Talk:Operation Rainfall/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 |
Facebook quote
Other than Siliconera's interpretation, is there any actual evidence that NOA was specifically referring to the Operation? I know that it is quite likely, but is there actual proof? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- IGN, or atleast one of their employees, has tweeted that that NOA is expected to give a reaction/response in the coming day or two. But that's just an example that shows NOA is aware, it wasn't about this particular situation with Siliconera. If it is strictly Siliconera's interpretation, I suppose we could re-word it accordingly... Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Notability discussion
And that's that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.226.119 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- How do you define notability? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Or "appropriate", for that matter... Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, neither of the arguments make sense. The movement is clearly notable since it has been covered by sites such as IGN, Eurogamer, and Nintendoworldreport, etc. I also don't see how covering a topic that has been covered by reliable sources is inappropriate in any way.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Except things make the run across numerous significant gaming news sites all the time that might not be considered notable by any other measure. A cool Bayonetta costume at a convention, a guy with a really old Duke Nukem Forever preorder. Are all these things Wikipedia material? - Crabbattler (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- If someone has enough third party reliable sources that can establish notability, then an article can be made about just about anything. The examples you give though, sound like they'd probably be more appropriate as a small, sourced mention in an already established article or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is also unlikely that whole articles would be written on a person who simply had a good looking costume. Most likely if it got coverage it would be small part of a larger article and an article on the person would be a issue of undue weight. I don`t think that is the case here.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- But this happens all the time between gaming sites with practically any topic imaginable, it doesn't have to be people. Take the Wii Party Station. It has received far more coverage over a far longer period of time than this article, mainly because it's hilarious. It's a wacky thing that doesn't even exist. Yes, you could add it to the Nyko article, but you could add Operation Rainfall to the Nintendo or relevant game articles. I'm curious what the qualifying difference is, if any. Is it because the editors of the given news sites are following Wii Party Station as more of a subjective interest than actual news? Is it because it only relates to one or two existing Wikipedia articles rather than three or four? (that seems arbitrary) Or is it honestly something that should have an article? (I guarantee you it could be as long as this one, if that's somehow the qualifier)
- The specific example isn't really my point, although it gives you something concrete that isn't hand-waving. My point is that a lot of topics are propelled to technical notability within the closed sphere of video game websites, but having at least some diversity of media coverage demonstrates truer noteworthiness. - Crabbattler (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's hard for me to answer without out seeing any of the discussion in relation to the deletion of that specific article, or the article itself, and I've never heard of the thing myself. It could be any number of things; maybe that article was written poorly or written with non-reliable sources? In general though, it usually comes down to the reliability of sources (blogs, fansites, message board posts...they're not wikipedia reliable a vast majority of the time) or that there simply isn't much to be said about something. (If there's 20 sources of something that all say the same information, and that information is one sentence worth of info, it's usually merged into another related article.)
- Additionally, if you aren't happy with my answers, you could take it up with WikiProject Video Games. I reference them whenever I have questions about video games related articles... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally, Nintendo responded directly to the initiative. That makes it more notable than random high quality cosplay. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is also unlikely that whole articles would be written on a person who simply had a good looking costume. Most likely if it got coverage it would be small part of a larger article and an article on the person would be a issue of undue weight. I don`t think that is the case here.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- If someone has enough third party reliable sources that can establish notability, then an article can be made about just about anything. The examples you give though, sound like they'd probably be more appropriate as a small, sourced mention in an already established article or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Except things make the run across numerous significant gaming news sites all the time that might not be considered notable by any other measure. A cool Bayonetta costume at a convention, a guy with a really old Duke Nukem Forever preorder. Are all these things Wikipedia material? - Crabbattler (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, neither of the arguments make sense. The movement is clearly notable since it has been covered by sites such as IGN, Eurogamer, and Nintendoworldreport, etc. I also don't see how covering a topic that has been covered by reliable sources is inappropriate in any way.