Talk:Robot Arena 2: Design and Destroy

message: (5/1/06) - A user from the "RA2 Forums (Unofficial)" keeps adding in a very vanity-ish section bragging about his InvisionFree forum that he managaes. I just deleted it, it will probably show up again though. 65.68.248.105 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RA2 Forums (Unofficial) Ads

message: can someone tell me how to use the cheatbot thing on teh game?  Ootmc SignhereTalktome 16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cheatbot 

message: somebody (infiniteinertia i think on the forums) keeps on removing the information of AAM. At first it was a reasonable, professional looking removal, but know it had become "the mothos of aam'ing shall be revealed to no-one". i think we should protect this page from edits, as AAM is a valid technique and should be common knowledge. Wouldyoulikeacookie 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AAM removal

message: Exit the screen where you repair your robot between battles, then load the saved game. You will have the full repair time and any repairs you already made will be saved. This effectively gives you infinite repair time between battles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.175.173 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum--Jeffery (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, I was just wondering if it should be included in the article as I have never seen it mentioned before 69.92.185.49 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Glitch 

message: Why is this supposedly true? 84.92.140.217 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Citations 

message: I just removed a whole chunk of material from the article -- extensive information about fan pages, unofficial mods, non-notable tournaments, etc.  Most of it was unsourced and none of it was particularly relevant to an encyclopedia entry.  There might be a lot going on with the game but it doesn't all belong in the article.  If there are some reliable third-party sources that talk about any of this then it can be re-added.  Until that point it's what we call WP:FANCRUFT.  ... discospinster talk 20:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the article, but I was not aware of the Fancruft policy. If you could keep the info up while I look to rewrite it to meet guidelines better, I think we'll come to a better agreement. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the prior versions are available in the article's history.  You can see what was written before and then re-add any notable information.  ... discospinster talk 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of material 

message: IMO we should leave it be now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sypher878 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks good

message: I read your edit summary. Wikis aren't allowed as sources here except under very special circumstances. For example, if the wiki was totally controlled by the producer, with no public editing, then it might be acceptable as a source. Otherwise players will just have to find that type of information on the wiki and other websites, not here. That's not what Wikipedia is for. It's for a short description based on reliable sources. For gaming that would be producers and gaming magazines. They could be used as sources to justify inclusion of some content. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what makes wikis unreliable sources. Our RA2 wiki can only be edited by established members of the gametechmods community, which is now effectively the official forums. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. To get clearance for including that link you'll need to get approval at this board: WP:RS/N. Start a thread there and present your arguments. If they approve, great. Until then we can't include it. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki as source 

message: I have been lurking on this page once every 2 months or so for the past 6 years and have begun to notice a recurring patern in the recent edits and talk threads being started on this page. I am an avid player of this game so I know the gist of what I'm talking about but I am attempting to be unbiased in the next several paragraphs.
The first thing I would like to get across is, are the people that keep reverting the article into the cut down version that it has been in for the past 2 years actually knowledgable about the game in question? There are multiple yet very good reasons why you wouldn't pick a gardener off the street and demand him to become a professional dancer in a televised competition within a week, and I strongly feel the same should apply to Wikipedia. Now if the person performing the reversions knows this game sufficiently and has played it long enough to get the gist of it, then I apologise for dragging you into this mess, and you can disregard everything after this full stop. If this group of people I'm referring to HASN'T, however, then I'm sorry, but who are you to judge what is notable about this video game or not? 1 of these 3 things that I'm about to mention NEED to happen to this page ASAP:
* A) This page is deleted, in accordance with WP:IMPORTANCE
* B) This page is reverted to a similar state as it was before December 2010, when a certain person got his unrelenting hands on it.
* C) The page is extended, as many people feel it does not cover the game in sufficient detail.
Any way you look at it, this article is way too small to provide even the simplest details of what it is about. Look at these examples of smaller, considerably less known games below to see what I'm talking about:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD_%28video_game%29
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeneRally_%28video_game%29
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwirk
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Tomato
Notice a recurring theme here? I doubt that these games have a higher notability rating compared to Robot Arena 2, yet their respective articles contain a whole host of information about the game despite not having much to talk about. I wouldn't want to add a considerable amount to the article, but at least allow enough to make a generously sized article. What the official forum would like to add is detailed below:
# Pictures, at least 2, preferably one of the cover and one of gameplay, as currently there are a stunning figure of zero, yes zero, images displayed on the article.
# Information about the history of the game, as the article mentions almost nothing about official forums, absolutely zero on the AceUplink or Radio F Software communities, and doesn't seem to mention the V1.3 patch that was later released to fix Multiplayer and Tag-Team modes.
# More citations and links, as the article only contains a staggering amount of 4 in total at the moment. May I suggest links for Gabriel Interactive and the RA2 TV advert from early 2003?
I mean, I don't want to look like an idiot or anything but this video game's article is simply underwritten, especially when compared with games of more obscurity or similar notability. I would like a response as the entire official community is waiting for a decision.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.71.117 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added two additional references. I will try to find more if possible.Timur9008 (talk) 9:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now, I don't want to look like an idiot or anything, so hear me out.