Talk:Angry Video Game Nerd/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Misleading Information

From the article (List of Episodes -> Nightmare on Elm Street): "The episode says 'To be concluded' at the end, similar to how the preceding episode Friday the 13th said 'To be continued' at the end, but no direct continuation of the plot has yet been made."

I might agree that the plot of Jason/Freddy has not directly been continued, but it is implied that the end of the series is the Power Glove episode that immediately followed. I would assume he meant this to be the end of a 3-part series and has no intention of "completing" the story with Jason and Freddy. The way it is phrased in the list might be misleading people into either expecting a forthcoming sequel or that James Rolfe made an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.190.152 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article, people!

=) Allyourbasearebelongtousomg (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New Title Card

Anyone going to put in the new title card from the "Rambo" video in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.75.242 (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Top Ten

The Screwattack Top Ten episodes should be deleted from the episode list as they are NOT AVGN episodes, they are part of a different Screwattack segment, "Screwattack's Top Ten".--Machinehead09 15:23, 11 January 2008 {UTC)

I can confirm this and in addition more episodes should be removed from numbered listing as requested by AVGN artist & actor Mike Matei on the AVGN Forums here, http://forum.screwattack.com/viewtopic.php?t=20697 The Wii Salute, Ducktales, Captain S crossover and both Top Ten Nerd moments of 2006 & 2007 should not be numbered with the regular epiosdes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.124.190 (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. The Nerd lists these as his official episodes. Not gunna argue with the man himself.

-I know it is really long(as long as albert einstein's page), but the point of wikipedia is to have alot of information. just saying.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misingnoglic (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 

Lyrics

Should the lyrics be on the page? Personally, the theme song is a major part of the show's identity and attitude. However, we should talk about whether they should be on the page. Also, we should also make sure that the article gives credit to both James Rolfe and Kyle Justin for the words.--DevinCook (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, made a error while editing the theme song. I was removing the full version - since, while funny, is a tad long for a wiki article. The edited page didn't work correctly, so I had to reedit it. I didn't attempt the infamous "sneaky edit". My mistake was a total s-load of f! :) --DevinCook (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting song lyrics is not allowed. See | Template:Lyrics Doshindude (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wish List

What should be added this this page? Please add your Wish List items here. --DevinCook (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did someone remove the reference to AVGN's similarity to Seanbaby? Certainly this is relevant, just as a reference to Allan Sherman on Weird Al's page would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.244.176 (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the video list. Perhaps the one where he is confused about movie titles should be added. He does in fact appear as Angry Video Game Nerd there, and since the list doesn't only include game reviews I feel like it is incomplete without it. /BlankTH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.25.249.55 (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Chronologically Confused" is currently on the list - although, at times, it is removed by a well-intentioned user. It is currently listed using its full (comically verbose) name. It is just called "Chronologically Confused" by Rolfe himself and on his official site. We might consider shortening the listed title to shorter version.--DevinCook (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I go ahead and do so, maybe add a section of videos he has done as James Rolf. He's reviewed some movies on his youtube account as himself rather than as the AVGN, such as Spider-Man 3, Transformers Movie (1986), Transformers (2007), Simpsons Movie. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is best served if is concentrates on the Angry Video Game Nerd as a show/series rather than James Rolfe himself. Mike Matei and Kyle Justin are also major parts of the show. An article on Rolfe would make an great separate article, but we should work on the current one for now. It's still very new. That's just my 2 cents --DevinCook (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Would a Behind The Scenes section be appropriate? Basically info that details on how some of the effects are done. So far some sources are his posts from Screwattack.Com and his commentary for Friday The 13th and Nightmare On Elm Street. Antiyonder (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, those sections are highly desired for films, shows and games. It should be called "Production", though. --Teggles 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the length for each video be on the list? And possibly where it is hosted in the notes? It might help informing people on when he started to get sponsored by screwattack/gametrailers, as opposed to just posts on youtube.Feudonym (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are some missing episodes?

I have talked to James himself on MSN, and his movie reviews of TMNT (film), The Transformers: The Movie, the new 2007 Transformers (film), Live Free or Die Hard or Die Hard 4.0 for those europeans, and Spider-Man 3 to him are considered episodes. So, why not ad them to the episode list?

I do not believe they are directly related to the Angry Video Game Nerd. Andy120290 (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The TMNT 3 movie review seems to be the only one that directly relates to the AVGN character. The rest are just reviews from James Rolfe, the regular filmmaker guy. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the movie review episodes in a seperate list and I think it works well for the reader now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.130.178 (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I made changes to the episode list based on Rolfe's official episode list. Wsultzbach (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Game Console Names

There is some debate on whether the American names of the Sega systems should be used or the international names. Most of the English-speaking World is outside the United States - India, Britain, Australia and nearly half of Europe. I suggest that we used both names with a slash. For instance, rather than just "Sega Genesis", we use "Sega Genesis/Mega Drive". It would be helpful for our foreign friends - who also enjoy the show. I would love to hear everyone's comments on the issue. --DevinCook (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just use American names. The show is based in the US and as such, Rolfe has all American versions of the consoles. Andy120290 (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a ton of fans in Europe and beyond. The show is truly international. There was a video posted a while back where the AVGN was brought up during an interview in Denmark (I think).Do you think, perhaps, the following notation would be okay: "Sega Genesis" -> "Sega Genesis (Mega Drive)"? The space used in the article is pretty minimal. -DevinCook (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Andy, that's not how Wikipedia works. It tries to serve its visitors when it comes to names, style and such.--Svetovid (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ScrewAttack logo

