Talk:Jones in the Fast Lane

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

Easter eggs/Cheats[edit]

Just wondering if anyone happens to know any easter eggs or cheats for this game? I play it on the odd occasion, have been for a decade, I decided to play a game of it tonight and happened to win $5000 from the lottery ticket :-O Timeshift 17:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Don't know any easter eggs but this game rules.[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jones in the Fast Lane.png[edit]

Image:Jones in the Fast Lane.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Taskinen (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROD deletion?[edit]

Why should this be removed? This is a game that was released almost two decades ago by Sierra, and a google search of jones in the fast lane, http://www.google.com.au/search?q="jones+in+the+fast+lane" , as a phrase, reveals over 15,000 results. Deletion is simply a silly idea. Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple; the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is not a certain threshold of Google hits; it is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. While clearly I haven't looked at all 14,600 results I see (you forgot to exclude Wikipedia-related results), I have looked at a few pages, and all the results I can see are abandonware, classic game download, warez or game FAQ sites with no cheats and no walkthroughs. More telling are similar news, books and scholar searches, which apart from a few release notices in news and entries in books by the utterly unreliable Icon Group International, plus a few directory entries, are pretty much blank.
In addition, the article doesn't mention why it might be notable, such as its sales or cultural significance. Its content is exclusively a description of the gameplay and mechanics, which does not amount to encyclopedic content per WP:NOT. The references provided are not reliable and do not amount to significant coverage.
If you want to save this article, all you need to do is find two independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, and preferably enhance the article content using them. This will establish notability beyond reasonable doubt.
--Rogerb67 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Old games will never have news articles. Just as an example I picked a game out of my head Kroz. It's also on wikipedia. Just because it's not in any 3rd party sources it doesn't mean as a game we shouldn't have it on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for retention; each article stands or falls on its own merits. Reliable sources need not be recent, nor do they need to be news articles (see WP:RS). But if something is "not in any 3rd party sources", it does mean it should not be on Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core content policies, states in part: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I will start the deletion discussion process. Please do contribute. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny that out of a sudden this article was listed for deletion. Is Wikipedia really so hard on hard disk space that the administrators have to go witch-hunting articles? Let me think about it and organise my thoughts before I come up with some justifications why this article should stay. Kiwi8 (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you add your opposition at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones in the Fast Lane. Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you Nazi editors are turning Wikipedia into a Crap-o-pedia. I loved Wikipedia a lot more before you all started changing it to fit your ideas of what should and shouldn't be included. Don't you realize you are just like the censors in China who decide what should and shouldn't be knowledge? This article is a important piece of gaming history, so leave it be. If you don't like its inclusion in Wikipedia, then go read some other Wikipedia article. This article doesn't require any third party sources. Just because a journalist writes a news article about a game doesn't make the source any more authoritative than an article by a kid who's played it for hundred's of hours. Wikipedia should include human KNOWLEDGE, and KNOWLEDGE should not be monopolized by those who have access to a printing press, people with high falooting credentials, or bloated reputations. I do hold a PhD, and anyone with a similar degree should know how limited their knowledge really is. I could easily lend my credentials to third party article about this game, but why would I when I can just edit the Wikipedia article, although I don't anymore because of the Nazi editors. - RL

