Talk:The Ninja Warriors (1994 video game)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Ninja Warriors (1994 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 00:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Another one! Cognissonance (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• Note [a] should preferably be sourced.
  • Done

Gameplay

• side-scrolling beat 'em up WP:SEAOFBLUE Find a way to separate them
  • Done
• ninja androids WP:SEAOFBLUE ——"——
  • Done
• The player can moves "move*"
  • Done
• and the stages are typically linear in one direction and end with a boss Improve flow: "with the stages typically going in a linear direction and ending with a boss"
  • Done

Development and release

• some minor censorship, replacing some female Avoid repetition, remove the first "some"
  • Done

Reception

• character movesets That written correctly?
  • No I rewrote it to eliminate the word movesets
• all which help set "all of* which"
  • Done
• but the game is greater than the sum of its parts Clarify: "but that it was greater than the sum of its parts"
  • Done

Overall

No dead refs or high copyvio. Onhold. Cognissonance (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: Done. Thanks for yet again another review! TarkusAB^talk 21:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: My pleasure. Thanks for improving smaller articles. Cognissonance (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So what to do with the game no longer being single-player?

Another split for the new version? Which is also Japan-exclusive and Switch-exclusive. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

See also

@TarkusAB: the section meets MOS:UL. You mentioned WP:OVERLINK, there are other links in the article that have less relevance. So why the section is a problem? And if there is a problem why can't WP:PRESERVE? Rupert Loup (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand that it's related, but it's far too high level. If there was discussion about how the game relates to gaming culture within Japan, I would understand a link, but simply because the game was made in Japan doesn't warrant it. We don't like to Cinema of the United States in a See Also section at the bottom of every Hollywood movie article. There's no precedent for this type of link.

And in regards to OVERLINK, I mentioned it because Japan is a word that normally would not be linked because it's too common. I mentioned EASTEREGG too because people would click the link expecting the Japan article not Video Gaming in Japan, but that issue is neither here nor there at this point. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"We don't like to Cinema of the United States" Yes we do since we have a WP:NAV for that: Template:Cinema of the United States and Template:American film list. "And in regards to OVERLINK" There are irrelevant links like "ninja" and "cyborg" that are unchallenged, and links with the same high level as "fighting game" and "arcade game". So I don't see the reason on why the nitpicking in that specific link. I still see repeated links that could be removed instead. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: OK I don't want to get sidetracked here. The issues of other stuff being linked in the article is irrelevant to my problem with the Video gaming in Japan link. And perhaps I was wrong to cite OLINK and EASTEREGG in my revert. If you have concerns about those links, start another section, but I don't want to conflate the issues.

My issue with Video gaming in Japan is that there is no precedent for this type of link.

I think you misunderstood my point on Cinema of the United States. Yes we have a nav template but it's only used on a small set of relevant articles. What I was saying is, we don't link to Cinema of the United States on every American film article, just like we don't link to Video gaming in Japan on every Japanese video game article. There are thousands of Japanese game articles and virtually all of them do not link to the article in the manner you are suggesting here. Are you suggesting that this link should be added to the bottom of every Japanese game article? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is for this article and I still don't see what harm does that section with a relevant link to the article and why can't be preserved. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK well if you want to look at it that way, See Also "should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic." This article is comprehensive (it's a GA) and the topics of "video gaming in Japan" and "ninja video games" (per the new link you added) are never discussed in the article. Just because the game is a Japanese game and is a game about ninjas does not warrant those links. If that's the case, then why not keep going and list List of SNES games, and List of Switch games, and List of Taito games, and List of beat 'em ups? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 10:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Vote

Rupert loup (talk · contribs) is suggesting to add a WP:SEEALSO section which links to Video gaming in Japan. They also just now added a link to List of ninja video games to the See Also section. I disagree with this type of practice of adding See Also sections that link to tangentially related high level articles and I am pinging WT:VG for input. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 10:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose For reasons I stated above. The topics of "video gaming in Japan" and "ninja video games" are never discussed directly in the article. Since the article is comprehensive and the topic is never discussed, no warrant for the link. There is also no precedent to do this type of See Also linking in video game articles, and no reason to do it just on this page. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 10:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see how that is particularly relevant to the article. Readers of this article probably won't be interested in those other articles either.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Irrelevant and too generic for this article. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Relevant links can be written into prose, and anything else should just be categorical. Wikipedia as a whole should be getting rid of see also sections, IMO. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I also don’t believe that being crested in Japan is a good enough reason to include the gaming in Japan link. Also, we already have a category for ninja video games so the link to the list article is redundant.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I decided to remove the see also section since barring a flood of supporters it’s obvious that the consensus is against inclusion.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)