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but conversely, this was over the span of four days, after which Nintendo basically said "no", and that was it. Notability is not temporary. MSJapan (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also Nintendo didn't respond "directly" to Operation Rainfall. They responded to their Facebook fans. Certainly this includes people who have an interest in the release of the games but don't associate themselves with Operation Rainfall. In any case as they only address their audience as "fans" and only posted the response on Facebook, the burden of evidence would be on proving it's a direct response to a specific organization that would never have happened otherwise (companies respond to anxious fans of their Facebook pages all the time). Some news sites have made this leap, although without anything to back it up, so I don't think it's appropriate. Another reason I doubt the relevance of Operation Rainfall, specifically their Amazon Monado push, is the low numbers on other page activity indicators, such as customer discussions. Less that 200 post by a lot of the same people. Reaching the top of Amazon day-by-day game sales may require less orders than you might otherwise think... - Crabbattler (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's great, but your thoughts on the quality of the reporting by those sites is rather irrelevant. Reliable, third party sources are reporting on it, and not just passive mentions, but entire articles dedicated to it. That all trumps your personal opinion. By all means, if you feel strongly, try nominating it for deletion, but I'm pretty sure it'd be kept pretty strongly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's confusing being reliable with being psychic. The first-party source is available. It says nothing about Operation Rainfall. You can say, "according to Kotaku" or "Joystiq surmises", but if it's coming from the secondary's source's interpretation of the primary source that should be noted. There are certainly countless articles that don't make this leap of logic (example. We're not even talking about what our article says, though, we're talking about whether Nintendo said "hey Operation Rainfall, we recognize you as an entity" in the context of notability, and they did not. Looking at the top of this page, didn't you agree with this? - Crabbattler (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Take your qualms with Joystiq or other sources up with their writers or their forums or something. It doesn't matter if they are poorly interpreted article or not. It's the fact that they're covering them that makes it notable. If it makes you feel better to rewrite it as "Joystiq believed this response to be in response to Project Rainfall" or something, then so be it, as long as consensus is found on how to word it. But that doesn't affect it's notability. Whether or not Nitendo recognizes them, doesn't make it notable. It's coverage in reliable, third party sources, that is making it notable. It has a ton of that, all from sources that have been approved by Wikiproject Video Games. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- You may have missed it, but I was responding to this when I approached the directly/indirectly, thing: "Additionally, Nintendo responded directly to the initiative. That makes it more notable than random high quality cosplay." If you believe this statement is either untrue or irrelevant to notability then we effectively agree here. I'm not saying Operation Rainfall isn't notable because some sources interpreted something. I've said it isn't notable because lots of random silly things are notable by the extremely lenient reading of requirements used here. A counterargument was that this topic is more important than any of those because Nintendo responded directly. I was refuting that. The IP poster below offered an even better rebuttal to that ideal. I'd love to nominate this article for merge but if we can't even build a consensus here we must have some work to do before our argument is properly illustrated. I'd like to see some other points of view like below... - Crabbattler (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- But the argument proposed by the IP below is terrible. Half of it is dependent on Project Moonfall not having an article, which is wrong, it does have it's own article, and even if it didn't, it's still irrelevent. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The other is about the death of a person I've never heard of, with who's article was deleted without any explanation. That article could have been deleted for any number of reasons. It's rather pointless. You guys need to focus less on what other articles are doing, and more on Wikipedia policies. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also, it sounds like some of your questions are more in regards in video game articles in general. As I suggested earlier, you'd be better off discussing things over at Wikiproject Video Games. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wrt the IP I was talking about the comment on company responses. - Crabbattler (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also looking at the deletion log it shows there has never ben a deletion for Death of Takeshi Miyaji which means unless it has somehow been completely removed from records the article did not even exist in the first place let alone deleted. So it looks like the actually argument regarding that article is that we should delete this article since no one has created that article yet which make no sense whatsoever.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Again, not what I'm talking about. Although I'm not sure why a topic needs to be created and deleted before you can use it as an example of an article that shouldn't be made. If you don't think it should be made in the first place, then making the article is intentional vandalism + editing to make a point... - Crabbattler (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's because it would make more sense to make an article about the person himself, and have his death be a subsection in it. Articles are usually only spun out into more detailed topics (like a person's death) if the main article is getting overly lengthy. Since the person's article doesn't even exist, that certainly isn't an issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Again, not what I'm talking about. Although I'm not sure why a topic needs to be created and deleted before you can use it as an example of an article that shouldn't be made. If you don't think it should be made in the first place, then making the article is intentional vandalism + editing to make a point... - Crabbattler (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also looking at the deletion log it shows there has never ben a deletion for Death of Takeshi Miyaji which means unless it has somehow been completely removed from records the article did not even exist in the first place let alone deleted. So it looks like the actually argument regarding that article is that we should delete this article since no one has created that article yet which make no sense whatsoever.