Talk:Angry Birds/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move for game and series articles

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: uncontested move. DrKiernan (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

– Per WP:NCVG#Disambiguation 5.1. "If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series, the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item." There are >3 games and two additional media items (game and TV series), making the above disambiguation convention. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is this article in a good shape already?

Are we ready to remove the banner? i think the Other Media section needs some trimming/rewriting.--Krystaleen 05:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Appears to no longer be relevant. I'm going to boldly take it down; if someone actually is planning a major update, they can explain that here and then restore the banner. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Can you please update the movie release date to July 1 2016 and add a link to another press release? The movie will also be made by Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation. Here's the link: http://www.rovio.com/en/news/press-releases/299/rovios-angry-birds-feature-film-nests-at-sony-pictures-entertainment 76.69.131.6 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Done and sourced. I believe the release date being mentioned here is notable, verifiable and passes WP:CRYSTAL but I could be wrong. If there is disagreement then you can revert it. No harm no foul. :) ^Jguy_Talk^Done 17:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

There appears to be a reference named "Forbes 1-7B", but there's no such reference. Could someone remove the short reference, so as to fix the citation error? Flying Buttress (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

For reference, it was added in here, when the text was moved and altered - so the original citation may be relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angry_Birds&diff=543632659&oldid=543613003 Flying Buttress (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: It seems that was added by an editor who didn't understand the name= syntax. He/She presumably meant to used the reference named "Forbes", but added extra characters. ~Hue Sat Lum 20:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Angry Birds (franchise)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Angry Birds (franchise)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WSJ":

From Angry Birds: Gustav Sandstrom (May 12, 2010). "Angry Birds Smartphone App Takes Off For Rovio". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
From Amazon.com: Woo, Stu (July 1, 2011). "California Online Tax Law Pressures Amazon". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
From The Element of Freedom: Fusilli, Jim (December 14, 2009). "Alicia Keys' "The Element of Freedom": An Interview and New Music Preview". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company. Retrieved December 14, 2009.
From All of the Lights: Staff (February 19, 2011). Kanye West ‘All of the Lights,’ Featuring Rihanna: Video. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on 2011-02-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Could this page be updated? The AB app just got new levels called Red's Mighty Feathers and they aren't on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.48.111 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Please change "This article is about the overall Angry Birds franchise." and "Angry Birds is a video game franchise created by Finnish computer game developer Rovio Entertainment."

and replace the word 'franchise' with 'series' because this article is about a series of games produced by one company. The article does not suggest that any element of the game is franchised out to other companies and the word 'franchise' is not an alternative word for 'series' in any language of which I am aware and most especially not in English. The write might consider consulting a dictionary in an effort to discover what a franchise actually is but in an effort to be helpful, KFC and McDonalds are examples of franchises.

88.96.100.30 (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

See List of video game franchises. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Angry Birds Breakfast

Wikibirds11 removed all references to Angry Birds Breakfast. If this is a legitimate game in the series, why doesn't it belong in the article? It doesn't matter if it has strong marketing ties to some brand. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, there is no inherited notability. Unless there are multiple reliable sources documenting "Angry Birds Breakfast]], and in depth, then it will be considered per WP:DUE. @Frecklefoot:, I mean that there is no inherited notability. Meaning, that just because a game was done by a well known company, doesn't mean it's automatically notable. That's what I was trying to say. Tutelary (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Angry Birds 2

Someone added a sequel section and it mentions Angry Birds 2 which redirects to AB Seasons and AB 3 which is broken. Rovio never made a game titled Angry Birds 2 so please remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.191.13 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Piggy Island

Entirely fictional, in-universe article, lacking reliable, independent sources. Angry Birds Wiki and other fan sites do not satisfy WP:GNG for stand-alone article criteria. Better consolidated and merged into Angry Birds, as in the case of Mushroom Kingdom, a larger and arguably better-known fictional world that is a subtopic of Super Mario (series), or Kanto (Pokémon), which redirects to Pokémon universe --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bad OR

The article lead says:

"Over 12 million copies of the game have been purchased from Apple's App Store,[3] which has prompted the company to design versions for other touchscreen-based smartphones, including the Android, Symbian and Windows Phone operating systems"

The article used as the ref says:

"Angry birds has now reached 12 million paid downloads and 30 million free downloads. The vast majority of paid downloads come from the iPhone, while many of the game's free downloads come from its recently released Android application."

So, according to Wikipedia, the company suddenly decided that 12 million was the magic number and now they should start making the game for other platforms now. Really? It says nothing about that in the ref, nor does it even make sense. Once sales reached a few million I am sure they were already looking at other platforms.

