Talk:Naruto: Clash of Ninja (video game)

message: The game controls shouldn't be on the page. Wikipedia is not an Instruction manual. See WP:NOT. --Zeno McDohl 18:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is ridiculous. Wikipedia is to be informative, and when it comes to video games, you can describe the game play. It has been done on countless other video game pages. Even if that is their policy, you can't ignore the blasphemousness of it all. I am reverting back, regardless of their policy, and I will not agree with them until they can convince me why they have made such a redundent policy.--SwordKirby537 04:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well we're back on an even amount of opinions. I'd still like more comments about this, but I already did a RfC. Hm. Requested a Third Opinion. --Zeno McDohl 03:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've left a comment on your user discussion. Something I believe you should read. --Zeno McDohl 00:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Wikipedia policy states, no personal attacks. Calling a group of users ignorant falls under this. Please refrain from doing so. Also, just because you do not agree with a policy (ex: WP:NOT) does not mean you can just ignore it. --Zeno McDohl 00:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Last time I checked, "ignorant" just means an absence of knowledge. I was not using it as a medium of attacking.--SwordKirby537 01:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote "uneducated in general" for the definition. Besides that, you have no right to judge others intelligence by a few lines, therefor it was a personal attack. And also, this should not be continued here at all, but left on user talk. --Zeno McDohl 02:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing controls 

message: Naruto: Clash of Ninja (video game) → Naruto: Clash of Ninja – {No need for the video game part since there is nothing else with that name}
===Survey===
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~''
===Discussion===
:Add any additional comments
Is there a reason we needed a vote? Voting is evil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add any additional comments
Is there a reason we needed a vote? Voting is evil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

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: 
#:: </div>
Other than the fact that I think the article could use a screenshot or two (which is not a GA requirement, of course, especially since screenshots are non-free content) the article looks great (if a bit short, but of course that's what GA is for!). One small concern:
#All of the direct quotes in the "Reception" section must be direct cited, even if it's with the same citation used at the end of the sentence.
#Reference #11 is a registration required site - if it can be replaced with a reference that is not, it should be. If it cannot, then the citation should note in parentheses that registration is required.
#The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must not introduce any information that is not present in the body of the article (there's nothing in the article about the publishers or the sentence "It is based on the popular manga and anime series Naruto by Masashi Kishimoto, and the first installment of the Naruto: Clash of Ninja video game series.") and must adequately summarize all major points/headings made in the body of the article (there's little, if anything, on "Gameplay" or "Development" sections)
To allow for these changes to me made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixes made. Attempt to add the image failed miserably, so I'll leave it out. Regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead still contains information that is not present in the body of the article - specifically, the article lacks mention of who the two publishers were, or that it's the first installment in the series. If I have missed this information, please just point it out on the talk page. Cheers, CP 00:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Material added. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Looks good to me, so I will be passing it as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: The "series" article cover almost everything listed in this article. Is this really needed? Also considering that the first game of the Ultimtae Ninja series doesn't have its own article, I think it would only be fair if this one was deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.234.219 (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really needed? 

message: I really think this article should be merged with the series article, my reasons are in the section above this one.76.108.234.219 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The game is, by itself, notable enough to sustain an article. Further, it has qualified as a good article, meaning it is of high enough quality that a merge is not necessary. That the first Ultimate Ninja game doesn't have an article simply means nobody has made one yet. ~SnapperTo 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that this aritcle has been qulified as a good article, but most of the information in this article has already been added to the series articles, and any remaining information can just be added. And if the first game of the series is important enough to have its own article, why aren't the rest?76.108.234.219 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the other seven games in the Clash of Ninja series (or at the very least the four Japanese games) are not able to assert their notability. If someone were to provide a comparable amount of development and reception information as there is in this article, the other games would have articles as well. ~SnapperTo 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the reception information is already in the series article, and the development information can have its own section in the series' article.76.108.234.219 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be missing my point: this one game asserts enough notability to have its own article. That parts of this article are also covered by the series list does not change this fact. ~SnapperTo 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, then. I think it's pointless to have an article when all the information in it is already addressed in another article. I mean, why was the merger done in the first place? Oh well. 76.108.234.219 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was split off from the series article once there was enough reception information for it to stand on its own. That is why there are a number of similarities between them. I don't particularly see the need for this article either, but I'm not going to try to find fault with it when it's achieved GA classification. ~SnapperTo 23:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal