Jump to content

Talk:Angry Birds (video game)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

100 Million Downloads

Angry Birds hit 100 million downloads. (http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/angry-birds-hits-100-million-downloads-14-03-2011/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.104.219 (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Physics Engine

I'd like to add some sort of mention of Box2D, an excellent open source physics engine which is believed to be used by Angry Birds. That would require an authoritative reference that it is indeed the engine. (Jer Thorp claims to have confirmed it, but doesn't name his source.) Anyone have anything better, one way or the other? Jdcope (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Angry Birds Trademark Issues

If you search the USPTO database, a trademark application for "Angry Birds" has been refused due to a pre-existing identical trademark. Because this could potentially cause problems for the future licensing of the franchise, does anyone think it's worth including in the article? Muziki (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's include it if a notable news source mentions it.--69.248.1.200 (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Slight Grammatical Correction

Capitalized some words, corrected a sentence, nothing major.

Look over if in disagreement with anything. - Vortic (Out Of Country) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.99.242 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed speedy deletion

While I agree the article is, as is, not much of an article, I believe the game is a notable release and with some re-writing can become a better article. I would propose the {{advert}} tag instead for now, and allow other editors time to fix it. I'll be glad to assist the creating editor in any way possible. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • For the record, McDoobAU93 conducted an excellent overhaul of the article, an anon subsequently butchered it, and an admin deleted that version not noticing the previous good version. I've restored it to McDoob's version. –xenotalk 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Purple Bird?

There's a purple bird? On the Apple IOS version, it's a large red bird... Is it a difference between versions? -- WORMMЯOW  07:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this myself. I haven't gotten to that bird yet in my game (iOS version), and it keeps changing back and forth. --McDoobAU93 15:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I've completed it myself... I do love Angry Birds. But I believe the 1.4 update brought the big red bird, and the night time construction levels... World 9 anyway. I've done a little googling and I can't find anything regarding purple bird, except on wikipedia.-- WORMMЯOW  13:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
do you mean Migthy eagle?(dlc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arttuh2010 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we determined it was confusion about the "big brother" bird and its color. It's been sorted out now, I believe. --McDoobAU93 16:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The task ahead ...

I wanted to thank Someone another for re-assessing the article and raising it to C-class. I asked for some suggestions to improve the article, and here's what was posted on my talk page, so please pick something and help out. I know we can get this to good-article status, if not featured-article.

  • Tighten up gameplay by collapsing smaller paragraphs into larger ones whenever possible.
  • A few examples of different coloured birds and their abilities within standard sentences would be enough to get the point across to the reader, rather than a break-out list within the gameplay section.
  • Gameplay needs citing.
  • Development needs more information, as you've said, there should easily be enough information in reliable sources for this section to be up to GA-standards, just look for interviews like this.
  • The reception section is already very good, Ideally it could do with a few more game reviewer's opinions in that first paragraph.
  • The expanded article then needs summarizing in the WP:LEAD.

I've started work based on the first two, but feel free to tweak it yourselves, too. Thanks again, Someone, and let's see if we can boost the article another class or two by the end of the year.

--McDoobAU93 22:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing episodes in Symbian version

ATM, I can't find a source for the repertoir of episodes in the N8 version, but trust me, I know first hand. I have the original (yes, legally bought) game. That said, as something that becomes evident upon direct contact with the game, I'm not sure that requires an explicit source, just like the gameplay doesn't. --uKER (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for discussion. The statement just got removed. It seems like some people just enjoy deleting stuff, regardless of there being nothing to indicate that the information is disputable, and regardless of it coming from someone who has the game in front of his very own eyes. --uKER (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
How's this for a source? Hundreds of people complaining they get less than half the levels in the iPhone version? --uKER (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that unsourced information can be challenged and/or removed at any time. Adding a {{fact}} tag is not a defense against potentially incorrect content. Personal knowledge can still constitute original research; what if a future editor downloaded an updated version with more levels and changed this? By the by, the source you added stating the number of levels in the initial Symbian^3 release was just fine; as noted in a previous edit summary, I moved it to the "Release" section. Even though the source stated only the number of levels and not the episodes included, I think that's reasonable enough to remain in place. --McDoobAU93 17:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"Poached Eggs" is 3x21 levels and "Mighty Hoax" is 2x21 levels. That adds up to 105. Is that complicated enough to constitute original research in your book? That said, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you seem determined to have that Symbian^3 info on the release section when there's a "Ports" section, and the initial release of the game (which the "Release" section refers to) was on the iPhone. --uKER (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As to where the Symbian^3 info belongs, I'm admittedly having second thoughts about that. My intent is to show how each version of the game launched (i.e., how much of the game did each version initially get), but at the same time, if left here, it would come up before discussing which devices even have the game. I'm not married to this info being in that section. --McDoobAU93 17:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Ask yourself: What is the point of the "Ports" section? --uKER (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the "Gameplay" section

  • "The pigs have taken refuge on or within structures (...)" - Inaccurate precision. That's not always the case.
  • "(...) made of various materials, including wood, glass, and stone" - The materials don't just include those three. Those three are all there is.
  • "Using a slingshot, players launch the birds at the structure" - Misleading as to the point of the game. You're supposed to be shooting at the pigs. Shooting the structures should be presented as an alternate approach. Also, it implies there's a single structure in each level.
  • "(...) or damaging the structure, which would cause it to collapse onto the pigs." - Sometimes structures collapse UNDER the pigs (causing them to die in the fall) and not necessarily ON them.
  • "If all of the pigs are defeated by the time the last bird is used (...)" - Reference to there being a "last bird", but the information that the amount of birds is limited only comes in the next paragraph. I had moved this to the last paragraph.
  • "Players may re-attempt levels as many times as they wish, and may also replay completed levels in an attempt to boost their score. - This talks about the player having the ability to replay the levels to improve a score that hasn't been described yet. I had moved this one to the very end.
  • "At the beginning of the game the red bird is the only one available." - Meaningless. How is the red bird special or different from the others?
  • "The pigs themselves also appear in different sizes and with different abilities." - Different abilities? What would those be? Helmet and no helmet?

