pre-merger, it only used six references, and out of them, two were reviews, one was a GameRankings page, and the other was an IGN profile page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have to question that logic as well; the Development and Reception information for both games is demonstrably summed up in three neat and thorough paragraphs each, and the combined article had just been rated B-Class, so "lazy" and "sloppy" are hardly the right words, not to mention insulting since I spent days putting the combined article together. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There are 8 sources present in the review table alone. They were complete separate titles that received completely separate coverage. We don't just merge and redirect every article that has sourcing locked away in hard copy sources. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
While I don't care either way, I do think the merger should have been held off for a bit until more discussion can be had. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 (edit conflict) We've got three detailed, dedicated sources. 
http://m.ign.com/articles/2000/01/19/tomba-2-2
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/tomba-2-review/1900-2546091/
http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/39376-tomba-2-review
Since when is that not enough for an article to have its own article, especially when you factor in the fact that there's plent of hard copy sources in existence, and shorter sources available online to help flesh out the article in the meantime. I don't know what's more disappointing - the lazy "eh let's just merge it" mentality or this half-assed 2 person, 5 day discussion that lead to it. Unbelievable. Sergecross73 msg me 03:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as PlayStation titles are concerned, only three reviews is pitiful for a Reception section. Considering the higher-quality articles out there, the combined page is lucky to even have eight sources for that part, since at least a handful have more, I'm sure. Also, when the combined development information on both titles can be summed up in three paragraphs, that's pretty clear proof that neither game could ever manage as much as B-Class on their own. And scouting the edit histories, I certainly couldn't find any noteworthy persons involved recently who'd possibly clamor for keeping two hopelessly meager pages separate. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
While I don't think merging them in the Digital Devil Saga manner was ideal, especially as it was only me who commented before it was attempted, I don't see how more including reviews really help either article stand back on their own beyond the expanding their reception sections. Where's the sources that discuss the history of both the games and studio, as well as gameplay? As I don't deal with hard copy sources, I'm assuming this is where they can all be found? This should probably be discussed more at WT:VG. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Those are all some fine concerns for a GA nomination/review discussion. And there, they'd be valid. It's not a GA. But that doesn't matter here - being a GA isn't a requirement for a subject to have its own article. Don't get me wrong, I love to write up a bulky development section for an article. But that's absolutely not a requirement for an articles existence. And that's what we're here discussing. The standard for something having a stand-along article is enough sourcing to meet the WP:GNG, having independent notability, and being able to scrounge up some prose. We're easily doing all three of those here. Yes, it's fun to use the WP:1.0 system to motivate to improve articles, but it's not a valid reason to deconstruct a perfectly valid article. Sergecross73 msg me 04:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:GNG only states that with enough coverage, a subject is presumed to be suitable for its own article, not required. Pedantry aside, having one concise, thorough article just a hair's length away from potential GA-status is far more preferable to having two mediocre articles that get by on the bare minimal justification for existence and have no chance of getting better on their own. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, Id totally understand your stance if this article was, let's say, a two sentence, one source stub. Merge away. But there's much more than that here. Your GA navel gazing aside, the reader is not better serviced by the elimination of this entire article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The contents of the merged article are conveyed just fine within the context of the combined version, and readers are better off not having to needlessly navigate one extra page to get information on a minor cult duology. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. There is enough present for two stand-alone articles. Stop merging until have a better consensus. Even Dissident, who was okay with merge, conceded your decision to merge already was too hasty. You need more input to proceed. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Ive requested more input from WP:VG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


### Merge Survey
Should Tomba 2 be merged into Tomba? Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Merger
Per my comments above, Tomba 2 has three long, detailed, WP:VG/S approved sources, IGN, GameSpot, and Game Revolution) many shorter ones, and well over 8 when you factor in hard copy sources.
The two games are wholly independent if each other, as is their coverage.