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wrt the IP I was talking about the comment on company responses. - Crabbattler (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- You may have missed it, but I was responding to this when I approached the directly/indirectly, thing: "Additionally, Nintendo responded directly to the initiative. That makes it more notable than random high quality cosplay." If you believe this statement is either untrue or irrelevant to notability then we effectively agree here. I'm not saying Operation Rainfall isn't notable because some sources interpreted something. I've said it isn't notable because lots of random silly things are notable by the extremely lenient reading of requirements used here. A counterargument was that this topic is more important than any of those because Nintendo responded directly. I was refuting that. The IP poster below offered an even better rebuttal to that ideal. I'd love to nominate this article for merge but if we can't even build a consensus here we must have some work to do before our argument is properly illustrated. I'd like to see some other points of view like below... - Crabbattler (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Take your qualms with Joystiq or other sources up with their writers or their forums or something. It doesn't matter if they are poorly interpreted article or not. It's the fact that they're covering them that makes it notable. If it makes you feel better to rewrite it as "Joystiq believed this response to be in response to Project Rainfall" or something, then so be it, as long as consensus is found on how to word it. But that doesn't affect it's notability. Whether or not Nitendo recognizes them, doesn't make it notable. It's coverage in reliable, third party sources, that is making it notable. It has a ton of that, all from sources that have been approved by Wikiproject Video Games. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's confusing being reliable with being psychic. The first-party source is available. It says nothing about Operation Rainfall. You can say, "according to Kotaku" or "Joystiq surmises", but if it's coming from the secondary's source's interpretation of the primary source that should be noted. There are certainly countless articles that don't make this leap of logic (example. We're not even talking about what our article says, though, we're talking about whether Nintendo said "hey Operation Rainfall, we recognize you as an entity" in the context of notability, and they did not. Looking at the top of this page, didn't you agree with this? - Crabbattler (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's great, but your thoughts on the quality of the reporting by those sites is rather irrelevant. Reliable, third party sources are reporting on it, and not just passive mentions, but entire articles dedicated to it. That all trumps your personal opinion. By all means, if you feel strongly, try nominating it for deletion, but I'm pretty sure it'd be kept pretty strongly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also Nintendo didn't respond "directly" to Operation Rainfall. They responded to their Facebook fans. Certainly this includes people who have an interest in the release of the games but don't associate themselves with Operation Rainfall. In any case as they only address their audience as "fans" and only posted the response on Facebook, the burden of evidence would be on proving it's a direct response to a specific organization that would never have happened otherwise (companies respond to anxious fans of their Facebook pages all the time). Some news sites have made this leap, although without anything to back it up, so I don't think it's appropriate. Another reason I doubt the relevance of Operation Rainfall, specifically their Amazon Monado push, is the low numbers on other page activity indicators, such as customer discussions. Less that 200 post by a lot of the same people. Reaching the top of Amazon day-by-day game sales may require less orders than you might otherwise think... - Crabbattler (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Notability pt 2
Why this page still exists baffles me, especially after the operation having pretty much no effect. I think that ironically, the fact that the three games still aren't getting localized after this operation means that NoA is still not convinced anyone really cares about the games, which is enough proof of its lack of notability. If Operation Rainfall was really the result of millions of fans stirring up a revolution in the gaming world, you'd assume NoA would act upon it and you know, announce a localization. Let's face it people: it's not THAT hard for a game to get localized.
If this operation deserves a page, so does "Operation Moonfall", the supposed plan to bring Majora's Mask to the 3DS. This operation already has more fans on its Facebook page than Operation Rainfall, despite being less than a week old. Speaking of which, the fact that there is not even 8000 fans on the Facebook page is kinda sad, which is supposed to be the hardcore fanbase of the three games COMBINED.
EDIT: And also, to the people who are screaming, "BUT IGN COVERED IT", I propose the following article Death of Takeshi Miyaji. If you want proof of notability, I provide the following:
- http://ps3.ign.com/articles/118/1185322p1.html
- http://www.1up.com/news/grandia-director-takeshi-miyaji-passes-away-45
- http://www.capsulecomputers.com.au/2011/08/grandia-creator-takeshi-miyaji-dead-at-age-45/
- http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/01/game-arts-founder-takeshi-miyaji-passes-away-at-45/
- http://kotaku.com/5826451/silpheed-designer-passed-away-too-soon-dead-at-45
- http://www.gamezone.de/news_detail.asp?nid=100748
- http://multiplayer.it/notizie/91541-scomparso-il-creatore-di-grandia.html (EVEN THIS ITALIAN SITE PICKED IT UP)
This is huge news right? The fact is this: This operation has zero notability. Just because Nintendo "responded" via Facebook does not justify this. I spent an email to Sony some time ago about why my laptop broke down and they also responded, so I think it's time for a page... So in the end, just add a few words about the operation in each of the game's designated pages and get rid of this article.
24.109.230.39 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you're that sure, submit it for deletion. It's that simple. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like Melodia beat me to the punch. What she said. Rather than ranting on and on here, by all means submit this for deletion, and start up a "Project Moonfall" article. And good luck, you'll need it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Operation Moonfall and 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3 articles actually look legit. Nice work. I don't really see what the big deal is. It's an article on Wikipedia. If you want to find 10+ sources covering a subject and make an article, then do it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's pretty funny, two in one day. 10,000 articles on failed fan campaigns later someone is going to suggest this was a bad idea... - Crabbattler (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's more likely that these campaigns are going to receive less and less coverage as they become "old news", and ones without much/any coverage will be deleted... Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I also doubt that anywhere near 10,000 failed campaigns will get this level of coverage so keeping this won't lead to anything like that.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I also looked into the other article mentioned and it appears it has never been deleted or even created. The more logical action would be to create that article than to delete this one.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also the email sent to Sony is a bad example since unlike this no reliable sources are likely to cover it. The article was created because reliable sources regarding video games have covered the movement and to reteirate the lack of an article regarding the death does not prove a thing because that could very well be a sign that it is a subject that simply has not been worked on and not proof that this article is not notiable. In short a lack of article is not evidence about article A.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually looking more closely the reason there is no article about the death is because we already have an artilce about the person and there is not likely to be enough content for a seperate article. An article about the death would likely be merged to the person`s own article. This would not work here since this is an attempt to localize three games so a merge would not effective as it would be in the other case so there is no one place to merge it to as there would be in the other case.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I had noticed a couple of those things too, but hadn't bothered to respond. It's pretty clear that the original poster is someone who is unfamiliar with the policies of wikipedia, and seems rather stubborn as well, so it seemed pointless to argue. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Right, the IP's not-great example is not great. I already offered others... How are 24-hour all-you-can-eat gaming news-blogs like Kotaku going to "get tired" of fan campaigns? They're not even getting tired of the Wii Party Station. They've found the same one picture of Square's president hilarious for like five years. If any thing, time will only add more and more established sites into the noise stream... 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3 has already been nominated for merge. Again, I don't think just because this campaign involves a mind-blowing three things that means it can't be merged. The email example is again a forest-for-trees things, the point is that companies produce a large number of statements and that doesn't make something notable. I'm not saying Wikipedia policy says this isn't notable, I'm just saying it allows for some degree of judgment, and this case is interesting because of the isolated nature of videogame news-blogs. - Crabbattler (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I had noticed a couple of those things too, but hadn't bothered to respond. It's pretty clear that the original poster is someone who is unfamiliar with the policies of wikipedia, and seems rather stubborn as well, so it seemed pointless to argue. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually looking more closely the reason there is no article about the death is because we already have an artilce about the person and there is not likely to be enough content for a seperate article. An article about the death would likely be merged to the person`s own article. This would not work here since this is an attempt to localize three games so a merge would not effective as it would be in the other case so there is no one place to merge it to as there would be in the other case.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also the email sent to Sony is a bad example since unlike this no reliable sources are likely to cover it. The article was created because reliable sources regarding video games have covered the movement and to reteirate the lack of an article regarding the death does not prove a thing because that could very well be a sign that it is a subject that simply has not been worked on and not proof that this article is not notiable. In short a lack of article is not evidence about article A.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I also looked into the other article mentioned and it appears it has never been deleted or even created. The more logical action would be to create that article than to delete this one.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I also doubt that anywhere near 10,000 failed campaigns will get this level of coverage so keeping this won't lead to anything like that.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's more likely that these campaigns are going to receive less and less coverage as they become "old news", and ones without much/any coverage will be deleted... Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's pretty funny, two in one day. 10,000 articles on failed fan campaigns later someone is going to suggest this was a bad idea... - Crabbattler (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Operation Moonfall and 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3 articles actually look legit. Nice work. I don't really see what the big deal is. It's an article on Wikipedia. If you want to find 10+ sources covering a subject and make an article, then do it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just saying that if a topic stops getting coverage, then it won't have sources, and people may stop making aritcles about it. If there are thousands of articles about fan petitions, then so be it, as long as they are well sourced and there's information to be written about.
It comes down to this. As far as this article goes, there is definitely consensus against merging it, so as of right now, that's not happening. If you're so against the article, feel free to go ahead and put it up for WP:AFD deletion. If you want to talk about video game petitions in general, go discuss at wikiproject video games or something. Those are your options, there's no more use in this general/vague bickering. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention unlike the Mega Man Legends 3 article there is also there would also be a question about where to merge this to since the movement is trying to get three different games released so the question is which article? Also is there any evidence that there is going to be an avalanche of protest movements being covered by gaming sites?--76.66.180.220 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, there isn't, it's just an hypothetical situation based on the current trend of 3 popping up recently. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not hypothetical nor is it new. The only new thing is people adding them to Wikipedia. The most totally-non-notable petitions have received widespread coverage:
- No, there isn't, it's just an hypothetical situation based on the current trend of 3 popping up recently. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
(This isn't even close to exhaustive in any direction)
- Dedicated Servers for Modern Warfare 2 Petition
- http://kotaku.com/5403680/all-out-war-games
- http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/19/petition-for-dedicated-servers-in-modern-warfare-2-growing-rapid/
- http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/20/infinity-ward-responds-to-modern-warfare-2-dedicated-server-peti/
- http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/modern_warfare_2_disallows_dedicated_servers_generates_85000_signature_petition
- http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/10/21/infinity-ward-responds-to-modern-warfare-2-petition/
- Starcraft 2 LAN Multiplayer Petition
- http://kotaku.com/5304995/and-the-starcraft-ii-lan-petitioning-commences
- http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92818-Fans-Petition-For-StarCraft-II-LAN-Blizzard-Responds
- http://www.destructoid.com/over-100-000-nerds-sign-starcraft-ii-lan-petition-144437.phtml
- http://www.1up.com/news/petition-protesting-lack-starcraft-lan
- http://pc.ign.com/articles/100/1003148p1.html
- Anti-Diablo 3 Petition
- http://kotaku.com/5021118/diablo-fans-petition-against-diablo-iii
- http://kotaku.com/5021491/diablo-iii-producer-+-color-is-your-friend
- http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/40493/Blizzard-Responds-to-Diablo-III-Fan-Petition
- http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/starcraft-ii-lan-petition-gets-100-000-sigs
- http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darker-diablo-fan-petition-rejected
- http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/07/02/diablo-iii-art-direction/
- http://www.destructoid.com/bitchy-diablo-fans-whine-about-diablo-iii-s-art-direction-93237.phtml
- Nor am I only talking about petitions. I'm talking about every other wacky topic that isn't ever considered newsworthy outside of *gaming* *websites*, and doesn't just happen to fall conveniently into the realm of living persons or something easily dismissible like that. The Wii Party Station, a good Bayonetta costume, or whatever...
- Being about three things doesn't somehow make Operation Rainfall more notable and exempt it from a merge. (Neither, as far as I know, does having fancy name.) Merges can be pretty general anyway. In fact, 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3 and Mega Man Legends 3 itself were both just merged into Mega Man Legends. I'm taking your advice and taking action, but I wanted to respond to your subsequent comments. - Crabbattler (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- By merges being general as you suggesting that Xenoblade, the last story, and Pandora's tower be merged into one like Mega Man legends 3 because if you are I doubt that would work. The reason being is that they are three games released by three different oompanirs so they can't be merged into a main article like Mega Man Legends 3. Also all of the other petitions mentioned could hyphethically be merged into a main article this one however can't since there is no one main article and I see little chance of the three games being merged since other than the connection to operation rainfall the only other connection they have is that they are all RPG'S on the Wii.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- That isn't what I said. It's just one example of something that happened. This "problem" is easily solvable. One of many solutions is to just give those three pages a "Localization" section or paragraph detailing efforts to bring the games over. In fact, they already have this, so it wouldn't be a very radical change... A shared participant isn't automatically an article. Say a minor director made multiple movies listed on Wikipedia but never received any direct third-party coverage. Her name would be mentioned in several different articles but she would not have an article herself. If you need a specific example (there are most likely thousands available) then, iunno, just clicking at the top of the films category I found Tristan Loraine of 31 North 62 East & Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines. - Crabbattler (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Operation Moonfall can also be merged into three articles: Operation Rainfall, Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D. It's hard to say which one deserves it more. Thriceplus (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- See above. And also below, where you talk about how Wikipedia policy doesn't say "fan campaigns involving two or more games are notable, the rest are not" - Crabbattler (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- By merges being general as you suggesting that Xenoblade, the last story, and Pandora's tower be merged into one like Mega Man legends 3 because if you are I doubt that would work. The reason being is that they are three games released by three different oompanirs so they can't be merged into a main article like Mega Man Legends 3. Also all of the other petitions mentioned could hyphethically be merged into a main article this one however can't since there is no one main article and I see little chance of the three games being merged since other than the connection to operation rainfall the only other connection they have is that they are all RPG'S on the Wii.