    Also, my edit introduced a cohesion in which the text was divided into a lead paragraph which described the general gameplay and gave an overview of the objective in each level; then a paragraph describing the birds, followed by a paragraph describing the pigs, and one describing the outcome of each level. My writing may have room for improvement, but I'd say nothing as serious as the points I mention. --uKER (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking at each item in order:
  • Actually, it is the case. Pigs are just as likely to be on the black, non-destructible surfaces of the level as they are on the destructible surfaces (wood, glass and stone), and said non-destructible surfaces are just as much a structure as anything else.
  • Who's to say that Rovio doesn't have future surface materials in mind for future expansions? This is descriptive enough to get the point across and won't have to be changed if Rovio were to add new things.
  • You left out the rest of the sentence, which states that the players either target the pigs or the structure itself. Again, the intent is to give a general description; we're not after pixel-for-pixel accuracy here.
  • Again, getting too specific. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.
  • This sentence fits within the initial gameplay description. How is the level completed? What conditions cause the level to be failed? In describing a standard game, it's appropriate to describe how the game is won before describing the nuances of the game.
  • I'd be OK with this ... at the same time, goes to discussing general gameplay. Continuing from previous item ... if a level is failed, can I do it again (i.e., is there a checkpoint)?
  • How is it meaningless? When the game does start, there is only one type of bird available, and others appear at later levels, as is described later in said paragraph.
  • I agree that the phrasing needs work. "Different strengths," or just leave out the second description altogether, leaving it as "The pigs themselves also appear in different sizes."?
The previous version also had three paragraphs: gameplay outline; birds and pigs; scoring. This came from one of the comments made by another editor, suggesting we compact the descriptions into fewer, longer paragraphs.
My interpretation of your changes is that you're trying to describe every potential variation of the game. The point of this is to give a general description to a target reader ... that target reader, in my opinion, is someone who has never played the game before, and who may never play it, but has heard of Angry Birds (for example, the Israeli sketch video added recently) and wants to know what all the fuss is about. The description provided was accurate enough to get the point across, and without grammatical errors such as "The game starts with a basic type of bird that only allows to be thrown with the slingshot in order to achieve a direct hit on a target".
--McDoobAU93 21:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. So now the floor is a structure too? Then we have a problem when you say you can shoot structures to destroy them.
  2. You basing the content of the article in an assumption that there will be more materials in the future is against WP:CRYSTAL. Right now there's those three materials. The article will be changed in the event that it needs to.
  3. The point is that the primary target is the pigs. You're shifting the focus of the game to destroying the structures.
  4. It is you who is is getting too specific in saying structures have to collapse ON the pigs when it's not the only option. If both options are not to be mentioned, perhaps it would suffice to say that the pigs can get killed when structures collapse.
  5. I didn't suggest removing the information. It's just the lack of cohesion that bothers me. If you're going to say you have to kill the pigs have to be killed before the last bird is shot, you can't leave it to the next paragraph to say "oh, we forgot to mention you have a limited amount of birds".
  6. It's meaningless in saying "you have a red bird" without explaining the fact that the red one is the basic type of bird and how so, ie it not having a special ability.
  7. I had in fact removed the "abilities" thing.
    If the goal is to generate fewer, longer paragraphs, then the pigs' and the birds' paragraphs can be merged. That is not an issue. You're putting it as if I was trying to make the section twice as long describing trivialities. My proposed text was about as long as the previous one, only I got rid of some imprecisions in the text. I have a problem with getting reverted for a pickiness such as a single syntax problem. I had issues with the section I tried to improve, and you should have done the same thing with my text if you had any issues with it (I do agree on the "allows to be thrown" thing). I'll make another attempt at ironing out my problems with the section, and I'll really appreciate it if you could engage in collaborative editing, instead of reverting to your own version just out of not liking four words of what I wrote. --uKER (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let's see here ...
  1. Yes, it can be. The statements made earlier are no less valid, as it simply presents ways to complete the game. If we take your presumptions, then we also cannot say we can target the pigs, because there are instances where the pigs simply cannot be reached except through the structures.
  2. WP:CRYSTAL would apply if I stated in the text of the article "Rovio may include other materials in later updates." The statement, as is, merely says those are some of the materials presented. Not necessarily all, not necessarily a random sampling. Again, the earlier statement is a better option since it would need fewer changes going forward, regardless of what Rovio were to do; it would be valid if Rovio did nothing, and it would be valid if they added a slew of new materials.
  3. Again, you've left out the framing context in the rest of the sentence. That said, I think what's there now works well.
  4. None of my statements should be interpreted as exclusive and all-encompassing. This is a summary of how the game works, not a be-all-and-end-all strategy guide.
  5. It was pretty cohesive before, but I'm willing to concede this and move on.
  6. I added "basic" to describe the red bird, partly because of a grammar error in the way it was presented and partly because there is a bird later that also doesn't have a touchscreen-based ability. To that end, I modified the statement to say that some birds have such abilities.
  7. If true, then would you care to explain this edit, which restored your "restructure" of the text, complete with "and abilities"? It's gone now, so no worries here.
I am glad you're here to improve the article. In doing so, please make sure they are grammatically correct. The article is improving, and your assistance is greatly appreciated. Do you think there are other areas of the article mentioned by Someone another that you'd be able to help with? I still say this article could go up another class or two by the end of the year, and with more people here working on it, it's even more likely.
--McDoobAU93 06:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going to chime in here on the materials - there are other "materials" included in the structure, including fruit, tnt boxes and wheels. These are sometimes destructable, sometimes not. The current reading describes the vast majority, and is therefore correct. --Worm 09:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the current wording either. I had it with how it was before I changed it. Anyway, I don't see the need to engage in edit warring. Nobody's editing is expected to be perfect and if I see something I don't like, I will edit it. Then if my editing has something you don't like, you're free to improve it too. It's persistent reverting that leads to edit wars. --uKER (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional content

I added a sentence that says that apart from new levels, other types of content were added. It got reverted saying that the lead already says content was added, well, that's what leads do, you know? Summarize what the paragraph will be describing. The following text is then expected to expand and detail on what content has been added. The new episodes and levels are part of that content, and the purpose of my sentence is to reflect that new levels aren't the only type of content they have added, and I think it's particularly relevant that a new type of bird has been added. --uKER (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved the description of additional content into the lead, without specifically mentioning the items. Again, this allows for fewer changes going forward. --McDoobAU93 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I see you edited your initial message to remove your calling the green bird's mention redundant, since it's no longer described in the gameplay section. Now, it being the only single bird ever added to the game, I can't get my head around why you think a passing description would hurt the article. --uKER (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I made a mistake, as you have. When was the big red bird added? It doesn't appear in the initial 63 levels, so therefore it was added in an update, meaning two birds have been added. Again, the point of the description is to require as few changes as possible. For that matter, someone who were to download the game for the first time today would have all the birds available, so, to them, saying what particular bird was added would make no sense, because they have had it from the get-go. --McDoobAU93 16:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
What big red bird? I don't understand what "require as few changes as possible" thing. Again, you don't write articles trying to guess what will happen in the future, trying to make your text as vague as possible trying the text to cover what you guess will happen. That is plain wrong. Articles should reflect the current reality as precisely as possible, and future happenings will be covered in due time. About the current version being offered for download, I'll add that into the article. --uKER (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
For the big red bird, watch any YouTube video showing Level 9-1. Here's what I mean by "as few changes as possible." When I write a sentence like "From time to time, Rovio has issued new updates that have added new content, including new levels and even new birds," that statement is accurate and encyclopedic now and in the future. The statement accurately represents the past, because that is what Rovio has done and, to use your words, "reflect(s) the current reality." As to the future, the sentence covers that without needing to be changed or modified, regardless of the number of updates Rovio issues (1 or 100). The only reason it would need to change is if Rovio stops supporting the game completely, at which point a cited source indicating that no further updates will be issued would be added. In not so many words, what I'm saying is that the articles should be written such that they are stable and not being edited continually, unless truly new information appears. --McDoobAU93 17:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

5th Episode

OK, this is getting stupid. So now you remove the 5th episode thing because it's unsourced? If you haven't noticed, I wrote the entirety of the updates history, and ALL OF IT IS UNSOURCED, as is most of the article. That's why I put a "references needed" tag at the top, and I will cite one as soon as I find it. Now, in case you don't know how things work, unless you see something difamatory or plain ridiculous, you're supposed to source information instead of removing it. Do you have any doubts that that episode exists, or are you just being obtuse and deliberately reverting anything I do? In case you do have doubts, would you care doing a Google search and seeing for yourself instead of being downright destructive? --uKER (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, provide the current version number, and its release date, that includes Episode 5. I've checked my version (iOS) and the last update was October 1 to version 1.4.4. So unless Episode 5 appears only after Episode 4 is completed, which is not what other episode updates have done, then either (a) the update went to other versions before iOS or (b) it doesn't exist. --McDoobAU93 18:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
And on the subject of "how things work," unsourced information is able to be challenged or removed at any time. Adding something, then coming back later with a source, is doing it backwards. You're supposed to find the source, then add the information, adding the source AT THE SAME TIME. I've done that, and the cited source doesn't mention the name of the episode or the date. DO NOT ADD either without proof, please. --McDoobAU93 18:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It never crossed your mind doing a search for "Ham 'Em High", did it? I was wrong on the date though. About deleting vs sourcing, it depends on whether you like to be constructive or obtuse. If you're among the first, you do a Google search and source stuff. Otherwise, you just delete away and feel important ditching stuff just because someone else wrote it. --uKER (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, why didn't you do that BEFORE adding the potentially controversial information? Why do you expect other editors to clean up your work? --McDoobAU93 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Plain and simple lack of time. You're wrong though on me expecting someone else to do it for me. I would have done it eventually, just like whenever I first add sources I add them as plain links I later fill in with an automated tool. --uKER (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, not everyone else is the same, but whenever someone else publishes something I don't know, I try to verify information instead of discarding it just because it doesn't have a source. I've found valuable information this way, even from anons who have posted stuff without probably knowing how to cite a source. --uKER (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no {{i'll-get-it-when-i'm-on-again}} tag. So, by default, leaving something half-done is essentially saying "someone else will fix it," because neither I nor any other editor has the clairvoyance to know exactly when you're going to get to it "eventually." This stuff doesn't have to be up-to-the-millisecond accurate. The better course would be to make a note of it on your own page, then find the source when you have time and add it all at once. Especially when such hasty additions are filled with grammatical and factual errors (the source you provided said nothing about an "after New Year's" release, and your first uncited edit said the update had already occurred). Again, that's my opinion. All that said, the source you provided has lots of good information and is helping us expand the article. For that, I thank you. --McDoobAU93 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you two talking about? Episode 5:Ham 'Em High? Talker26 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

At the time, yes ... there were some questions as to whether it had actually been released. As we know now, it has been released and augmented twice. --McDoobAU93 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been some discussion and adds/reverts of a number of unofficial Angry Birds websites. In order to prevent continuous editing of the section, I feel it's time to establish which websites are included here. Before adding an unofficial site, we need to determine if the site is notable enough to be included. To begin, we'll start with the two main sites that keep appearing. I'm using Alexa rankings as a starting point, and including the official site as a comparison:

Official site

Alexa rank: 98,318
Alexa US rank: 23,819

Angry Birds Guide (Google this and you'll find the site)

Alexa rank: 935,755
Alexa US rank: 187,371

Angry Birds Golden Eggs (Google this and you'll find the site)

Alexa rank: No data
Alexa US rank: No data

Angry Birds Game (Google this and you'll find the site)

Alexa rank: No data
Alexa US rank: No data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.3.203 (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point, neither unofficial site seems to be that frequently visited, although Angry Birds Guide is at least being tracked on Alexa at this time, so that would give it the edge. Can anyone find any mention of either site in an independent, unbiased article about the game? A mention of the website in a news story could help establish notability as much as (and really more than) the Alexa ranking. Opinions?

