Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Move back to Spore (video game)

I'm sorry, but this is silly. The other two games may be real, commercially-released games, but both lack anything to say that a good deal of people have even heard of them, at all, while Spore is a huge game that is being covered everywhere, by everyone, and has gotten great reception. The people who would come to Spore (video game) looking for either one of those articles combined is not even comparable to those who come looking for this one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but rules are rules. I don't see why you're discommoded anyway, since Spore isn't Spore (2008 video game) anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule that says that "if there's multiple things that use the same name, it has to be disambiged". Are you implying that Mario should be a disambig?

And what are you talking about? Spore has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. The discussion is between the three video games, two of them with low media coverage, and the other considered one of the biggest game of its generation. What reason do you have to say that the two other games are of comparable notability to this game? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it. Think about it. Again, I don't see how people are discommoded. JAF1970 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it kill you to respond to me, instead of creating a completely different tangent on a completely irrelevant subject? I'm talking about the disambig between three games. You may think that something that is blatantly obviously not a part of this, but I'm of the opinion that things that have nothing to do with this discussion in any way imaginable having nothing to do with this discussion in any way imaginable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is there is for symmetry. You have yet to provide a valid reason for moving it back save WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. JAF1970 (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

...Huh. I didn't realize that "Spore for the PC is by and large infinitely more popular than both of those entries means you don't like something in a deletion discussion." Or maybe you're just applying an essay at random? That could be it. So, I guess I could do that too - so please stop violating WP:DOLT! - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling me a dolt doesn't help your case. Fact is, you're pretty outnumbered on this issue. Let it go. JAF1970 (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, when one topic is much more prominent than the others, it get the main name. It trumps arguments of symmetry. One could argue that this should extend to already disambiguated names, like "Spore (video game)". However the main reason for giving the main name to the prominent entry is to lead users directly to that entry. And since very few people are likely to look up "Spore (video game)" directly, that reaosn doesn't apply here. Thus, arguments for a preference of either name are very weak, and keeping status quo should win. It was a mistake to move to (2008 video game) and it would be a further mistake to move back again.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing harmed in the act of moving back. It could be argued that it's fallen comfortably into stability, but not to the point where being moved would hurt that in any significant way. And some Wikipedians would search for Spore (video game) based on previous knowledge of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was voted on a while ago. Again, Spore (video game) is now diambiguation, and Spore (2008 video game) is more accurate. JAF1970 (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And we still cannot discard the other two games that still exist. It also wouldn't hurt anyone to keep the Spore (2008 video game. And also while keeping it, it would encourage people to write about the other two games. Skele (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you used Spore (video game), you had to tediously add the two "for" links, and two "see also" links, and it would be a mess. JAF1970 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'd love to see you tell, for instance, MobyGames to remove Spore (1991) because you think it's not relevent. Just because YOU never played it doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. JAF1970 (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't randomly cite the guideline that says "consensus can change". You're basically trying to shoot down the discussion by saying that "we already voted on this" (Wikipedia is not a vote), as if the first consensus can never be overridden, ever. And it's another thing entirely when the discussion in question took place amongst very few editors and attempted to get no outside input whatsoever.

Or *gasp* we could use one disambig, which many articles use? Not only are there much less articles that use the name Spore than many of the bigger disambigs, the video games are already clearly covered on that disambig!

And just curious, you got "delete the other two games" from "give Spore (2008 video game) the Spore (video game) title?" Are you even reading this discussion or just randomly putting words together? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But (gasp!) you want consensus to change on something that's not harming the article, and (gasp!) you're not providing any real reason that it should be something else except you don't like it. People typing in Spore will see the redirect to Spore (2008 video game). What, you think people will think it's not Will Wright's game? Furthermore, You want to clutter up Spore (video game) with a for|the 1987 video game and a for|the 1991 video game. You still have yet to give any sort of reason save, "I don't like it!!!!!!" You have yet to state why you think the article is harmed or even confusing. JAF1970 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Another solution would be to move this back to Spore (Video Game) with a "This article is about the 2008 video game. For other uses, see Spore (Video Game) (Disambiguation)". Just a thought --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Salient question: What would be the point? Change for the sake of change? JAF1970 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

SO, let me get this straight: You don't want

Spore (1987 video game)

Spore (1991 video game)

Spore (2008 video game)

You want:

Spore (video game) (see also: Spore (1987 video game), Spore (1991 video game))

Spore (video game) (disambiguation)

Spore (1987 video game)

Spore (1991 video game)

or

Spore (video game) (for|1987 video game) and (for|1991 video game)

Spore (1987 video game)

Spore (1991 video game)

Shall I introduce you to less is more? JAF1970 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: How is Spore (2008 video game)

1. wrong?

