Talk:The Cheating Scales of Bullamanka

Relevance

A video that retains 1/3rd of its original purchase price 6 years after publication, and a series that is still producing sequels (latest in November 2008) seems to have significant lasting value. Veggietales (BigIdea) isn't Pixar, but they do have quite a following, and 3-2-1 Penguins sells around the world. Natebailey (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:NOTE -- it doesn't say anything whatsoever about "purchase price" -- it talks about "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- which is something that neither this article, nor 3-2-1 Penguins! has any at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(I've revised my original statement). Thanks for the "find" reference above - I haven't seen that before and it's very useful for finding references. I hope you feel that the references now included in the article at least address the 'citation' aspect, if not the notability. Natebailey (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I could wish that you'd used it more carefully. All 5 of the references are for the lead -- the rest of the article is unreferenced. The first four don't appear to verify the information cited to them (they're all behind a paywall, and key phrases in what they are meant to be verifying don't show up for them in a Google-News search -- hence my tags). The fifth isn't cited for any information beyond the fact that its author approves of the video -- a non-prominent opinion being given WP:UNDUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's been fixed. Its nice that it remains in release more than five years after its original release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR In-universe material removed from article

Squid-Tac-Toad

{{in universe|section}}
{{Original research|section|date=March 2009}}
[[Image:Squid-Tac-Toad-board.jpg|thumb|Squid-Tac-Toad board]] [[Image:Earth-game-nearly-finished.jpg|thumb|Final turn of the Earth championship]] [[Image:Bullamanka-Board.jpg|thumb|Bullamanka variant]] Squid-Tac-Toad is an enhanced version of Tic-tac-toe. Instead of a 3x3 grid, players either play on a 4x4 grid (on Earth) or a 5x5 grid (on Bullamanka).

Each player has two spinners. One side of the board spins for a letter (A-D/E) and a special piece (Squid Hopper or Toad Roller). The other spins for a number (1-4/5) and a player piece (red-naped duck "ib" or yellow-capped tadpole "Whopperdinghy"). Each player also has a disposal chute for captured pieces.

The centre of the playing board is the checkboard grid. The letter plus number defines where on the board the player piece will be placed, eg. A1 would put the piece in the top left corner, D4 (or E5) would put it in the bottom right corner.

If a special piece is spun, then the owner of that piece gets a chance to knock off one of the existing pieces on the board. If it is knocked off, it is then disposed of in the chute. The Whopperdinghy side gets the Toad Roller and the Ib side gets the Squid Hopper as their special piece. In either case, it projects a ball/boxing glove-like object tied to a piece of string.

When a player gets four (or five) in a row, they win the game.

[End of OR in-universe material Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ]

In-universe game descriptive is certanly not neccessary. It's now simple mention in the synopsis is fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources and notability

WP:GNG states:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Three sources for the bare existence of the topic-video is no more "significant coverage" than one is. If any of these sources have anything to say beyond a mere (WP:IINFO) 'announcement' (of things like release date, availability, selling price, plot summary, etc, then by all means cite them for that information). Dumping a whole heap of sources for a topic's mere existence is blatant 'ref-spamming' -- attempting to give the appearance of "significant coverage" without the reality of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is a mess:

1. Almost no sourced-material, and what sourced-material is there is trivial
2. An excessive WP:PLOT summary, compared to #1
3. An excessively-long & excessively redlink-ridden infobox

I'm therefore placing a {{cleanup}} on the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Best practice article for this category?

It seems to me that What's Opera, Doc? is probably a good example article to draw from in the design/implementation of this page? I'd happily take advice on a better example; are there any good or feature quality articles in shorter animated features? Natebailey (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No. That article is likewise virtually unsourced (and only has a 'C' quality rating). Category:FA-Class film articles would be a good place to start looking for examples to emulate. I'm not sure if there are any good articles on "shorter animated features". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes Baffled might be a good example. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It gives most emphasis to 'Production' and 'Analysis' (with 'Action'/plot summary being the smallest section), and is sourced throughout. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it is a much better example! Natebailey (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And please don't re-add lengthy plot summaries -- WP:NOTPLOT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read WP:NOTPLOT; its emphasis seems to be more on tone than length? (Although there is an advocation for not overly lengthy plot summaries in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries). Natebailey (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There are remarkably few well-rated articles on animated film - the highest rated I cold find were 'good', Kung Fu Panda and Last Order: Final Fantasy VII. In general plots seem to be a few paragraphs? Natebailey (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The level of detail of the plot summary that is appropriate will depend on the general length of the discussion of "reception and significance" of the work (see below). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No. It's emphasis is on emphasis (i.e. comparative length) not tone. It states that an article should be mostly "discussing the reception and significance of notable works", and that only a "concise plot summary" should be given. An article that contains more plot summary than "reception and significance", is not consistent with this policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I don't think digitallyobsessed is a WP:RS. It is essentially a volunteer-based review site (see their recruitment page), with uncertain editorial oversight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)