--McDoobAU93 16:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Hey McDoob, Thanks for stepping in here... I was wondering what the protocol was for cases like this when anonymous users keep deleting links. So, incase it wasn't obvious, I run the ABGE site. It is very new (about a week) which is why its not showing up anywhere (yet). But, I'm working on it. It's picking up a lot of traction and FAST(~200 hits per day even after the removal of the wiki link), and I hope to get it up to compete with the other sites very soon.

I'm definitely not here to spam links or anything, and if you (and whoever else wants to chime in on this) feel like I should wait until the site gets a little age under its belt, I'm cool with that. I just thought it would be a good resource for AB fans and of course I'll be adding more content as I have the time and content hits the market.

So, just let me know what you think. If you want me to wait, give me an idea of what you'd like to see before I can include the link again, and I'll make it happen. Thanks man, -J Jbernheisel (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The most pressing concern I would have at this point with adding Golden Eggs as an external link is the conflict of interest with you adding your own site. I would suggest looking at that section of Wikipedia's guidelines to see why the concern is there. Now, if an independent source discussed the site in its own report on the game (or, for example, discussed online resources for the game as part of a review), then the site would have some notability, and thus merit inclusion. What I'm trying to avoid is continuous changing of the links because someone does or doesn't like a particular one that's been added. All that said, I'm just one editor, and consensus is whatever the editors that frequent this article settle on. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page, or reply here. Thanks again. --McDoobAU93 06:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

McDoob, one of the main reasons I see a need for Angry Birds Guide is that it's mentioned in numerous comments on notable websites (Ex: http://www.iphoneuserguide.com/apple/2010/03/22/iphone3g/angry-birds/). One even bigger reason is that if you look at the Facebook "likes", it has 230 and is growing every day. On top of all that, if you search for Angry Birds Guide on Google, this site is included twice on the first page of search results alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.147.182 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, comments by users who can't be identified (i.e., they could be shills for the site) and "likes" on Facebook don't really establish notability. In the case of Google, it would make perfect sense that angrybirdsguide.com would come up first since the three words being searched are in its address, I'd think, so again that's not terribly helpful. What does hold some notability is that it's being tracked on Alexa. Greater notability would be from a reviewer mentioning it directly in their review. If it were me, I'd have no problem leaving ABG in place for now. --McDoobAU93 05:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like the guide... Never meant for it to be removed. In fact, I should just link over to it vs the crappy affiliate link I've been linking to trying to make a buck. Maybe "The Guide" can link back to me for "Angry Birds News" or something along those lines? I know I don't hold much weight around here, but I'd say its cool to put the guide link back. Jbernheisel (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

By taking part in the discussions and contributing, you carry weight ... ultimately no more or no less than I do. Your opinion counts. Pending further discussion, I'd say we have a minimal consensus that Angry Birds Guide should be listed. --McDoobAU93 05:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey McDoob, I notice there's a "Fan Sites" section in the external links area... Since I'm not supposed to add my own links, what do I have to do to get my site (http://angrybirdsgoldeneggs.com included? If you check the Alexa stats, you'll see it's doing a little better than it was last time we discussed it. ;) I think it deserves inclusion at this point. Jbernheisel (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after doing some additional research, and consulting with the Video Games WikiProject documentation, my opinion is as follows. Per WP:GAMEGUIDE, "An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts." Per WikiProject Video Games, "Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game." As the unofficial fan-sites (yours included) do precisely that (explain how to beat the game), none of these links is appropriate. Again, I'm being bold here, and if consensus says they stay, then they'll stay. --McDoobAU93 03:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi McDoob, I am collecting and creating walkthrough angry birds videos for my site ( http://walkthroughangrybirds.net ). I would love to add my site to external links section or fan sites section when my site is ready. I would like to suggest to check the sites' content as well, not just alexa ranking. Also, Angry birds will be available on Blackberry Playbook too, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/angry-birds-blackberry-playbook_n_856879.html . So, you might have to update platform/version section. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone2001 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read my post above regarding why there shouldn't be any links to any how-to sites. Readers of the article who are interested in learning how to play the game are able to Google the game and find whatever they want. There's been too much jockeying for position here as it is, so instead of trying to say which sites (outside of the official Rovio home page) can stay and which should go, better that they all go. --McDoobAU93 02:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Policy wp:el clearly covers what links are allowed. Adding a link to drive traffic is a prime example of link that should not be considered. Also policy wp:nothowto covers the walk-through topic. I'm a fan of removing all external links and instead adding the Open Directory Project template. A good example is the Snowboarding article.--Travis Thurston+ 03:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What you call it ? flock or gang (of birds)

This edit was bot-reverted as vandalism. I have already reported it as a false positive. -- I am not a native speaker and therefor not sure, but replacing "gang of birds" for "flock of birds" might be an improvement. Could someone with more intimate knowledge of the English language have a look at it? After consulting dictionaries and googling around I have the impression, that "flock" might denote a group of animals that is travelling, while gang is used to describe a (possibly smaller) group of animals that are engaging in a joint activity. However I could be totally wrong here. Cheers -- Make (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the 'bot overreacted, although admittedly I'd have reverted them myself, even though there is no question the edits were made in good faith. The description of the pigs in the lead paragraph is a bit excessive (albeit accurate), and the proper term for a group of general birds is indeed a flock, although there are specific terms for specific birds (such as a gaggle of geese and a murder of crows; other examples can be found here). --McDoobAU93 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

PSP Version has more than the first episode's 63 levels

Statement: First, Sony announced the North American release of Angry Birds for its PlayStation Portable handheld system in the form of a PlayStation mini game that includes the first episode's 63 levels; the version is also playable on the PlayStation 3.