Tomba 2 is not some sort of tiny stub where there's nothing to say. It's already a 16Kb article and would be easy to expand. (I plan on doing so, but I'm currently stuck on mobile, so it'll be a day or two.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose merger Gamerankings list a lot of reviews for the game. (10 in total). That should be much much more than enough to meet WP:GNG. I have no idea why you would merge two articles that are notable... Especially as they are two separate games (in the same series). The arguement for merging makes no sense if notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Support Three available online reviews is sub-par in terms of PlayStation titles, and neither game has substantial third-party coverage on development to maintain high-quality articles on their own (the first installment in particular). Also, as the only two works of a short-lived company, their combined contents are best suited as a single concise article on the duology as a whole. The fact that the combined article managed a B-Class rating and could very well contend for Good Article status is enough justification to uphold the merger. Quality takes precedent over quantity. And it bears repeating that WP:GNG only states that significant coverage presumes notability rather than guarantees it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, each game has 3 indepth online sources readily available, 8-10 available each when you factor in off-line sources, and countless shorter sources available for smaller details. Having that level of sourcing for each game is more than enough for two separate articles. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Offline sources are to be taken as WP:GOODFAITH, and not viewed as indiscriminately against online sources. It didn't matter if there was 10 offline sources, and no online sources, it is still enough to pass WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It's likely not his doubt that they exist, but a doubt of having access to them. In some merge discussions, there's an argument of "There's sources but no one has access to them so lets merge until if/when someone gets access to them because there's not enough to create an article in the meantime." Which can be a valid argument, if there are literally no online sources available to source anything, and all five sources in existence are locked away in obscure 1980s print mags. But it's certainly not an appropriate approach when there are multiple, detailed, online sources readily available - which is what I was driving at in my comments. Additionally, no one bothered to ask WP:VG about print sources or to check the various websites that host old magazines these days. Cat Tuxedo just did the equivalent of asking"Should we merge?" into an empty hallway, was answered with a shrug, and went to work merging. Which is why I had so many criticisms of the laziness and sloppiness of how this was handled before I happened to notice what was done. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
That would only be true if no one could source an article... But an article IS already sourced... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 
Precisely - it's a complete misapplication of the concept. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Lack of sources/info is not a reason to merge. A reason to merge would be if the Tomba series is consistently discussed as a whole, which it is not. TarkusABtalk 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Both clearly meet the GNG. JOEBRO64 21:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Plenty of RS coverage for both games. Phediuk (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Both independently notable and supported by reliable sources. I think merging content so that the "combined article managed a B-Class rating" is a misguided argument, since it was never the core principle behind merging. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per others. There is more than enough sources to meet the notability guidelines. Nomader (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

http://shmuplations.com/tomba/  TarkusABtalk 17:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tomba!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to take this one on. It might take me a while, and if I don't get to it within a week, feel free to ping me. It should be sooner than that hopefully. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Off the bat, the article appears neutral and stable. The article is on its way but needs some work in the prose. I'm going to work through it section by section, then come back to the lead once the body of the article is solid. I'll try to look at the sources as I go.
Gameplay

Even the instruction manual needs a complete reference template, including author, publisher, and date.
In general, look for ways to say the same thing in fewer, simpler words. There are some free online tools for this if you look for them.
"The semi-open world can be explored freely once the areas are unlocked as the story progresses." -> the last part, "once the areas are unlocked" and "as the story progresses" are separate ideas that sort of confuse each other. Is the open world unlocked all at once, area-by-area?
"although he can occasionally move between the foreground and background and explore each as separate areas" -> this sounds like a distinguishing feature from other standard 2D platformers, and should be explained more clearly. Consider pulling it out into its own sentence to give yourself room to explain it.
"leaping onto their back, biting into them and tossing them in a straightforward trajectory" -> "or" might be more appropriate than "and"? Right now it sounds like this is all one single long attack, when I think you mean to present these as separate options.
"Tomba can increase the variety in his offensive measures by obtaining weapons such as flails and boomerangs" -> "Tomba can also attack enemies by obtaining various weapons, such as flails and boomerangs." (say it more plainly)
When you introduce events as a concept, I'd start with the second part (examples of what you might do), and then explain where they come from after.
