Talk:Inuyasha: Feudal Combat

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (0 participants)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (3 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Rating template

Vanity is no reason for a complete removal of template. That kind of reasoning falls under "IDONTLIKEIT". If you have a problem with the template then just add either add collapsed or autocollapse in the state section. Also the this template "is" crucial, as it helps established the game's real world impact whether it be positive or negative. A claim of reception with persentages shows a much more plausable impact than one without. Sarujo (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template was removed because it adds absolutely nothing to this article at all, nor is there any perceivable support for its use or inclusion from the video game project. It doesn't establish anything, it just gives a bunch of numbers for a bunch of different websites or reviewers, half of which don't even have articles or appear to be RS. Instead of sticking in numbers with no valie, why not use all those reviews (presuming the numbers are backed up with them) and actually write a real reception section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does a score have no value, and how can it be said it establishes nothing? It's is the reviewer's final verdic on their assesment of said media. Saying it has no value is the samething as saying Wikipedia article ratings have no value whether it be a number or a simple word. And which review are there that have no articles, I forget. Sarujo (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have no value because they are contextualess, nothing but some number floating in a table. See/join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Proposal for deletion and/or removal from articles: Template:VG Reviews. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm needed for that discussion as it appears you all have an understanding on the subject at hand. Plus due from my experience from the Trunks merger survey, I feel that my statments will not not help any arguments I might have. As right now my feelings is netural on this matter.

Just to clarify, I wasn't just relying on the template. As a given I usually add a little to an article and comeback later when I have more to work with. If someone else has something better then I leave it to them. I had all this information and didn't know how to properly present it to help show the game's nobility.

Again I ask, which gaming sites are you implying are not notable, in order for me to make changes I must know. Sarujo (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say any that don't have their own articles here are questionable and should be thoroughly checked. It looks like the template has gotten out of control from what it was originally created. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably my fault, as I do go overboard in my entries. I will say this, I agree that some rating are not notible like the peer comment based reviews or peer votes. For awhile now I've seen how peer comment based rating are flawed like those of iTunes and Amazon. As fans will say that the piece is the best bar none, and anti-fans will say it totally sucks. The aforementioned use the five star scale, so if three people give the game a good rating the overall rating will be presented as high despite the other vast amount of people that didn't vote and may or may not like the product. Personally, in a case like that a percentage rating would be a more accurate and fair scoring of the product, but that's just me.

How about this, for now I take down the template and write sentances like "____ gives the game a ______, stating....." for now as the template is at a crossroad here? If the master is deleted before removing the copies it could unintentionally vandalize the article. Sarujo (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Amazon ratings and the like are completely useless for Wikipedia articles and are not considered RS. And yes, it would be better to actually write a full reception section, using reliable reviews to summarize the commments and the like. The actual rating itself is generally not even needed. If you check most of the higher quality anime and manga articles, you'll notice we don't generally note they "rated the series as X" anywhere in the reception. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement Day review

The Judgement Day review for Feudal Combat is found in the video at the top of the page. Why they didn't use the corisponding X-Play review of the game is beyond me. Sarujo (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:InuYasha which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]