I have the PSP mini version of Angry Birds, and I can confirm that it not only includes the "Poached Eggs" episode but also the "Mighty Hoax", "Danger Above" and "The Big Setup". Then again I have the EU version and not the American version. Can somebody find a verifiable source stating this is the case? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Found one and revised that section. --McDoobAU93 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mock game

I'm not sure whether I want to mention this in the article. --uKER (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's basically a knock-off game, and few of the game articles mention clones/rip-offs, unless the clone/rip-off is somewhat notable (a good example is Ms. Pac-Man, because it wasn't created by Namco, the creator of the original Pac-Man). I'd pay attention to this game for a while. If it develops some notability on its own, then perhaps. Till then, no need to give them any free publicity. --McDoobAU93 01:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
That was the point. I only thought of adding it because it got quite some media coverage because of its controversiality, probably due to the blatant ripoff and the scato name. --uKER (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, do you know of any other rip-off games that have been released since the original AB launched? That could be a good expansion of the "Other media" section, and it would avoid giving undue weight to this one (something you correctly noted regarding an editor's good-faith addition of Angry Birds Rio). I'll see what I can track down also. --McDoobAU93 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Update: I did find another game with an interesting backstory, as it appears to have been done to taunt Rovio for its lack of a Windows Phone 7 version. I've added both to the article in the "Other media" section. --McDoobAU93 01:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Angry birds is itself a knockoff. These kinds of games have been available on flash game sites for years. 141.14.129.43 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
That is true. But, for whatever reason (and potentially to the chagrin of past developers of such games), Angry Birds is considered the current benchmark (just as the Gran Turismo series is the most oft-cited driving video game, despite reviewers' higher praise for its rival series, Forza Motorsport). The games mentioned here, especially Chicks'n'Vixens, were done in response to Angry Birds. --McDoobAU93 20:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It is also just like the MS-DOS game Gorilla in which you change the angle/velocity in order order to hit an opponent across the screen. Similarly Worms, and there was one TANK game for mac also which had the same type of idea. CaribDigita (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
In this regard, you're giving your personal thought that the gameplay is similar. That's technically original thought, something discouraged on Wikipedia. --McDoobAU93 02:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

not really relevant but a better comparison would be with "crush the castle" kongregate and other flash sites. prob true about birds considered a benchmark, but thats just how marketing works. perhaps a smal paragraph pointing out that free versions are available (might have been in the article i may have missed that, but i don't want to read it again. don't even know how i ended up on this article) forgot to sign in too user teknotiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The free, ad-supported versions of Angry Birds are mentioned in the article, mainly because of why they were free (in order to get on Android, where a number of providers in various countries don't support paid apps yet). Aside from that, Wikipedia is not a catalog, so it's not our job to direct people where to find them. --McDoobAU93 16:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mighty Eagle

I have Ham'em High for Angry Birds on my android phone, but I have no eagle, nor the ability to purchase an eagle. Could someone please fact-check the claims in the article about this, and fix the article accordingly? I don't have an iphone, but the citation is an article from before Ham'em High came out. It could be the article was predicting something that never came to be, or it could be that it's iphone specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.210.37 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that specific update for iPhone version made two version jumps, that is, included two separate updates, that were included separately in the Android version. Now that I think about it, I think the Eagle was delayed for Android because of something regarding in-app purchases/payments. See here. I'll see to do something about it when I get the time. --uKER (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Related question ... is Mighty Eagle available on other devices (webOS, Symbian) that have the game and the Ham 'em High update? That would help expand the section further. --McDoobAU93 15:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbian still hasn't got the Ham'em High episode. --uKER (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've revised the section to indicate Mighty Eagle is right now only for iOS, but that upcoming changes to the Android platform, including some from Rovio (Bad Piggy Bank) are on the way. Take a look and see what you think. --McDoobAU93 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Inspired by?