2. misleading?

JAF1970 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not really anything wrong how the pages are named or where they are. Still moving them would be just waste of time as it would not really change anything. Page just would be under a different name and we would have another disambiguation page named even more oddly. In my opinion there would not really even be any reason to have disambiguation page for just the different games named Spore it could be handled in the main Spore disambiguation page. In reality I would stick with how its now as all the pages have same naming principle and makes it look better. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. JAF1970 (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Skele (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Less is more? I'm curious - how does moving this article create an additional article? We do NOT need to split a 13-article disambig page into two pages. Why do people think that there would be another disambig page?
2. I don't see how this would be a waste of time. All that has to be done is an admin has to delete the Spore (video game) disambig, then a user can move it there, and fix redirects and double redirects. I'm arguing that there need not be two disambigs for Spore anything, and if we get rid of the second disambig, it creates an empty redirect which will go to Spore (2008 video game) anyway. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really even get why the redirect would be a bad thing. In my opinion its in the right place as the naming is constant with all the other games. One good thing in redirecting the main article to this article is that if there would be an another Spore game in the future that might be more important than this Spore game then it would be just easy to change the redirect to go to the other page. Redirects are more useful than moving whole bios just because it would be the most known computer game under the title or the newest. Also just to note that now you immidiatly know that this page is about the new Spore game. In that other place you would not know that by just checking the link as there is other games named Spore. I agree that the second disambiguation page under "Spore (video game)" is not really needed but why would the bio be moved there when you can just redirect it or just remove the whole page as why we need it anyway? Also I was not talking about another Spore disambiguation page I was talking about the new disambiguation pages that one person here suggested after the move that to me was not needed. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I would want you to answer JAF1970's question why "Spore (2008 video game)" anyway wrong or missleading as a fact its less missleading than just "Spore (video game)" as you can't even know what video game it is from the pages name. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Why would it have to be redirected? Something being at Spore (video game) is better than nothing being at Spore (video game). If it's going to go here, why not just put it there any way? If we did that, the article would redirect to Spore (2008 video game), and they'd have to go to a disambig page. If it's at Spore (video game), you go to the disambig page. No hassle involved at all (no more than it would if (video game) redirected to (2008 video game)).
2. The likelihood that there will be another Spore game is low, because Spore will likely continue to be updated for many years, so there will always be controversy if there's another Spore video game. Not only that, but Spore has a PC game, DS game, Wii game, mobile phone game, and will perhaps have Xbox 360 and PS3 versions. It has a demo, and it's available for download for free. The amount of press coverage involved is crazy, it's been listed as one of the best games of E3 every year it appears, it's from the biggest third party publisher in the world, one of the most well-known PC designers in the world (who made quite possibly the best-selling PC game series in the entire world). There's just SO much notability attached to this game, compared to what little exists for the other two games. The game is ever growing, and will likely have updates throughout the years for many years, just like The Sims and World of Warcraft.
3. It doesn't have to be wrong or misleading to be moved. If you compared the # of people who would come to Spore (video game) looking for the PC game to the other two games combined, the odds of the latter being even a blip on the radar is slim to none. You have to take into account the mere fact there are multiple games called Spore does not mean that one of them should automatically mean that one should not be given preference. Mario is about the character, and not a disambig, because the usage of Mario is for the most part, about the character, series, or a game in the series. In this case, the #1. usage of Spore is the PC game, and the other two don't even compare. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine how it is now. Nanobri (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So, This is not over yet. I have no problem with the current name. Spore )2008 video game) is fine. There is no need to change it. So please stop arguing and leave it. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you just said "I disagree with you, so stop arguing"? As if that is a good reason to do so? I've already presented many reasons why it should be at (video game). Can't you provide even ONE reason why it shouldn't be? - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to point that your argument doesn't work. "Spore (video game)" is not the main page "Spore" is the main page and this game will never beat it and take the main page place. First usage of Spore is the biological phenomen called "Spore" not this game so the argument is not valid. Also you using "Mario" as reason to move this is also wrong as Mario is a character and there is no other more important things named "Mario" than the character in one of the most known computer game around the world. In Spore's case this is not so as you can't really put important biological phenomen to be less important than some computer game with the same name. Also as I stated before now you can know from the page name of what game is the bio about and so it makes this place for the bio better than just "Spore (video game)". You can't really deny that. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up the main Spore article as if I'm ever speaking of it? When looking at Spore (video game), there's no reason to have a disambig there. After that, there's no reason to have it be merely a redirect. Spore is by and large more well-known in gaming as the PC game, not those two minor games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I already said that "Spore (video game)" could be deleted and there is not really any need to have a redirect there either. Still moving the page there would not do anything that would help the article at all. Quite the contrary in current place it more easilly distinguished from the two other games. I don't see why it would benefit the article to be moved back. Still also if you write Spore on the search inquiry field it will list this page as fifth option and several others before it would come even near to "Spore (video game)" so in fact I would say that people find this page mostly by using other means than through that page and that would make your point quite null. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's alphabetical, of course 2008 comes after 19XX. Regardless, the discussion that took place was very limited. It had only a few participants, was not advertised on the article page, etc. Simply put, the article should be moved back, and the subject should be re-discussed. Why won't you address the point that in comparing both of those games' notability combined to the current game, it's practically nonexistent? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and why you persist on the point of moving it back. Its not really anybodys fault that you didn't read the discussion page and the topic was there for a long time. In reality it doesn't matter what is most known as the page is now clearly identified as the 2008 game info that the old page address didn't give and could lead to mistake. To me moving it back would be just pointless as it would not benefit the page at all. Your own reason to its moving back is that as this is the most known game named Spore it should have that page and that people usually seek it under that title. In reality where do you get that data that most people are looking the page under that title? Also why you cant discuss it here as you think that moving it back should be done first and so negatating the discussion as it moved to the "proper" place. Also if I didn't count wrong most people here has said that it should be kept on this designation but you still insist that it should be moved. Also the notability does not dissminish any of the games. How it is now just makes the point null as the games are easilly specified and regonized as that certain game by just the tittle. Why fix something that isn't broken. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can ask you that same question - moving to (2008 video game) not only was fixing something that wasn't broken (if there being multiple articles using the same title was the top reason to make the main page a disambig, many more articles would be like this), but made it worse. It's an unnecessary disambig. The level of notability that exists for the PC game is so incredibly high that the notability of the earlier two games are practically insignificant. And it's my fault that no one whatsoever went through the proper discussion proceedings? It's not my duty to randomly find my way to the discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's clear the consensus is to leave it be. Just accept it and move on. JAF1970 (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's ignore that a discussion, by the fact that all participants ignored the basic guidelines of setting up a discussion, so anyone who didn't go to the talk page, or anyone who has no need to go to it, has no say on the matter. How many attempts have you made to bring this discussion to any other venue? None. But going back to my point, do you have anything that would be harmed by the article being moved? You may bow out of discussions where you're blatantly right, but I do not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: Naming convention (precision) is pretty clear in this case. If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase. There are three games named Spore, and despite this title being what is 99% searched for, to simple call it "(video game)" is imprecise because there are two other Spores that are video games. "(2008 video game)" precisely clarifies that. --MASEM 04:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It says usually, not "always". In all likelihood, usually fits this situation - where this is searched for 99% of the time. It doesn't say that this situation is always true. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you have given your opinion and several others have given opinion against you so in fact you are losing. Concessus seems to be it to stay here but you ignore it because you want it to be moved. Also your arguments are starting to get to be only arguing about something not because this page is in the wrong place. Also even if its not always true in this situation I can say that people wont firstly search this game as Spore (video game) most likely they just write Spore and come to this page through that page. So you saying that Spore (video game) is the page people are searching this under is just your opinion nothing else. Also I already stated to you what would be changed if it would be moved back. It could be mistaken to those other games even if you would not do it there might be people who might. You can say that it has minor chance of happening but it still can happen. The page is more clearly identified but it doesn't seem to be enogh a reason to you. Just to state this even if it has been clear on my post your own reason of moving the page back haven't been anything that would convince me or others here of moving it. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm losing for reasons other than "good arguments". You haven't established that we need to disambig between these three games. Hell, looking at your position, Spore has no level of notability that it could ever have that would be good enough.