Should the ScrewAttack logo be located in the history section of the article? There are good arguments for an against. Please add your comments. -DevinCook (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any real good arguments. The policy on copyrighted images is very strict at Wikipedia (too strict IMO). But even if it wasn't, the logo adds nothing to the article.--Svetovid (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I took long to respond. I don't think the logo takes away from the article. Instead, I believe that the graphic emphasizes that the AVGN is part of ScrewAttack and GameTrailers rather than just a YouTube submitter. The image is okay, it was uploaded with the required fair-use information. --DevinCook (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of New Rule

Recently, Crossaxel 412 added info to the "List of Episodes" section.

It's a * indicating an episode where Nerd destroys the game/system.

Seeing this, I personally like the idea of having that. Though knowing the comings and goings, and reverting and unreverting of this article, I decided that this new rule should be made.

Before adding something like that to the article, please bring it to discussion here on the talkpage first.

If you happen to see anything added that you don't think contributes much to the article, yet is not vandalism, please add "<!-- Should be discussed -->" (no quotation marks) next to that information. Also say "Should be Discussed" in the reason for editing box.

This way, there will be no confusion of editing data anymore.

--Mooshykris (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave out the "Tribute Reviewers"

This is Wikipedia. As much as the die-hard AVGN fans hate the Irate Gamer, he does not meet notability requirements for a mention on Wikipedia. Grow up and stop bitching about him. Andy120290 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. That show does not meet even the most minor requirements of notability. It gets more attention due to outrage over host's behavior rather than the shows own merits. In fact, this section on the talk page might give more attention than the subject is due. Should we delete this talk section? -DevinCook (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would say not. I say, leave this here as a warning for future editors. Andy120290 (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If merit is the judge of notability, why is there an article on Battlefield Earth? Manos: Hands of Fate? ect? For that matter, merit is subjective anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustex (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic

Given that Mr. Rolfe himself has stated that he is a fan of the Nostalgia Critic, and replied to his statements, I fail to see what the problem with including a section on him is? Furthermore, not including it makes things confusing, because typing in "Nostalgia Critic" is a redirect to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.93.2 (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just because Mr. Rolfe treats fans with respect, does not mean each of is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Besides, the text in question reads like spam.-DevinCook (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between responding to a fan, and discussing a fellow blogger with third-parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustex (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW, is there a way to get a sysop's input on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustex (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• The following articles specify Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:spam. -DevinCook (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop acting so high and mighty and blowing off the question. Let's examine notability:

""Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] "

Ok, the Angry Video Game Nerd is clearly notable. Furthermore, contrary to what you're implying, this is not simply a fan he's responded to, but someone he's admitted to being a fan of TO THIRD PARTIES!!! He has also mentioned that he would do a video on the NC, except that he's not sure how fans would react. While the NC is clearly not notable enough for his own article, he is relevant to this one.

""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]"

Once again, AVGN has recieved significant coverage, and so details about him are relevant. If someone put up, for instance, that he was a fan of George Lucas, or his age, there would be no objection, even though these details have not recieved significant coverage.

""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4] "

Um, while there may not be a whole lot of secondary sources, it's kind of hard to deny that these videos and responses exist.

""Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]"

Once again, this part is kind of irrelevant since we're not making claims beyond the (easily verifiable) claim that this exchange exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.189.212 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that not being signed. Just to confirm, everything in this discussion has been me or DevinCook, but I have not been the only one to revert his undos. -Mustex

• It's just Wikipedia policy. Some other new editors have tried to add that type of information to the page - and others. It is somewhat common, but never acceptable. All in all, that section of the page is designed to show the popularity of show. Minor conversations between non-notable YouTubies does not belong there. It doesn't demonstrate the popularity of the show. The Nostalgia Critic might be a credible footnote, however - proof of Rolfe's relationship with fans - but then we would have to add all the tribute reviewers to the page. That would also violate policy. This article is simply not the place to put an advertisement for a non-notable reviewer. Please also see WP:NOT -DevinCook (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd and The Irate Gamer

Request: The Irate Gamer (Chris Bores) is a known plagiarist of the Angry Video Game Nerd. Is it possible to include some blurb about him in the article? Given AVGN's history on YouTube and the Irate Gamer's presence there, it seems relevant and notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insurrectionist (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• He is one of many, many "tribute" reviewers. We could have an entire article covering all of the AVGN tributes. However, none of them, as of yet, are even close to meeting the basic requirements of notability.-DevinCook (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't consider him to be a tribute reviewer as he refuses to acknowledge the existence of the Angry Video Game Nerd. He is paying no tribute at all. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• He is not relevant, and he is not notable. The plagiarist deserves no recognition whatsoever, especially from the AVGN Wikipedia article. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't consider him to be a plagirist. He has a different style of reviewing then then the nerd.
  • That is false. This video shows more than enough proof that he is a plagiarist and a poser. Even his most recent review of Predator directly rips off of James Rolfe's works, including the Friday the 13th review. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Okay. Enough, folks. While the evidence is incontrovertible, that user is still not notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. I will archive or delete this conversation later today.-DevinCook (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)