"the player is rewarded an amount of Adventure Points" -> "the player is rewarded with Adventure Points"
"which can be used to advance toward a new area" -> are they spending points to unlock areas? There's probably a clearer / shorter way to say this
"that compiles the immediate given set of events for review as well as a collection of the items that have been obtained." -> "that displays the player's current collection of items and events."
"If Tomba is hit by an enemy character, falls into deep water or touches a sharp surface, he will lose one vitality point." -> "Tomba loses a vitality point if he is hit by an enemy, touches a sharp object, or falls into deep water."
The image used has a justified fair use rationale. Consider a more descriptive image caption, especially for people on small browsers like phones. Just describing the gameplay (running, jumping) gives it more context.
Plot

"Tomba's bracelet, an heirloom from his grandfather, is absconded following a confrontation with a group of evil Koma Pigs" -> "The game begins when a group of evil Koma Pigs take Tomba's bracelet, an heirloom from his grandfather."
"He ventures to a nearby village in his pursuit," -> "Tomba pursues them to a nearby village,"
"The Wise Man relates to Tomba the story of how the Seven Evil Pigs, the leaders of the Koma Pigs, appeared and used their powers to tarnish the land" -> "The Wise Man tells the story of the Seven Evil Pigs, the leaders of the Koma Pigs who tarnished the land with their magical powers."
"He explains that the Koma Pigs have been stockpiling gold (which is later clarified to be the source of their magic powers[13])," -> "He later reveals that the Koma Pigs are stockpiling gold, the source of their magic." (full stop)
"and surmises that Tomba will find his bracelet if he seeks out the Seven Evil Pigs hiding throughout the land" -> "The Wise Man advises Tomba to find his bracelet by finding the Seven Evil Pigs hiding throughout the land."
"To aid in this endeavor, the Wise Man informs Tomba of the Evil Pig Bags capable of revealing the Evil Pigs' hiding places and capturing them, and tells him to seek out the Dwarf Elder in the nearby forest to learn more about the Evil Pig Bags." -> "He also describes the Evil Pig Bags that could reveal the Pigs' hiding places, and suggests learning more from the Dwarf Elder in the next village."
"The Dwarf Elder gives Tomba a blue Pig Bag and tells him that the Evil Pig Bags have the power to manifest the entrance to an Evil Pig's hideout if Tomba is to draw near to it, but also that the individual Evil Pigs do not hide in the same area that they have cast their specific spell." -> this sentence is a little long and repeats a lot of proper nouns. I think there's a simpler way to say it, even if it ends up being two shorter sentences.
"ventures throughout" -> "explores"
I get that you're trying to organize a lot of information into a "list": a type of bag, a type of level, and a type of disaster. But this sentence is really long and difficult to read. Consider whether you absolutely need to include all that detail. If you still think the detail matters, maybe find a way to rephrase or re-organize using shorter sentences.
Development and release

You introduce Tokuro Fujiwara without giving any context about who he is. Perhaps start with the idea, "Tomba was created by Tokuro Fujiwara, after he left his job as a game developer with Capcom."
"and would act as the director" -> "and became the director"
"On his choice to make a 2D side-scrolling game, Fujiwara stated that a two-dimensional presentation was fundamental to the experience of video games, and that the format was a straightforward way to please and excite players." -> do a new paragraph here, for organization. Simpler version: "Fujiwara chose to make a side-scrolling game as he believed this fundamental experience would excite players in a straightforward way."
"Fujiwara placed an emphasis on thinking and decision-making on the players' behalf and cultivated a highly flexible and free environment within the game," -> I'm not sure this says anything at all. It could be cut without losing much meaning in the larger sentence, and allow you to rewrite the rest of the sentence in a more readable way.
Is the music so important to the game that it needs to be pulled from the primary source? Are there any secondary sources that discuss the importance of the music to the development of the game?
