Talk:Paperboy (video game)

trs-80??

I am tempted to delete this because there is no reference (and only 2 for the whole article?!) and I cannot find any proof or indication anywhere that a trs-80 version ever existed let alone received publication. I won't delete it yet though, I will await further comment. 81.153.103.211 (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Motorola 6502? This should probaly be corrected to MOS 6502 (as it's already correctly linked). Motorola only produced 6502-like chips for a very short time, but I may be wrong at that. Please verify

I removed Phantomdj's edit from April 19th, described as "added info from the game's manual." It appears to be the entire text of the manual (to some version of the game, there were many), which does not qualify as fair use. It also wasn't in proper style, was very long and substantially redundant with text already in the article. Moppet 06:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup?

I re-read the article. It looks pretty good to me. What needs to be cleaned up? Since it was added by an anon user, I'm removing the tag. Don't use the tag unless you point out the problems pr they are obvious. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun spelling in Amiga version

In the Amiga version of the game, when you loose all your lives, the sign that comes up actually says "YOUR FIRED" (sic). Would that piece of trivia fit on the page? AngelOfDeath ulven 09:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be fine in the Ports section of the article. Of course, it would also need a reference. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Start-class

For the time-being, I am placing this article back down to Start-class for the main reason that this article, as large and comprehensive it is, lacks one key element — verifiable, third-party sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for how exactly to incorporate such sources into the article. Hopefully, with the addition of many sources, this article can be moved back up to C-class and possibly to B-class and higher. MuZemike (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was keep as is (lack of consensus). MuZemike (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose that Paperboy 2 be merged into this page because Paperboy 2 only consists of three sentences, and it can fit better into the context of this article here. Please civilly discuss below. MuZemike (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Paperboy 2 is probably worthy of an article on its own. I don't think the merge helps much here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the game (never seen it or played it), but 3 sentences is too short for a complete article. Agree with merge. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a stub - we're allowed to have them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you, or is anyone else, planning to expand it? And to what extent? If no expansion is planned, it doesn't make sense to have it as a separate article. Otherwise it's a permanent stub. If someone expands it dramatically after we merge it back into the article, we can break it out into a separate article again. But I don't think very much will ever be said about this very non-notable sequel. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly non-notable. Tricky to research, sure - you'd need old issues of video gaming magazines and the like to get reviews and the like. But we're talking about a multi-platform game that I remember pretty well over a ton of obscure games from that time period. It's not a perma-stub. It's a stub. An expandable stub. Merging is senseless. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, it is a stub. As I stated before, in its current state, it doesn't deserve a page of its own. If it ever expands so much that it needs its own page, it can be broken out again into its own article. But as it is, it doesn't deserve its own article. The information contained in the page could readily be moved, intact, to this article instead of requiring users to go to another page for a mere three sentence description. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to watch this article, as I have proposed several other merger besides this. I did forget to mention notability, and I'll take the hit for that. With that being said, if notability can be demonstrated (i.e. proof), and this article can be backed with verifiable, third–party sources as well as be expanded to at least Start–class, then no merge would be necessary.

Keep in mind that this is not an AfD, and that my intention is not to toss the article completely out. However, if not, then I agree that until verifiable, third–party sources can be found, we should merge it. If they can be found, we can re–split. MuZemike (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] shows that the SNES version got a 1991 review in Nintendo Power. I don't have ready access to the review, but that's clearly one verifiable, third-party source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[2] shows an EGM and second Nintendo Power review (this one for the Game Boy version). [3] shows a Sega-16 review for the Genesis version. That's four existent sources, clearly establishing notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And here is its MobyGames entry. Did you read MuZemike's comment? It's not up for deletion. Yes, it really existed. Yes, it may have been well received. The question is whether or not at its current length it qualifies for a page of its own. That is and has always been the question. If you or anyone else ever gets around to expanding it to article length, it can go back to being its own article. Until then, however, its contents should be merged into this article. I mean we're talking about 3 freaking sentences. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an independently notable topic, and ought have its own article. "Is a stub right now" is not a valid reason for merging. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since only 3 people have bothered to comment on this and it 2 vs. 1, I'd say that it isn't resolved. I'd say we table the issue for now, unless someone new wants to chip in. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If no one chips in shortly, I will close and archive this discussion as unresolved, keep the two articles as is.

With that said. Let's use those mentioned sources and incorporate them into the article. If I have time, I can help with expanding the article itself. MuZemike (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Game Boy Advance

There is a version of Paperboy for the Game Boy Advance, and comes in a dual cartridge with Rampage, released by Atari and DSI games together/jointly.Coffee5binky (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sega Genesis port missing?

Unless it was an import (highly unlikely), I recall being able to rent a Paperboy cartridge for the Sega Genesis from a US video store. Tengen would have been the publisher. I don't even see it listed for the Megadrive, the international name for the Sega Genesis. 76.122.221.218 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

game reception

I've noticed there is no game reception, I might start this section up, feel free to add to it. Govvy (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bully's subgame

Rockstar's game "Bully" has a newspaper-delivery cycling subgame that is very strongly influenced by Paperboy; worth a mention if sourceable. Equinox ◑ 00:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)