Talk:Mad Father

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

Is the chapter on "Game strategy" appropriate?

About half of this article is taken up with 'Game strategy", which seems to me to be contrary to the guideline at WP:GAMETRIVIA and also WP:GAMEGUIDE, which says:"Walk-throughs or detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate." I cannot see what this section contributes to the overall understanding of the game, so I removed it per the guidelines.

However, Kelvincheung1221990 put the section back in total, without any comment. In the absence of any explanation, I deleted it again and explained the situation on his/her Talk page, but he/she put the information back for a third time, again without any comment here on his/her Talk page.

So apparently we have a difference of opinion, but I cannot get any comment from the other editor - would any other editors care to offer their opinions on the appropriateness of this section? --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update I notice that Lordtobi has just removed this content. Given that there has been no response here, that seems reasonable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.