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Crab-Battler: :I fail to see the problem here. Wikipedia's standard is estabilishing notability through reliable sources. If that can be done, and there's enough content to establish an independent article, then there's no problem with something having an article. I'm not familiar with those subjects, but if they meet that criteria, then there's no reason why they shouldn't have articles too. (It could just be that no one's ever bothered to make them.) I think your problem, Crabbattler, is that you're confusing what you personally find important/interesting, with wikipedia's standards. There's all sorts of articles I dont' find useful, (like all sorts of them on random cities) but that doesn't mean they're not notable/worthy of an article. And that's why I keep on saying, either put it up for deletion or end this discussion, because I'm not sure your criteria is the same as wikipedia's, and so all we keep on doing is talking circles... Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was responding to this: No, there isn't, it's just an hypothetical situation based on the current trend of 3 popping up recently. If this entire line of discussion was irrelevant then I apologize for responding and I'm not sure why either of us are talking about it. I'm not sure I'm confusing standards of notability. Megaman was merged and aside from posting support for it I had nothing to do with that. There isn't anything policy-wise that makes this article different, as far as I can see (nothing in there about things that are related to more than one topic). Again there is the 'diversity' requirement for sources, and again this story is pretty much contained within the bubble of online news sites. I'm working on a proposal but I think I have the right to respond when you address me or my statements... - Crabbattler (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- You absolutely have every right to respond. I'm just saying I'm just about done with my responses to you. This game has a ton of coverage from reliable sources, and there's enough info there to support an article. (It's not like it's 2 sentences with 10 sources or something.) That's all there is to it. None of your other points over-ride that. End of story. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, just like Serge has said, sorry Crab-Battler, but I believe you misread one section on the wikipedia manifesto that states that fan campaigns involving two or more games are notable, the rest are not. /sarcasm Thriceplus (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, what? I'm saying the opposite (accounting for sarcasm). If Megaman wasn't notable, this sure isn't. - Crabbattler (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was responding to this: No, there isn't, it's just an hypothetical situation based on the current trend of 3 popping up recently. If this entire line of discussion was irrelevant then I apologize for responding and I'm not sure why either of us are talking about it. I'm not sure I'm confusing standards of notability. Megaman was merged and aside from posting support for it I had nothing to do with that. There isn't anything policy-wise that makes this article different, as far as I can see (nothing in there about things that are related to more than one topic). Again there is the 'diversity' requirement for sources, and again this story is pretty much contained within the bubble of online news sites. I'm working on a proposal but I think I have the right to respond when you address me or my statements... - Crabbattler (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also don't forget this article: Straftaten gegen die öffentliche Ordnung - Gegen ein Verbot von Action-Computerspielen Thriceplus (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- That a) succeeded and, more importantly, b) was covered by a diverse range of sources including The Guardian, not just gaming sites. - Crabbattler (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The only thing I don't get is what makes Operation Rainfall special. If we purge the other fan campaigns, this cannot be an exception. As Crab mentioned earlier, three games does not give it immunity. If we keep this article, then all the other "a billion people for *insert game*", such as
- Being about three things doesn't somehow make Operation Rainfall more notable and exempt it from a merge. (Neither, as far as I know, does having fancy name.) Merges can be pretty general anyway. In fact, 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3 and Mega Man Legends 3 itself were both just merged into Mega Man Legends. I'm taking your advice and taking action, but I wanted to respond to your subsequent comments. - Crabbattler (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- all deserve their own articles (including Operation Moonfall and 100,000 Strong for Mega Man Legends). I'm sick of the weird double standards on the merging issue. It's actually really easy to merge Operation Rainfall; just have a paragraph about it in each of the articles for the three games. Done Thriceplus (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it mostly content. The megaman and moonfall ones are shorter, and half of them was more about background on the games themselves, not the campaign. That being said, there's still plenty of room for debate for the other two. They didn't spend much time discussing it or gathering consensus, so it wouldn't be out of line to undo the merge/redirects either. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a magic length/ratio that it must achieve or something? Itt's the concept for the article. They are both fan campaigns, with gaming media coverage, with the only notable difference being one has 3 games and one has 1 game. Thriceplus (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And like I keep on telling Crab Battler, you really ought to take this up with wikiproject video games, not this talk page. I'm no expert with all of these random examples. I'm only really up to date on this article's content, and what's there merits an article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Only Megaman has been merged, and I agree I would have waited longer. On the other hand, guidelines suggest about a week and that's how long the merge tag was there, it's just no one started a discussion about it until I did (presumably because no one opposed). I was surprised by the massive merge, but I certainly don't disagree with it. I think a parallel to pretty much all of the content of this article can be found for either of the other campaigns, they simply haven't received that many edits yet. They've gotten official responses as well (and as you can see in my example list above, lots of petitions do), and everything with that many articles will have a narrative you can add. I guess if everyone agrees this is a valid question (and that itself I believe is something constructive emerging from this conversation), then my next step will be to ask wikiproject video games. - Crabbattler (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe this article needs to exist. I can take or leave Operation Moonfall and the rest of them. I have no questions for wikiproject video games here, as everything's pretty clear here to me. Feel free to ask them what you want though... Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I also disagree with the no exception ideas since a merger of operation moonfall would be a consensus to merge that article not a consensus against creating any articles about fan campaigns. Unless there is a certerlized discussion agreeing to no articles for any fan campaigns they will all need to be judged on their own merits. Also this is still being covered and was covered earlier today [[1]].--76.66.180.220 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe this article needs to exist. I can take or leave Operation Moonfall and the rest of them. I have no questions for wikiproject video games here, as everything's pretty clear here to me. Feel free to ask them what you want though... Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Only Megaman has been merged, and I agree I would have waited longer. On the other hand, guidelines suggest about a week and that's how long the merge tag was there, it's just no one started a discussion about it until I did (presumably because no one opposed). I was surprised by the massive merge, but I certainly don't disagree with it. I think a parallel to pretty much all of the content of this article can be found for either of the other campaigns, they simply haven't received that many edits yet. They've gotten official responses as well (and as you can see in my example list above, lots of petitions do), and everything with that many articles will have a narrative you can add. I guess if everyone agrees this is a valid question (and that itself I believe is something constructive emerging from this conversation), then my next step will be to ask wikiproject video games. - Crabbattler (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it mostly content. The megaman and moonfall ones are shorter, and half of them was more about background on the games themselves, not the campaign. That being said, there's still plenty of room for debate for the other two. They didn't spend much time discussing it or gathering consensus, so it wouldn't be out of line to undo the merge/redirects either. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- all deserve their own articles (including Operation Moonfall and 100,000 Strong for Mega Man Legends). I'm sick of the weird double standards on the merging issue. It's actually really easy to merge Operation Rainfall; just have a paragraph about it in each of the articles for the three games. Done Thriceplus (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Operation Rainfall for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Rainfall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Rainfall until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabbattler (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Sources for future reference
- http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/224208/nintendos-regginator-bombarded-with-operation-rainfall-tweets/ --To be added to the article later, by me or anyone else who wants to and beats me to it. More reliable, third party reception, that would help should this article ever be put up to AFD again... Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=165587 -- Not this particular source, but putting this there as a reminder. Could lead to future sources. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Results
The result section automatically makes it seems that operation rainfall was the doing that xenoblade and Last story were both released in America. However, the two sources given for this are shaky as best. As the first only mentions it in passing and the second does not mention the operation at all. So do we have any sources that back up that operation rainfall had actual results? NathanWubs (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, Nintendo has never said directly that Operation Rainfall influenced them. The wording is correct, the games were indeed localized, and the wording doesn't necessarily say that OpRa was the reason, just that they were in fact localized. It really just needs a less suggestive section title than "results". Suggestions? Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing on that. Maybe "American Releases" or "American Release" or something like that. I think I will mill this one over for a while. Maybe also asking my expert English source about it. NathanWubs (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)