Maybe it is worth mentioning that the gameplay is not an original idea, but based on existing games such as Castle Clout, which was available already January, 2009? Gladi8or2 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that the concept for the game was original, just that it was inspired by a sketch. If you can find an independent, third-party source discussing the similarities, perhaps it could be added, then. --McDoobAU93 22:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sources found; changes made. --65.8.84.223 (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That's all fine and good, but there were a few problems. While there isn't much doubt that the physics-based gameplay of Angry Birds is nothing new and is at least visually the same as Crush the Castle, the cited sources didn't say that the gameplay format "become popular" in 2009. The idea of launching things at enemies and taking physics into account isn't new ... for example, Worms, Scorched Earth and others. For that matter, what about Breakout? (Yes, Breakout didn't consider gravity, but reflection is also a component of physics, and the concept is to break through a structure.) All that said, the cited source does link the two, and it deserves mention, so I left it.
As to the second statement, about Castle Clout, your attempt to connect it to Rovio is original thought at best. The cited source makes no mention of Angry Birds, because it was published before the game launched (April 2009, I believe). The statement posted would be more important to an article on Crush the Castle than it would be to the article for Angry Birds. Then there was the provided link to play Castle Clout, which could be considered a spam link.
--McDoobAU93 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
First, the petrary-demolishes-castle video game format did indeed "become popular earlier in 2009". The sources I added (and many others which I didn't add) specifically cite Crush the Castle as the definitive example of this gameplay. Other citations can be found on blogs and forum postings, most of which are not as professional as the two I selected. (examples: [1](also has comment from Crush artist) [2][3][4][5][6][7]) The frequent comparison by reviewers and players alike is a testament to its burgeoning popularity. Also note that while Castle Clout was released earlier, it is not as widely referenced as the more popular Crush the Castle. Worms and Scorched Earth involve attacking single, separate, and scattered units, not an assembled structure (castle or fort) which contains the targets or whose walls can injure them. If you only consider ballistics, Gorillas could also be mentioned, but its gameplay likewise doesn't involve assembled, collapsible structures housing the targets. As for Breakout, the objectives, interaction, and strategies of that game are so obviously different that I don't see how that one bears mentioning. It seems one of the most important things to be done is to distinctly define the category of gameplay. While editing, I had considered calling it "petrary-collapses-castle" but settled on a less precise description, "petrary physics game", because creating a definition borders on original research. Many third-party sources however, including the PCMag article I cited, directly call it "Crush the Castle-style".
Second, Castle Clout is not "officially" connected to Rovio because, as I stated in the edit, Rovio has not acknowledged any specific games as their inspiration.[8] However, much debate about this has occurred among players, and the games have frequently been compared (as in the sources in the preceding paragraph). It is not Rovio that discusses connections between the games—it is the players. Perhaps I could have stated that more clearly in the edit. Beyond comparing them, some players have taken offense from the lack of acknowledgement expressed by Rovio toward earlier games while the developers of the extremely similar Crush the Castle voluntarily cite Castle Clout. To the offended, it seems suspiciously coincidental that Angry Birds was released several months after the other two games and yet "officially" acknowledges neither of them as influences.
Third, the link to Castle Clout was chosen specifically because 1) there is no Wikipedia article for the game, 2), there is no official page on the developer's site for the first version (released 2008-10-04), 3), the game itself opens that web address when a player clicks the "More Games" button in its Flash interface, and 4), a primary source was necessary if the game was going to be mentioned on Wikipedia. The official site of Cube Games, the developers of Castle Clout, only contains Castle Clout 2: Return of the King, not their first version. The link in the edit was therefore chosen, not to be spam, but to be the most official address available: the one to which the game itself linked.
Finally, it would be nice to have a paragraph in the "Reception" section citing some of the remarks on similarities and the players' reactions toward them. That is, unless fellow editors think some points are more effectively mentioned in the "Development" section, where they currently reside. --65.8.84.223 (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, we'll take this one step at a time:
First, blogs and forum posts are not considered reliable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The cited sources remaining in the article that you have provided only mention the similarities or the "style", and that's fine, because they're published writers on a magazine's website. Random, unidentified posters on a forum, or self-published bloggers, are of course free to espouse their opinions, and even if their opinions appear to be the mainstream, that still wouldn't qualify for inclusion here.
Second, by saying that Rovio hasn't stated they were inspired by Game X, you are suggesting that Rovio is somehow obligated to say something about it, and NOBODY of any significance has said that they should. If one of the developers of the aforementioned games decides to sue Rovio for trademark infringement, or if Rovio has maintained that Angry Birds is an original game concept, then stories involving said legal action would indeed need to be part of the article. That's unlikely to happen, because Nintendo, which often copyrights gameplay scenarios, has yet to go after any of the myriad kart-racing clones that have sprung up after Super Mario Kart, and if they didn't think they had a legal leg to stand on (as litigious as they have been over the decades), then it's doubtful anyone else will, either. Again, Wikipedia doesn't care what "the players" think, since their thoughts are not notable enough for inclusion here.
Third, if you've got a reliable source that mentions Castle Clout, then a link to the game isn't necessary as long as the cited source is provided. Adding a link because "Game X looks like Game Y, which can be found here" is original research because you're publishing your own belief that they are similar.
Bottom line is this: player opinions don't matter here (and fanboy opinions mean even less, be they for or against the game). Rovio has never claimed the game mechanics were original, and barring a legal challenge, it doesn't have to reveal what inspired it (for all we know, it was a similar game released before either Castle game).
--McDoobAU93 17:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ice vs glass

