Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1988 video game)

message: Not sure how to do this, but my correction was over ruled and the old page reinstated. (I don't even know why I edit anything on here since someone always thinks they are correct, and if I am not, please explain why I am not.)
The 'edit' in question is regards to this is suppose to be the first Indy movie made into a video game, when 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' came out at least two years prior on the Atari 2600. Am I not correct? Then the statement that Temple of Doom was the first is WRONG.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.75.40 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you need to source this change, I can't just take your word for it in defiance of the sourced material. Second of all, you deleting this completely destroys my reference structure, so of course I'm going to revert it. Give me a source that says this. Then I will PROPERLY change the reference so that it doesn't wreck the entire article. Until you can source this, I am going to continue to revert it. Per Wikipedia policy "unsourced material may be reverted at any time." Cheers, CP 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I've clarified the material anyhow. The passage is referring to arcade games and the game you refer to was released for the console only, if I'm not mistaken. Hopefully this clears it up? Cheers, CP 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Link needs fixed 

message: Wow. I'd say this is pretty near to GA as it is. The sources, images, neutrality and stability are all pretty much there. It was a really interesting read, though there are still a couple of points before I think you can send it off to GAC:
* I'm no expert on criterion 1 at any level, but there are still a few things in this department I noticed:
** Usually, the template goes at the bottom, rather than sandwiched between "references" and "see also". Move the references up to right before "see also", and then you'd be fine in my books.
 Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a MobyGames link and a HotU link. Una LagunaTalk 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, thanks! Cheers, CP 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks again for the review! Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs doing? 

message: Why is the lead and the infobox telling it was only released for NES when the MobyGames entry lists all these platforms: Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Apple II, Atari ST, Commodore 64, DOS, MSX, ZX Spectrum? --Mika1h 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead doesn't say that it was "only" released for the NES, the first sentence merely implies that the version being focus on is the NES one. In fact, the very next sentence is about how it was originally released as an arcade game. The other parts are mentioned in the first section of the actual article. You are right, though, I should list the different platforms in the infobox, and will do so now. Thanks! Cheers, CP 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But shouldn't the article also discuss these different versions? How they are different from one another and so on. One Good Article criteria is "broad in its coverage", isn't it? --Mika1h 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it does discuss the differences between this version and the Arcade version, but yes, not the others. This is an article, however, on the NES version. Perhaps the name of the page should be changed to "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Nintendo game)?" Cheers, CP 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be one solution. Then the arcade game article could talk about other versions and you don't have to worry about them. --Mika1h 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to do it at the moment (since I'd need to change the Indiana Jones Games template, the GA nom and everything else that points here), but I do support the move. The NES version has a claim to notability (given the two different versions that were released, that controversy and the almost complete panning of the game), but I do support the move. The other versions are NN and it makes more sense to talk about them in the context of the original game (the arcade version) than this one. Cheers, CP 20:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it. --Mika1h 09:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks! Cheers, CP 15:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platforms 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
Nothing bad to say about this article. There was one poorly written sentence that may have been a result of two sentences melded together, but I simply removed the material that didn't make sense. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review! What's the original research though? Cheers, CP 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passed as Good Article! 

message: Creating a centralized discussion for the use of extra images (as seen in the history). The only argument made in favour of the images inclusion has been that they were in the article when the article passed GA, in spite of the fact that none of the images' rationales actually address the content of the image or its actual use. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My only suggestion was that the images comparing the two versions would be relevant for critical commentary on the section so that said differences can be clearly identified by the user. Perhaps the bonus stage is superfluous, I can compromise on that, if it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Canadian Paul 04:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the fact that title screens are largely considered "cover images" unless they are used in an exceptional way (such as if, in a theoretical example, a title screen had significant discussion or if it received controversy due to a typo that totally looked like a swear word). In this case, the title screen is not mentioned in the article whatsoever. I'm still very confused as to the difference between the two images. I am only seeing a difference in copyright information. Is that it? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Okay so, having reviewed the article, any significant discussion on the bonus wave was removed when I shortened the section to comply with the standards, so that one can probably go without argument. As for the title screen, there is an entire paragraph devoted to the differences between the two versions of the final product (third paragraph of "version history")... but of course the point is that they were identical save for the official licensing. Thus, the commentary with the images is not to highlight the differences, but the similarities. Seems like this one, however, we might just have two different opinions... perhaps an uninvolved, neutral party would be helpful? Canadian Paul 01:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To note, we cannot point out the similarities unless a reliable source does first. And even then, the intro screen does very little to illustrate the game by itself. A more useful comparison would be of actual gameplay. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1988 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://archive.is/20080219184838/http://www.nesplayer.com/features/lawsuits/tengen.htm to http://www.nesplayer.com/features/lawsuits/tengen.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified