Talk:Johnny Two Shoes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey. Im stealthEnigma, and I wrote this page. You might see that I made a lot of edits, but I just making minor tweaks to make this page perfect. Took me three days to write with the help of a few friends.

If there are any problems with the page (violating Wiki protocol), then just let me know. I will modify the page to fit the guidelines.

Thanks, StealthEnigma (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

What's the exact spelling of studio's name? The whole article uses the name with spaces in it but the title of the article and the website's title don't use spaces (although the official website uses both spellings..). Please determine the official spelling and then make the Wikipedia article consistent with that... the other spelling can be a redirect page then. - Simeon (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forum topic[edit]

Given the mass introduction of articles, I suspected that there was a forum topic related to this (you're not the first), so I'll link to that here. In principle that's not a problem as long as the article remains neutral. On first sight, I do have some doubts about notability although it appears to be around longer than most targeted article creations of this nature that we've seen here. I do share the comment that more third party sources should be added to establish notability.. I mean, being invited to speak at 2010 BAFTA is like notability by proxy.

Based purely on the contents of this article, I'd say the major claims to notability are the work for Channel 4 and Electronic Arts (although the article is not clear whether that EA game is Banana Dash World 4 or not). I'm unable to judge the value of the Mochi Media awards. The Most LOL Game award..... have a guess :) The other games are of course part of the company's history but don't seem to influence the company's notability, other than a proven record of game production. I'm not sure the current article would withstand a nomination for deletion so please be aware of that as you work on the article. - Simeon (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, the following is incorrect:
Wikipedia only wants factual articles, not ones with opinion. It will stand without a criticism section. I dont want to have it deleted in the first day because of a risky move.
Factual criticism is what the Criticism section is for.. if a company employs badly received business practices which has been published about in reliable sources, that can indeed be mentioned (like Facebook and privacy). It doesn't diminish the notability of the subject and it may indeed be encyclopedic information that puts the company into proper perspective. - Simeon (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

The EA game is not Banana Dash World 4. Quoting the page:

"Banana Dash World 4 would be the next game released from the studio after a 3-month radio silence from the studio while they worked on a secret project for Electronic Arts"

I will change the "while" to "in which". That should clear up what was going on during the "radio silence"

"The other games are of course part of the company's history but don't seem to influence the company's notability" All games have had an influence on the company's path, styles in future games, and are important parts of the company's history. The games the were collaborated with AddictingGames have hit over 10,000,000 plays and 6,000,000 plays respectively. I think that might just be "notable"


And hey, you said this: "I'm unable to judge the value of the Mochi Media awards. The Most LOL Game award..... have a guess :)" Why dont you try to go win those and then talk to be about how hard and "notable" it is :) StealthEnigma (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rephrase it a bit because it could still be interpreted that BDW4 was the secret project for EA which they worked on during a 3-month radio silence. I'm talking about encyclopedic notability of course, not general notability... if a game was played millions of times, then surely the game was enjoyed by many people. However, we can point to many games on e.g. Kongregate that have entertained many people for quite some time but I would say most of them are not encyclopedically notable. I agree that all work is part of a company's path but that doesn't mean they all equally contribute to the notablity of a company.. similarly, an actor may be famous for roles in 3 movies while he has played in 20. It basically comes down to: is JTS a notable company, for example by having created one or more notable games? If the answer is yes, then all other works can be included as well, it's more a matter of establishing notablity in the first place.
Regarding the awards, any award that is worth winning should be hard to win but that doesn't imply that the award is worth something. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be proud of these awards, you have every right to be, but let me explain my way of reasoning. For example, are these awards broadly accepted as a measure of quality within Flash gaming? If you're an actor and you win an Oscar, then yes, we can say you've won a well-established award but in this case, I can't tell at the moment. Remember that any group of people or a website can decide to hand out awards, and many gaming websites/companies/magazines do. - Simeon (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see your points now. I will change some thing to focus on the more notable games, while still including the other works of JohnnyTwoShoes. Right now we are in the process of getting the images properly licensed since we have had some issues with those. It will take most of the day, but I'll try my best to get it done today. Thanks for the pointers :) StealthEnigma (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Alright, I updated the page to new formatting. it is not done. There is a ton of power outages happening on the East Coast of the USA, so I wanted to get it saved. I placed the "Work in progress" tag to show this. I have more info to add, and have some pictures to place.

First, how do you like the new formatting? I tried to break it up into site history, commissioned works, which are the most notable, Flash works, and iPhone works.

Second, how do you like the Awards section? I wanted to put the BAFTA information down there since it does not fit elsewhere. I changed it to Awards and recognitions to try to accommodate the BAFTA section. Does this work?

Thanks for your help StealthEnigma (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structuring the article with sections is very important because online texts are read by scanning them. The awards section is fine I guess, it groups the info together. - Simeon (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Ratings?[edit]

Very good article for one that was made from scratch- let alone in three days. I don't have much to add to it, but giving citations for each of the ratings will help your rating tremendously. Good work, though. Sesamehoneytart (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Im actually working to update all of the references to see if I can get most of them an author. Sadly I have a head injury and cant be on the computer too long without a headache so it takes time. I have all of the references for the ratings, it will just take a little bit of time to implement all of them. StealthEnigma (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done StealthEnigma (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG assessment[edit]

I am assessing this as C-Class for the moment. Some things in order to get this up to B-Class and above:

  • Expand the lead just a little bit; you can include a second paragraph in there, given the article's length.
  • There are a few items which are not sourced which need to be.

Addressing those two issues, and I think you'd be close to B-Class there. –MuZemike 02:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Johnny Two Shoes. 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) 10:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnny_Two_Shoes&oldid=1203114993"