It's better to just have two sections for "Development" and "Release", than to jam it into one section under a title joined by "and"
"extremely limited" -> can we just say "limited"?
Were they distributed and also offered as prizes, or were the prizes the only distribution?
"Visual improvements were added to the international version of Tomba!, including Gouraud shading on background elements. Additionally, the controls were made more responsive and the load times had been reduced." -> "The international release was improved, with shorter load times, more responsive controls, Gouraud shading on background elements, and other visual improvements."
Again, it's not clear that the music is important enough to bring up, and this could be an issue of WP:UNDUE weight.
Perhaps move the release date for the international versions to before the description of what the international versions include.
"spent the course of a year" -> "spent one year"
"The involved parties elected to hold off on extending their relationship beyond Tomba! until" -> this is wordy too. Are you saying they waited to see if a sequel was worth developing?
Reception

"The amount, variety and non-linearity of the events was praised," -> "The events were praised for their variety, quantity, and non-linearity."
"though John Ricciardi" -> "However,"
"Mark Cooke of GameRevolution noted that Tomba! was the first platform game to grant such freedom, following attempts by RPGs such as The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall.[34]" -> I might swap this with the last sentence, to set up the praise more before introducing an exception.
"The game's side-scrolling platforming segments were considered reminiscent of platform games from earlier generations, particularly Fujiwara's past titles Ghosts 'n Goblins and Ghouls 'n Ghosts, which Cooke felt made the gameplay "a little too tired".[7][23][34][35]" -> this jams together four references. If it's about Cook's comment about tired gameplay, just focus on that. Or if these are separate ideas, present them as separate sentences.
"The controls were commended for their tightness" -> "Several reviewers praised the responsiveness of the controls."
The GameSpot quote feels a little out of place, and it might flow better if the reviewers were commenting on similar things, even if their opinions differ.
"Crispin Boyer of Electronic Gaming Monthly positively compared the game's presentation to Klonoa: Door to Phantomile, saying that the "almost perfect marriage" of its disparate graphical elements made Tomba! a "state-of-the-art side-scroller" in the spirit of the aforementioned title" -> This is a long sentence that's difficult to leave. Decide which part is most important, and if all the quotes are really needed.
Sequel

"reviews, but sold" -> break these sentences apart, for readability
Let's start with that. It might still need another pass, but that should cover the most glaring issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
All points thus far have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this! It's on the whole better. Giving this another pass, this time including the lead:
"Lead designer and producer Tokuro Fujiwara established Whoopee Camp and led the development of Tomba! after leaving Capcom in 1995. " -> "Creator Tokuro Fujiwara developed Tomba! after leaving Capcom in 1995, founding Whoopee Camp as director, producer and lead designer."
"He based the game's 2D side-scrolling perspective on" -> "He chose the game's 2D side-scrolling perspective for"
"Tomba! was received positively by critics, with particular praise going to the varied objective-based gameplay, controls and visuals, with more mixed reception directed toward the audio." -> "Tomba! was received positively by critics, with praise for its controls, visuals, and varied gameplay objectives." (and if it's still important) "However, the game's audio received a more mixed reception."
"Tomba! maintained a cult following years after its release, and was released on the PlayStation Network in 2011." -> "Tomba! maintained a cult following years after its debut, and was re-released on the PlayStation Network in 2011."
"between the foreground and background and explore each as separate areas" -> "between the foreground and background as separate areas" (I think this is shorter and keeps the same meaning)
"Some areas in the game enable the player to explore them in an isometric view, allowing Tomba to move around freely." -> "Some areas  allow the player to explore them in an isometric view."
"leaping onto their back, biting into them and then tossing them in a straightforward trajectory" -> Right now this feels a little ambiguous, and might even suggest this is a sequence of actions. If it's a sequence, the language in the image box is more clear, and see if you can pull from that to help readers understand the order of operations. If it's not a sequence, then make it clear these are separate attack types.
The gameplay section reads a lot more clearly now and the sources appear to check out.