Another controversy/revert cycle has been going on for a while now. The bluish, shattering material in the game initially appears and sounds like shattering glass, but an in-game achievement refers to the substance as ice. Since the game itself can be considered a source, that's pretty reliable. However, since the game is released in so many different countries and languages, are there versions that call the material glass? If so, please provide proof of same before attempting to change this. --McDoobAU93 15:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: as noted above, the game itself can be a source. I've added a citation for the ice material, referencing the in-game achievement in the English iOS version. Again, if there is another version, in another language, calling this material something else, please provide a source indicating such. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 06:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Angry Birds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RJaguar3 | u | t 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I've heard a lot about this game, and the article was definitely interesting to read.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Some minor issues: "a single episode ... which contained three themed groups of levels, each with 21 levels." (redundant), "The game was nominated for the "Best Casual Game" award at the 6th annual International Mobile Gaming Awards, announced in Barcelona, Spain in February 2010." (this sentence is confusing; were the MGAs held in February 2010 or were the nominations announced then?), reviews for the PC and other versions "have been more mixed" (just plain "mixed" seems to be fine as the previous paragraph says that the reviews for the iPhone versions were not mixed at all but in fact very positive), "A common complaint of both versions was their respective price points being higher than that for the older smartphone versions" (awkward)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Words to watch: "Jonathan Liu of Wired News noted that..." (implies that the replay value in trying to get as many stars as possible is obvious) "Will Greenwald of PC Magazine...noted" (same), "Graphically, Greenwald found the game 'has not changed one whit' in the conversion" (giving undue credibility to Greenwald's statement that the game, in fact, hasn't changed), "The PC version fared better, with Damien McFerrin at Electric Pig noting 'the mouse-driven control method showcases many distinct advantages over its finger-focused counterpart.'" (making more credible the statement that the mouse has advantages over the fingers as a control device), "and reached the top spot on the US App Store in the spring of 2010" (can you be more specific than "spring"? [I couldn't find anything in the WSJ source to clarify.] If the sources don't specifically mention spring, then it might be better to use a non-seasonal equivalent for the benefit of our Southern Hemisphere friends.), "This version initially includes 60 levels, a new bird "Blu and Jewel", and several 'trophies' with obvious additional level updates in May, July, October, and November of 2011." (editorializing with the word "obvious"; I checked the source and the claim appears to be supported by an in-app screen, it may be better to say that the in-app spaces for future updates imply [again, according to the source, so this isn't original research] that there will be future updates in May, July, October, and November) Lead: could be longer (for an article of about 40000 characters, the recommended length is three to four paragraphs) and incorporate a basic summary of the gameplay in a sentence or two. No problems I can see with Layout, Fiction, or List incorporation.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    references look fine
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    The quotations in the lead ("one of the most mainstream games out right now" and "one of the great runaway hits of 2010"), as well as the statistics mentioned, need a direct inline citation even though they appear in the lead.
    C. No original research:
    no obvious original research problems
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    very comprehensive
    B. Focused:
    very nice explanation of the basic gameplay structure without going into game-guide detail
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    looks neutral to me
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    There is a recent edit history, but since it seems to be improving the article and not devolving into an edit war, the criterion is satisfied.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    All the images look good except for File:Angry-birds-peace-treaty.jpg. Is there critical commentary about this picture, or is it just decorative? What does the image add to the encyclopedic value of the Angry Birds article that couldn't be added by text?
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    The caption to File:Angry-birds-peace-treaty.jpg could be more descriptive. (In fact, a more descriptive caption might very well allow the image to satisfy WP:NFCC.)
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Placing on hold to address concerns, especially with grammar, words to watch, and lead. This article was reviewed March 23, 2011; it will be re-examined seven days from now, or March 30, 2011.

Grammar

As an addendum, I should point out that there are several extraneous commas between parts of a compound predicate, like in the sentence I quote below. Also, while this is not required for a GA, I would suggest rewriting several of the sentences that currently use passive voice into more concise sentences that use active verbs. For example, "Players may re-attempt levels as many times as they wish, and may also replay completed levels in an attempt to improve their score at the end of the game." could become "Players may retry or replay levels as often as they wish to attempt to improve their final score." RJaguar3 | u | t 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. With regards to the quotations in the lead, is citing them still necessary even if they appear later in the article, complete with citation? It certainly won't be a problem to add the citation, but I was paying attention (perhaps too much) to WP:LEAD and trying to keep citations out of it, if possible. --McDoobAU93 05:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There are no special citation policies for the lead (per WP:LEADCITE, which says that "[t]he verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited"); however, often the statements made in the lead of the article will be common knowledge and therefore not require a citation. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. Citations added. --McDoobAU93 01:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. Added the template per the suggestion. --McDoobAU93 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm ... much of the first paragraph of the "Development" section discusses that it was the picture of the "angry-looking birds" that inspired the game in the first place. I'm going through the article you cited to see what else I can glean from it, including the two notable players it mentions. --McDoobAU93 15:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Angry Birds peace treaty image

I saw that the caption and rationale were changed. However, I'm still not convinced that the image meets WP:NFCC. To help in making a better non-free use rationale, could someone please explain what encyclopedic value the picture has that the text description of the sketch does not already provide? As I see it, the sentence in the article, "The Israeli comedy show Eretz Nehederet (in English: a Wonderful Country), one of the nation's most popular TV programs, satirized recent failed Israeli-Palestinian peace attempts by featuring the Angry Birds in peace negotiations with the pigs", tells me everything that the picture could tell me about the sketch. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked back at WP:NFCC and have looked at other discussions regarding exactly how NFCC should be interpreted. While I do agree that part of the first criterion is not met (you are right, the description in the text kinda sums things up rather well), at the same time this section does involve critical commentary of the image subject, specifically in included citations from other published sources, so I believe it has a purpose here (that is, to show how the characters have been appearing in other media, and a relatively notable but non-free image can illustrate that). That said, whether this image goes or stays is not the hill I want to die on, since the image is already in the article for the video clip, and this article links to that one. Your guidance in this review has been very helpful and most appreciated. --McDoobAU93 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Source for App Store sales

I was reading the article and I ran across the statement in the lead "...over 12 million copies of the game have been purchased from Apple's App Store." This statistic was unsourced, so I tried to find a source in the article. Later, in the Reception section, there is another sentence: "Since release, the free, limited version of Angry Birds has been downloaded over 11 million times for Apple's iOS, and the full-featured paid version has been downloaded nearly 7 million times as of September 2010." The source provided is [10], which only supports the second point made. Do you know of a source for the Apple sales? RJaguar3 | u | t 06:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Footnote #39 contains the statistic for the 12M iOS sales. I went ahead and added the appropriate citation for it. --McDoobAU93 17:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pass

The article has improved sufficiently so that it now meets the GA criteria. To do this, I did remove the peace treaty image from the article per a contributor's suggestion, and I also made a minor change with a word to watch and a statistic citation that still lingered. If you want to include the peace treaty image, feel free to take it to WP:NFCR. Thanks to the contributors on your work in making this a good article, and congratulations. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Angry Birds Rio