The article goes on to say that "42 million downloads", "25% were paid downloads" = 10.5 million; this clearly does not match the 12 million sales already quoted in the article. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The articles are written by volunteers, not Wikipeida and sometimes mistakes get carried through the various edits. You are correct that the ref doesn't say the 12 million apps sold led Rovio to develop for other platforms, but it likely helped.Frmorrison (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Pricing, backdoor snooping

Today it was revealed that this app was/is used for hoovering up data from smartphones.

Those who paid something for it might have the right to sue because they probably did not intend to pay for this feature and were not made aware. Those who only use the free versions do not have any rights because you don't look a gifted horse in the mouth. But when I pay for something I have the right to get what's been offered, not more, not less. A legal comment on this would be appropriate. 121.209.53.9 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with the sentiment that people who use free versions of the game "deserve what they get, because it's free", I think a mention of the current backlash about the alleged sharing of data with the NSA is appropriate. I think this also probably impacted their sales, but we need a verifiable reference for both. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Just reread the article. It already mentions the current backlash and spying controversy. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

More recently, there seems to be an attempt to add this into the lede of the article. As this now almost two years on and the furor seems to have died down as fast as it heated up, adding it to the lead now would be a violation of WP:UNDUE unless someone can indicate that this is currently timely or otherwise ongoing. --McDoob AU93 19:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Leaking user data

The section about the app leaking user data is well sourced and well fleshed out. It should be included in the lead section. --Bensin (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact you're edit warring now (now on third change in 24 hours) and not understanding how this works (I did remove what I thought was inappropriate - the whole thing), you have yet to explain why this incident is worthy of being in the lead of the article. The incident in question took place two years ago and appears to have been largely forgotten, based on the continued success of the franchise. In other words, yes it happened but it didn't seem to have much of an effect. As such, mentioning it in the body of the article is enough, otherwise it's giving the incident excessive and undue weight. Only significant points belong in the lead, which is basically a summary of the article's contents.

As a parallel, an airline that has had an accident is not defined by that incident unless it had a significant impact on them. An obvious example would be Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which have both done major damage to Malaysia Airlines as a whole. As such, the incidents are included in the article's lead section. However, the lauded "Miracle on the Hudson", even with it being the subject of an upcoming film, is now a mere blip in the history of US Airways, and it does not appear in US Airways' article's lead, although it does appear in the body of the article. The incident you describe would more closely match US Airways (mentioned, but not in lead) than Malaysia Airlines (mentioned, part of lead).

The burden is on you, the person making the addition, to back up the reason for the change when it has been challenged by another editor. Adding it back constantly with no discussion is edit-warring. I'm not going to make any subsequent changes. I'll let this thought-out reason for not including it speak for itself.

--McDoob AU93 21:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@McDoobAU93: I believe my previous edit on this talk page addresses your first concern: Motivating the one sentence summary in the lead. If the incident is "largely forgotten" then this article may not have covered it properly. I believe one of the features of an encyclopedia is to help us not forget. I consider the success of the Angry Birds franchise irrelevant in this aspect. You call including the sentence "WP:UNDUE". I'd call not including it "suppressing". Simply put: We disagree. Maybe this talk can help us better understand each other.

I see your point in your parallel to airlines, but the difference may be that there is generally a better understanding of the impact of an airplane crash than mass surveillance and data mining. would you agree?

I did motivate in my edit here why both the lead sentence and the tablet section should be included. I wrote Restore vital info to lead section. Restore sourced section "Inclusion on a North Korean tablet". While it is true that anyone can install an app, they can hardly have installed it from the Internet. My other two edits both call for you to be more selective in your reverts and to motivate your edit in your summary. It looked to me that you may have reverted more than you intended to do. The lead section is regarding the leaky app. The section in the text is another subject: Inclusion on a North Korean tablet. In your revert comment you only motivated the removal in the lead section. You are of course quite free to summarize your edits however you see fit, but it may be helpful to other editors if the summary better reflects what was added/removed/changed in the edit. --Bensin (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I fully intended to remove the entire mention from the lead of the article and indicated why in the edit summary (per WP:UNDUE). I think what we're having here is a misunderstanding of just what the lead section of an article is. It is, per that part of the Manual of Style, "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". These aspects are the components that make the subject of the article notable enough for an encyclopedia article about it. In the case of Angry Birds, it was the franchise's design and widespread popularity, not something that a LARGE number of apps has been accused of doing.

Now, I have no doubt you feel strongly about this particular issue. Rest assured, I'm not recommending removal of the section on the accusations of data-mining. In fact, it has a subhead in the article to discuss it. That should belong because, as you said, it's been covered and discussed. The problem is this: that revelation has had no demonstrable effect on the FRANCHISE. The apps are still being downloaded, and people are not NOT downloading them because of this allegation. If they are, they're few and far between, and not worthy of a write-up in a news article.

For another parallel, look at SeaWorld, which has been significantly damaged by the allegations made in the film Blackfish. In my personal opinion, much of that film has been debunked, even by people involved in its production. But, the effect it has had on SeaWorld's business has been demonstrable and covered in the media. So even with my personal belief that this should be a non-issue, the fact is that it just is, and thus it is included in the lead of its article.

As to its presence in North Korea, it's not uncommon for games to be pirated or even cloned, and that should indeed be mentioned, but not here in the FRANCHISE article. It should be mentioned in the article on the actual game, but not as a controversy. It's more of a port/oddity than anything. Going further, ANY mention of it should include why that is so important, again from reliable sources, not personal interpretations.

--McDoob AU93 13:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I never doubted you intended to remove the sentence in the lead section about leaking data. Because you wrote so in your edit summary. I did doubt you intended to remove the North Korean tablet section further down in the article. Because you did not mention that in your edit summary.

I agree that it is not uncommon for games to be pirated or cloned. The source doesn't say it was. The fact that Rovio, according to the source, didn't respond to requests for comment on its inclusion on the tablet rather spoke to that the game was licensed. I researched this a little and when The Washington Post asked Rovio about it, they did answer[1] saying they had nothing to do with it. This supports your case and an inclusion would rather fit somewhere in the article that speaks to the game's popularity and widespread than under the section "Controversy".

If you want to move the North Korean tablet within the article or to the article about the videogame, please feel free to do so, but let your edit summary reflect that (and any possible target article). Please don't remove it in passing by reverting another edit and not comment on it.

Regarding the sentence in the lead speaking to the leaking data, I still find it relevant enough to qualify for the lead. It also allows for some balance to a lead otherwise occupied by praise, popularity and widespread success. --Bensin (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Initial thoughts: There's no way this warrants a mention in the lead, as this is in no way of of the things that defines the subject of the article. This is a massive WP:UNDUE issue. Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, just realized this is the series article, not the game one. That makes its placement in the lead even more of an UNDUE violation. It's a ridiculous notion to say it's one of the defining features of an article with such a large scope. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Real birds references

Need references for the real-life bird species that the Angry Birds (and Angry Birds Stella) are based on: Talk:Angry Birds Toons#What kind of birds are the Angry Birds?. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Which platforms?

A column in the tables listing which platforms each game is (or used to be) available for would be useful information. Bizzybody (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really. There are a ton of platforms for each game It wouldn't really suit the franchise to clutter up that page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Angry Birds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Angry Birds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angry Birds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100504135939/http://wireless.ign.com/articles/107/1070605p1.html to http://wireless.ign.com/articles/107/1070605p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comics

No mention of the lame-ass comic strip of the same name? 83.20.109.156 (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angry Birds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514154231/https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/the-experience/angrybirds.aspx to http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/the-experience/angrybirds.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Organization of the article

The flow of the article is a little out of place in some sections. The complications and cancellations of Angry Bird spin offs should be placed at the end. It somewhat disrupts the flow being in the middle of the article.

Lammerdm (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Peter Vesterbacka

Peter Vesterbacka redirects here, but there is very little information about him other than that he is associated with Rovio Entertainment. But that article doesn't even mention him. Would someone resolve please? (Following up a link from Helsinki-Tallinn Tunnel). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Angry Birds Movie 3 - 2022?

The article mentions the Angry Birds Movie 3 slated for a 2022 release, but there are no sources to confirm this. This should be addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:7582:4600:C9FA:BB5E:B422:4EF4 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC).

"Reception and legacy" section looks like there's nothing in it

I'm not an Angry Birds expert, but I think the game has a fairly sizeable legacy. The section “Reception and legacy” is completely blank aside from a right-formatted list of review scores from various websites. If the following section is supposed to be a subsection of “Reception and legacy,” it should be reformatted with an appropriate heading. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Angryverse" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Angryverse and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31#Angryverse until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"Green pigs" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Green pigs and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Green pigs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

List of Angry Birds characters?

Should there be a list of every character from the Angry Birds series like with some other articles? I could either be in this article (if so, tell me where to put it) or in a separate one, let me know what the best decision is. SuperWikiBrother (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)