And looking at the points in the little vote you got down there: How are my points not relevant? They are the #1. factors in determining if a disambig is necessary. And the fact that there was no good reason to move in the first place is an excellent reason to not have moved it. If the people who started the discussion took any steps to make people more aware, I would have noticed it and opposed the move. I had no opportunity to participate, so the consensus to move was faulty. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My arguments are as good as yours but you don't even consider them. What in the world is so special about that little page that it has to be there. I already voted and I don't see your vote down there so in reality you are now ignoring the vote. Also where did you pull that I ever said that your opinion is not important but your opinion doesn't make my opinion null because you say you are right. If you didn't notice the topic that was going on its only your own fault. Nobody is not demanding to vote again in president election because he/she was busy when he should have been voting. Still that opinion of the move being for nothing is just your opinion I already stated that the game is now easilly separated from the other two by just reading the page adress and its agreed by several others. That was not the case in the former place. This adress leaves very small chance of mistake but you don't seem to realize that as you want it to be moved back to place where it can be mistaken to be some other game. In reality I'm getting tired of this you just keep arguing for sake of arguing. If you think it should be there then vote if you don't then its your loss. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Your arguments are nonexistent, you say "no need to move", and "what if the three people who know those two other games are confused?". The disambig is excessive and unnecessary.
2. Er, I'm not sure how someone else's screw up, one of the most basic things that has to be done in a move discussion - putting an alert template on the article - is my fault. The effort to get anything even resembling outside input is literally nonexistent. The Presidency is a strongly advertised service. If no one but a handful of people knew that the election was taking place because the people in charge didn't bother to tell anyone, it WOULD be enough to overturn the election. There was no matter of me being busy, if I had nothing to do, I would still not have been able to participate in the discussion because there was no possibility for me to become aware of its existence.
3. There doesn't NEED to be disambiguation between the three articles, no more than Mario has to be a disambig because of the number of things and people that use the name. Yes, it is possible that one of the few people who are aware of either game's existence may mistakenly go to the PC game for one of the other games, but that is not going to be a substantial enough number of people to warrant disambig, what don't you get about that?
4. Wikipedia is not a vote. I'm not voting for the simple fact that everything does not have to be voted on. I'm most concerned with how you think the discussion to move was legitimate, and why it's my fault that I had no way of knowing that the discussion ever existed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I quite frankly don't care anymore you don't even get what I'm saying and miss the point entirely so I'm not really going to waste my time on talking to you as you don't want to hear anything else than that people would agree your point and so you ignore everybody elses. Also you to not participate on the vote just means that you don't care that other people don't share your views. Also just to add to finale point that I was never behind the page to be made to disambiguation page I was only behind the moving of the page for the reason that it would give a posibility to an error. If you really would have read any of my post you would have got that. The disambiguation page was created by one persons actions not because we decided that. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - A Link to the Past doesn't want a vote, but wants consensus to change it back? JAF1970 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel this is enough. Now let the final consensus begin:-
1). Users who Oppose A Link to the Past move request.
2). Users who Support to A Link to the Past move request. Let this be final. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose.Skele (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose. Link To The Past's suggested article names would be ambiguous, and his suggested reasons (popularity, likelihood of a new game) for preferring an ambiguous page title don't seem relevant Poobslag (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose as if I didn't already made my reasons clear and Poobslag already stated the reasons why I oppose. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose just as there were no good reasons for the move in the first place, there are no good reason for moving back, so status quo should win.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose the current naming situation is messy, but A Link to the Past doesn't propose anything which is an improvement on the status quo. --2p0rk (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose, and there were good reasons for the move in the first place - there are other games titled Spore. How were they to be titled? How were they to be acknowledged? What was the disambiguation page going to be? I went back and forth on this initially, and finally decided that Dansliman and others were right. JAF1970 (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Redirect (See below) I think making Spore(video game) redirect here is the best solution. There's likely not going to be future "Spore" games to confuse matters so having two or 3 hatnotes is acceptable and a disambig page is overkill. Also, a google search for "spore" currently directs to "Spore (video game)" when it should probably go to "Spore (2008 video game)" so making "Spore (video game)" a redirect would fix that.Nanobri (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Does the proposal make sense? Absolutely, since probably 90% of readers looking for a videogame entitled "Spore" mean the 2008 version. However, the extant naming scheme is the most logically consistent (not to mention it was accepted by vote). C.f. Treaty of Paris--just because most people probably are thinking of the one that ended World War II does not necessarily mean that the others deserve second-hand status. (Flawed analogy, but it works.) Ourai ^тʃ_с 02:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)