Now that we have some reviews for Angry Birds Rio, I'm wondering how these should be incorporated into the article. Should they be with the rest of the reviews in the "Reception" section, which is mentioning the game for the first time, or should it be mentioned alongside the discussion of the edition itself, in the "Special editions" section, where it is now? Comments? --McDoobAU93 15:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I had thought Rio to be a sequel, where as I thought of Seasons as more of an expansion. I think Rio should be separated as much as possible from the original. Let me know if you agree or what you think the mainstream acceptance is. Xgamerms999 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Rovio has referred to Angry Birds Rio as a sequel. Both it and Angry Birds Seasons are basically specialty versions of the original game ... kinda like a Christmas or other holiday TV special, so to speak. Supposedly (per one of the sources I read while improving the article) Rovio is working now on a true sequel to the game that "may" be released this summer. --McDoobAU93 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd call Rio a spinoff, not a sequel. --uKER (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 114.77.146.251, 13 April 2011

Hi

It might be useful to add in the section "Other media" the recent RT Angry Birds parody of the North Africa crisis - see http://rt.com/news/three-pigs-angry-birds-middle-east-zhgun/


114.77.146.251 (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. The question you pose is more in line with improving the article, and not a direct edit request. When using this form, you should provide the specific wording you wish to change, not just a suggestion. That said, the suggestion is worth looking at. How do you think we add this into the article (how would you write it in, in other words)? --McDoobAU93 13:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AMslimfordy, 13 April 2011

Within "Seasons" section, please change -- "Rovio has announced a new Easter update, which will be released at some point before the actual holiday." with source 66 to --"In April 2011, Rovio released a new Easter update, titled "Easter Eggs"." with source http://www.angrybirdsnest.com/2011/04/angry-birds-seasons-easter-sneak-peak/ because the episode has been officially released for Symbian OS. The episode will be released for iOS, Android, and other platforms next week, according to several tweets from Rovio.

AMslimfordy (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Angry Birds Nest is a self-published fan-site, which is not considered a reliable source for this article. I did find another reliable source stating the game would be released "next week," but that really wouldn't necessitate a change from what's there now, which says "before the holiday." Further, the source mentioned nothing about an early Symbian release. FWIW, this sentence will be changed whenever the game is actually released, anyway. --McDoobAU93 22:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of The Oatmeal comic to Angry Birds' media coverage

I'd like to request the addition of a web comic by The Oatmeal titled "Likability of Angry Birds"

It's a good rundown of the team of Angry Birds and a simple addition to the "Other media" section of this wiki page. From what I understand, Rovio endorsed the artist's use of the images.

76.9.63.73 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)April 19 2011

Edit would look something like this:

Popular Web comic artist Matthew Inman, also known as the Oatmeal, featured Angry Birds in a strip titled "The Likability of Angry Birds," which rated each bird type by its game play effectiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.63.73 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done:. The subject of the artist's post may be Angry Birds, but there's been no information given as to how notable this is. Also, his opinions on how the birds perform almost smacks of how to play the game, something that Wikipedia discourages. --McDoobAU93 13:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AMslimfordy, 20 April 2011: Easter

Please change: "Rovio has announced a new Easter update, which was released early on April 18, before the actual holiday" with its reference to: "In April 2011, Rovio released a new Easter update, titled "Easter Eggs"" with reference http://www.rovio.com/index.php?mact=Blogs,cntnt01,showentry,0&cntnt01entryid=67&cntnt01returnid=58 AMslimfordy (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I tweaked the language and found a third-party source. Thanks! --McDoobAU93 13:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Webby Awards

I removed this section. Apart from being worded in an awfully informal way ("the Internet industry's version of Holywood's Oscar"? Whattha?), the provided source was also horribly imprecise. It said Angry Birds was honored but it didn't say on what category. Trying to improve it, I looked at the official results for the 2011 Webbys, and find no reference to either Angry Birds or Rovio. See here. --uKER (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I just found it and fixed the article. --uKER (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Angry Birds Rio should have it's own article

This article should have a whole article becuase I coundn't put my screenshot on Angry Birds Rio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canihuan300 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page ...
Unfortunately, that's not much of a reason. The reason your photo was removed was per WP:NFCC and per WP:VGIMAGES. VGIMAGES suggests that the number of screenshots should be kept to a minimum. Since there is already a gameplay screenshot, and the discussion of Angry Birds Rio describes what's in the provided photo (and thus removes its necessity, since NFCC #1 says that if a non-free image can be replaced by a text description instead, it should be), there's really no need for another one. --McDoobAU93 01:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, there's no reason. --uKER (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Special Editions infoboxes

I went ahead and added infoboxes for two of the special editions, Angry Birds Seasons and Angry Birds Rio. I know that right now they only show availability on iOS, and that's not meant as a sleight on the other games. By all means, please add any other versions you find/have to them. At the same time, we don't need to duplicate information from the main Angry Birds infobox, either. So we don't need to add game ratings, game engine info, etc. to the infoboxes for the special editions unless there's a significant change from AB to ABS or ABR. Also, I don't know if I'd add title card images for these, but that's my opinion. --McDoobAU93 18:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Google Plus version

There is now a Google Plus version, with some special team levels that are unlocked whenever your friends get a certain amount of stars, or your when you have a certain amount of friends playing the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyswimmer (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any web coverage of this new version? This may be the previously-planned Facebook version that has been moved to Google Plus. This could be most interesting if Google somehow convinced Rovio to deploy the social-network Angry Birds variant on Google Plus first. Find some sources and be bold! --McDoobAU93 13:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/games-in-google-fun-that-fits-your.html is an official source for this.Also http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/11/google-plus-games/ --Nyswimmer (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Angry Birds

Truly the best iphone app. You can also use it for pc or play online at

  • WEBSITE REMOVED PER WP:EL

Anyone thinks a movie would be AWESOME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.247.77 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so, but this page is not the place for such discussion. This page is intended for those who wish to discuss ways to improve the article and not to discuss its subject. Nor should it be used to sneak in websites. --McDoobAU93 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angry_Birds_(video_game)/Archive_1&oldid=1136520591"