Talk:Kinect Star Wars

Late 2011 or 2012?

The present article states that the release date is "2012", using this other article as a reference: http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/06/05/star-wars-at-e3-your-first-look-at-kinect-star-wars-exclusive/ Here, i quote from the link: "Simply called Kinect Star Wars, the game is intended for all ages and will hit stores this winter." The author is from USA, so it's obvious the date referenced is 'winter/late 2011'. Besides, on this other article http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11720937, which title is: "Xbox Kinect to get Star Wars game in 2011" so it supports my idea. You guys could add it as a reference, because i dont know how, i'm going to edit the article right now. Greetings

Winter?

Winter in 2012 where I live starts in June. This is a very USA-centric and northern hemisphere-centric article. Please, when writing articles for Wikipedia, try to remember that there is a lot more to the world than the USA. In fact there are 6 billion people that DON'T live in the USA. SpencerCollins (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP in the DYK

Twice now ([1] [2]) the DYK hook was removed from this talk page by someone claiming it is a BLP violation, without any further explanation. I ask that before this user removes it again, they comment here on the talk page about why exactly they feel it is a BLP violation. Personally, I don't see how it could be considered one. This is simply a notice that this article was featured in DYK, with a hook that was peer-reviewed by multiple editors at T:TDYK, was met with no BLP complaints there, and seen as appropriate enough to run on the Main Page. The only thing I can possibly see as being argued a BLP is the fact that it wikilinks to Star Wars Kid, but the mere fact that it links to it isn't a BLP. First of all, that article is about an Internet meme, not a person. Secondly, if simply linking to the article is a BLP violation, then that would mean the article itself would have to be a BLP violation, and yet that article still exists. — Hunter Kahn 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking that quote ("no one wants to look like "Star Wars kid") out of context is a BLP violation, especially in light of Star Wars Kid#Harassment lawsuit and settlement. I pulled the DYK entry from the main page (by request of an editor) for the same reason. We shouldn't be posting insulting, offensive, or disparaging remarks against living people, unless they are notable in context. And that context must then be provided. Prodego ^talk 05:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• The quote isn't out of context, it's very much in context. And again, "Star War kid" refers to a meme, not a person. There was no objection like the one you are raising brought up at DYK, where there is a careful review process to avoid just that. (In fact, my original DYK nomination didn't even have a wikilink to Star Wars Kid, it was added later.) And you're not addressing my argument that if simply using the term "Star Wars Kid" in itself violates BLP, then how can the article for the meme possibly exist, and how can that article include references to its appearance on shows like American Dad and South Park? — Hunter Kahn 14:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• The quote can appear in the article, where it is attributed to the developer who said it. But in the DYK hook it appears we are making that statement ourselves, which violates BLP. An in context quote would be acceptable, taking that quote and copying it without attribution and without context in a DYK hook is not. Prodego ^talk 15:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't really agree with that; the use of quotation marks makes it clear it came from someone. Further, this DYK is in the talk page of the article, and likely will only be read by people familiar with the article itself, so that will help with the context further. That being said, as a WP:Compromise, I'd be willing to either remove the wikilink from the DYK hook (so it would just read "...to look like Star Wars kid"" with no link) or add "they said" to it, so the fact that it comes from the publisher is even clearer (i.e., "...because they said no one wants to look like..." — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a wiki, not a game review site

The following quote should be removed as to keep in wiki standards of objectivity.

Brad Shoemaker of Giant Bomb thought poorly of the game saying, "It doesn't matter who you claim Kinect Star Wars is for, it's a shoddy product on almost every level. There are a few glimmers of what could have been in here, but this is not the game that legitimizes Kinect as a game-playing device, nor does it do a single thing to restore any vibrancy or value to the Star Wars license. Fans of Star Wars, Kinect hopefuls, and little kids all deserve better."[10]

Reasoning: Who is Brad Shoemaker? What does he have to do with the game other than writing a scathing review? This should not be intended to persuade someone to spend money on a product nor to avoid a product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.212.107 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(for archival purposes) The subject of critical commentary is often a part of encyclopedias, of which Wikipedia is one. The 'wiki' part is just the format the data is presented in. --Teancum (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Galactic Dance Off criticized

Apparently, if one were to Google "kinect star wars dance", he or she would discover that the topic has been widely discussed not only by the video game websites, but also by mainstream sources (such as Time). In the "Reception" section, should I add a video that shows the gameplay of the dance off because it has received significant coverage? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not necessary, however a screenshot of that mode would suffice. --Teancum (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Can someone add this I don't know how

This link shows Game Informer's review of the game and the rating they gave it. I would add it myself but I don't know how. Thanks SGPolter (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC) http://www.gameinformer.com/games/kinect_star_wars/b/xbox360/archive/2012/04/04/the-force-is-broken.aspx

@SGPolter: Adding another review with its own opinions to the article sounds like a good idea. However, we cannot simply decorate the review score infobox, and we certainly do not want opinions to be echoed among reviewers, so can you prove us why the review should be added to the article by highlighting parts of the review without repeating other reviewers' comments that have already been mentioned in the article? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kinect Star Wars. 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://web.archive.org/web/20161103002547/http://www.blastr.com/2015-10-25/50-star-wars-video-games-ranked-worst-best to http://www.blastr.com/2015-10-25/50-star-wars-video-games-ranked-worst-best
• Added archive https://archive.is/20161112212613/http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/gaming/512801/Worst-Star-Wars-games-Star-Wars-Day-May-4th to http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/gaming/512801/Worst-Star-Wars-games-Star-Wars-Day-May-4th

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)