Welcome to Wikipedia, anonymous editor. A couple of points:
  • Firstly, calling people Nazis is offensive enough to invalidate the rest of your comments. See Godwin's law.
  • Secondly, if you actually looked at the article before firing off insults you'd notice I'm the only person actually adding references to the page to improve its notability. Calling me a Nazi seems an odd thing to do given I'm improving the article you're in favour of.
  • Thirdly, articles need to be notable, and this is determined using verifiable sources. Regrettably, your personal opinion on what is notable is not enough to put notability beyond dispute.
You've been asked by MuZeMike to remove your offensive comments but haven't done so - please reconsider this request as they add nothing to your argument. Euryalus (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol @ all the keeps. The nominator has been rolled. Timeshift (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closed, result is keep :-) Timeshift (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the gloating does nobody credit. It isn't about "winning" or "losing" an AfD, it's about questionning whether a poorly sourced article should be included in Wikipedia or not. The process has improved the article in a significant way and also turned up several much needed sources. It's a net win for all parties, including the nominator. The article is stronger today for having withstood the challenge. I just don't see what the gloating brings. Wikipedia is not a battleground. MLauba (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improvement through the threat of deletion is not ideal. If the topic is noteable now, it was noteable back then. A lack of a decent page is not grounds for deletion. Noteability is noteability. It does not change depending on how developed an article is. Timeshift (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like many other people, you're confusing notability with importance. The general notability guideline is simply a threshold which requires that any topic is sufficiently sourcedthrough third parties to enable the establishment of a verifiable and neutral article. That's why those sources have to turn up - without them, any article is nothing but unsupported original research. This has absolutely nothing to do with fame but everything with backing up articles with solid content. And while the Damocles' Sword of a deletion may not be the best tool for that, the much softer initial PROD didn't address the legitimate concerns of the nominator. The AfD did just that. Please do assume good faith here, the nominator has made it abundantly clear that he has tried to search for sources and came up empty. MLauba (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not ideal. But sometimes overlooked articles do improve under threat of deletion; in fact, that's the entire purpose behind the article rescue squadron! If the article is now improved as a result, then that's a good thing, regardless of the steps taken to get there. I like to say that everybody won here. MuZemike 03:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source?[edit]

I've marked the Mykel Kochenderfer source as possibly unreliable. Referenced as being published by Stanford University, it appears impressive, and indeed it is held on the University's website. On the other hand, the file itself appears to be a student essay linked from this page. As such, I don't think that it meets the standards for fact-checking and accuracy required by WP:SOURCES. I don't think it meets the criteria for inclusion as a primary or self-published source. Other opinions are welcome. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My personal opinion is the game is notable for its pioneering use of graphics, a cash economy and boardgame interface, and that references probably exist in videogame research texts ad historical works to support this. Regrettably, the current article references don't quite cut it. The absence of online sources reflect the game's age - does anyone with a better background in this area have access to offline sources that might support a pioneering claim? Euryalus (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few more sources added - its still struggling to meet WP:V but we're heading in the right direction. If anyone can read either Hebrew or German, feel free to add any relevant details from these links. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German source is entirely trivial, it mentions Jones as one of the examples of intermediary steps in the evolution from the tamagochi to more complex life simulation games. Half a sentence and you can't even be sure if it refers to Jones or Princess Maker. MLauba (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the AfD has ended, and consensus appears to be that the Mykel Kochenderfer source is not reliable, I'm going to remove it now, along with the now superfluous and apparently unreliable GameFAQs reference. Thanks and congratulations to those who found the objective evidence of notability required to keep the article that I was unable to (I concur with the general sentiment that while formally the notability established is at best marginal, the indication now is that further sources quite probably do exist; although I can't read it, the scan of the Top Secret source demonstrates decent coverage there and only confirms this). --Rogerb67 (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference from "Top Secret" (scan)[edit]

I had Rogerb67 ask me to provide something more about this reference, and so I'm providing a scan for all to see. The scanned page can be found here: http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/b2e23eef50392f958a16534321272e2f.png (sorry for low quality of screenshots, it has been saved in DjVu format). However, it's all in Polish, so should I provide a translation? Korodzik (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A translation would be great. Euryalus (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar Games[edit]

I replaced the listing of "Life" with "Careers". Life is a very linear game, which ends when the players reach a definite end. I replaced it with Careers, since it also has a "Success Formula" that is based upon difffering goals which the player sets at the beginning of the game. Having played Monopoly, Life, Careers, and Jones In The Fast Lane, it is more like Careers then any of the other games listed. Mushrom (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism, or Political Correctness in Jones in the Fast Lane?[edit]

Hahahah... Ok, seriously. I know you guys are probably thinking, what the heck? Ok, I was born in the late 70s, so I grew up playing these games. The first version of this game that I got came on 3.5" floppies. It was hte INITIAL release of Jones in the Fast Lane. The original release of the game had an ASIAN kid with pimples all over his face working at the fake Mc.Donalds chain. In the subsequent "printing" of the game on 3.5 (version 1.1) as well as all the newer multi-media versions that were released on CD instead had a white teenager with pimples all over his face. Thought that was kind of funny. Since Al Sharpton and everyone else seems to believe that racism exists everywhere, I figured I would just do my part to help denegrate society.

--Todd82TA 10:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jones_in_the_Fast_Lane&oldid=1199896679"