The plot section could use a few transition/intro words to help the first sentence flow. (e.g.: "The story begins when...")"
"in the same area that they have cast their specific spell" -> "in the same area where they have case their spell."
The last sentence in the plot section could use some sort of reference. I know it's usually implied that it's the game itself, but considering you reference everything else, you might as well be consistent.
you can drop "officially" from his resignation, as it doesn't add anything
"Fujiwara established the independent development studio Whoopee Camp afterward" -> "Fujiwara soon established the independent development studio Whoopee Camp,"
"He designed the game's non-linear event system and Tomba's gradual growth in abilities and resources to set Tomba! apart from other timing-based action games" -> "To distinguish Tomba! from other action games, Fujiwara designed a non-linear event system, as well as Tomba's gradual growth in abilities and resources."
This section also reads a lot more clearly. Great job.
"The involved parties elected to wait until Tomba!'s re-release showed satisfactory sales figures before arranging the re-release of the game's sequel, Tomba! 2: The Evil Swine Return.[29]" -> the sequel sort of fudges the flow of the section, where you could talk about the release of the first game instead of the sequel. It might flow better to move the mention of the sequel to the end of the section, and just continue talking about the English re-release of the first game before that. That said, if the timeline of the events is important, I'd try to make this flow better.
Link to Nonlinear gameplay when you bring up non-linearity in the reception.
"into a tangent" can be dropped without losing any meaning
"side-scrolling platforming segments" -> you can cut "platforming" here as it's implied
"Crispin Boyer of Electronic Gaming Monthly saw a similarity to Klonoa: Door to Phantomile in the game's presentation" -> "Crispin Boyer of Electronic Gaming Monthly compared the game's visuals to Klonoa: Door to Phantomile"
Sentence-by-sentence, the reception is a decent read. But on the whole, it feels like it jumps between a lot of different ideas (the game overall, the controls, the load times, the save system, the visuals, the audio, the tone). I would suggest finding ways to re-order this if at all possible, where one idea more clearly flows to the other. Where it's hard to have any flow, you could get away with one or two more paragraph breaks, if you can also avoid the other problem of too many short paragraphs.
"the game did not sell enough copies to qualify for inclusion in any of Sony's budget ranges," -> I'm unclear on what this means
"Tomba! 2: The Evil Swine Return was released by Whoopee Camp for the PlayStation in 1999 and was also met with positive reviews." -> "Whoopee Camp released Tomba! 2: The Evil Swine Return for the PlayStation in 1999, and the game also received positive reviews."
This is getting a lot closer. Keep it up and it will get to GA soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
And done. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
You're really close now. A few more minor tweaks:
The plot section mixes past and present tense. Just pick one and be consistent. (the Seven Evil Pigs appear/appeared vs Tomba is/was born)
"A curious and energetic boy named Tomba is born and raised by his grandfather on the islands, and Tomba spends his days playing and hunting in the wilderness." -> this is the only sentence that runs on with an awkward flow. Perhaps strike the second part (after the comma), and/or shorten the description of Tomba from "a curious and energetic boy". You could probably even strike the "born" part. An encyclopedia article always reads better to hit your main point in fewer words.
Consider moving the last paragraph in the reception section about the tone, and combining it with the paragraph about the visuals. The two ideas flow well together.
Strike the words "budget range" from the Sequel section, since the meaning comes across without them
Once again, all the references and images seem to check out. This is very close to a GA with these last few tweaks. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
And that's done. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Excellent work. Thanks for this, and happy to give this a pass. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll admit, I'm not a wiki'er, but something that dynamic as ebay price listing is kind of ridiculous in a "encyclopedia". Unless the price was monumental or news worthy of course, but 250 one day could be 60 another or 2000 even after. It just seems very topical.
AND upon further inspection of the sources, it's 250 AUD and from 2012.
Looks like the submitter was User:Cat's Tuxedo. Any thoughts?

I removed it per your reasoning. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)