Talk:Angry Birds Rio

Merger discussion

Angry Birds Rio is a promotional version of another game, Angry Birds. As the game is merely a re-marketed version of the original game (with characters from the associated animated film replacing the originals), the content here is more appropriately located within the article for the original game, and thus should be merged with it. However, as this version of the article is out of date compared to the content describing the game in the current Angry Birds article, the most efficient course of action is to simply restore the redirect to Angry Birds. --McDoobAU93 03:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Having this variant separated into a single-paragraph article is entirely unnecessary. --uKER (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Attention- Merge proposals should take place at the target article's talk page. And also per WP:Merge, notices need to be placed on each article's heading. Also it may be fair to give leave a notice on the talk page of the person who created this article. The person who proposes a merge is responsible for doing these things according to policy and guidelines.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you see, there's just an itty-bitty, teensy-weensy problem with that ... all the content that was used to create this article came from that one, many moons ago. The subhead for Angry Birds Rio over at Angry Birds is much more accurate than this old snapshot that you restored. In fact, there have been not one, but two discussions over separating out Rio, with consensus among frequent editors that no, there shouldn't be a separate article. One of those discussions was brought on by a user who simply wanted the separate article to include a screenshot he captured, and it was his version that you restored. Even further, I'm trying to decide why this had to be done now when the redirect has been fine for two months and editors have been contributing Rio information into the Angry Birds article with no complaints or further requests that it be broken out. Which raises the $64,000 question ... why restore an out-of-date stub that is covered much better in a GA-class article this one redirected to? --McDoobAU93 01:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are pretty weak, as far as consensus goes. Again read WP:MERGE to discover how to format a merger proposal. If and when that happens, there is no point in debating this here, since this is not the proper venue for this discussion. As soon as the article was created, it should have been given its due wiki process, rather than simply redirected 2 minutes after creation. Redirects without proper discussion are in fact de facto deletions, usually at the whim of a single or a couple of editors. --JOJ ^Hutton 03:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

But it is the consensus of those who cover the article. Forgive me for being a member of the school of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but the redirect was working fine for two months, with no requests or discussions that Rio be broken out again. As such, apparently there is consensus (the silent majority, as it were). So, in effect, this really should be a WP:SPLIT issue instead of a WP:MERGE issue, because this article would be split from the parent, instead of being merged back into the parent, which is where this current version came from in the first place.

However, in the interest of fairness, I'll accede. For what it's worth, the creator of the article hasn't been active on Wikipedia in two months, but I'll still leave a message there. --McDoobAU93 14:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on merge is moot

Wake the kids and phone the neighbors ... after due research into the edits at both Angry Birds and Angry Birds Rio, it's rather clear that this article was created without consensus to WP:SPLIT it from Angry Birds, where it was already being covered. Coverage for Rio started appearing in the Angry Birds article in February 2011, as evidenced here. This article was created in late March 2011, as shown here. For comparison, look at this diff for Angry Birds that occurred maybe an hour before Rio was created; it has much more even then. Based on the evidence, it's agreed that policy wasn't followed ... but it was a matter for WP:SPLIT, not WP:MERGE. --McDoobAU93 14:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• You appear to be pulling at straws in order to either discredit the articles validity, or to somehow avoid having a proper discussion on the proposed merge. If the article has no merit, as you suggest, then why not allow others with fresh points if views a chance voice their opinions?--JOJ ^Hutton 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • THE DISCUSSION HAS ALREADY OCCURRED! Opinions were exchanged, consensus was formed (your judgment that it's "weak" is merely your opinion), and nobody has challenged it for TWO MONTHS! There is no need to merge this because (a) the content originally came from Angry Birds in the first place and (b) this snapshot you keep restoring is out-of-date, thus compromising the content and the integrity of the project. The content here will simply be deleted, restoring the redirect that everyone has been okay with for months. If there were new opinions, why haven't they been registered at Angry Birds, since that's where it'd need to be discussed, as you say? This is getting beyond ridiculous ... --McDoobAU93 19:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep the page there is enough info in it and it could grow I will expand this article as far as I can. Canihuan300 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit and Comment on February 10 2014

Fixed some grammatical errors. Comment: Maybe add what the trophies are and how to achieve them.

TheInformativePanda (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

angry birds rio the movie tom witkins 20th century fox blue sky studios rovio animation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:AAC1:8200:D4B:E089:4D33:6347 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)